Town Report on Lincoln 1963-1965, Part 25

Author: Lincoln (Mass.)
Publication date: 1963
Publisher: Lincoln (Mass.)
Number of Pages: 930


USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Lincoln > Town Report on Lincoln 1963-1965 > Part 25


Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).


Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51


COMPARATIVE ASSESSED VALUE PROJECTIONS TOWN OF LINCOLN 1955 - 1980


150


D. APPLICATION TO SELECTED ALTERNATIVES


1. General Procedure


a. Material set up to permit analysis of numerous possible land use patterns.


b. Purpose here is primarily to evaluate possibilities as part of the process of developing the Future Land Use Plan, to be contained in final report. Secondarily to illustrate how the model can operate.


c. Current figures given to provide base for comparison.


d. All figures in current dollars, no attempt made to project changes in price level.


152


III. D. 2. Summary Sheet - Economic Analysis


a. Selected Alternatives - 1970 (figures in thousands of dollars, except tax rate, revenue per house, and per capita cost)


Alternatives


Total Cost


Amt.from Property Tax


Assessed Value


Derived Tax Rate


Revenue from Res. Property


Revenue per house


Total Cost/ cap.


1963


1,418.5


991.7


12,719.8


78


874.4


820


335


A. Low Residence With :


2,298.0


1,620.4


16,646.8


97


1,429.1


1160


460


Low Conserv - ation


Low Industry High


2,347.5 2,369.5


1,652.6 1,666.9


16,665.2 19,417.8


99


1,458.6 1,267.0


1030


475


High Conserv. Low Industry High =


2,390.4 2,412.4


1,680.5 1,694.8


16,619.2 19,381.8


101 87


1,488.0 1,281.8


1210 1040


480 480


B. High Resid. With :


2,656.2


1,880.2


19,005.6


99


1,688.0


1200


465


Low Conserv. Low Industry High


2,705.7 2,727.7


1,912.4 1,926.7


19,014.0 21,776.0


101


1,722.2 1,500.5


1220


475


88


1060


480


High Conserv. Low Industry High


2,748.6 2,770.6


1,940.3 1,954.6


18,978.0 21,740.6


102 90


1,739.2 1,534.6


1230 1090


480


485


1180


470


86


Notes : 1963 Assessed Value figure based on current assessing practice.


the combination of the 3 low ranges generally represents a continuation of recent trends and, with the exception of the conservation program, past policies on land development.


153


III. D. 2. Summary Sheet - Economic Analysis


b. Selected Alternatives - 1980 (figures in thousands of dollars, except tax rate, revenue per house, and per capita cost)


Alternatives


Total Cost


Amt. from Property Tax


Assessed Value


Derived Revenue Tax Rate


from Res. Property


Revenue per house


Total Cost/ cap.


1963


1,418.5


991.7


12,719.8


78


874.4


820


335


A. Low Residence With: Low Conserv- ation Low Industry High


3,240.9


2,252.7


21,747.6


104


2,034.1


1330


520


3,282.9 3,326.9


2,280.0 2,308.6


21,805.2 28,711.2


105 80


2,053.7 1,564.7


1340 1020


530


535


High Conserv. Low Industry High #


3,325.5 3,369.5


2,307.7 2,336.3


21,726.0 28,631.9


106 82


2,073.3 1,603.8


1360 1050


535 545


B. High Resid. With : Low Conserv. Low Industry High =


4,324.5


3,006.2


28,292.0


106


2,727.5


1360


535


4,366.5 4,410.5


3,033.6 3,062.2


28,349.8 35,255.2


107 87


2,753.2 2,238.6


1370


540


1110


545


High Conserv. Low Industry High


4,409.1 4,453.1


3,061.3 3,089.9


28,270.6 35,176.0


108 88


2,778.9 2,264.3


1380 1130


545 550


Notes : 1963 Assessed Value figure based on current assessing practice. the combination of the 3 low ranges generally represents a continuation of recent trends and, with the exception of the conservation program, past policies on land development.


154


III. D. 3. Summary Sheet - Cost and Revenue Projections


b. High Residence Costs - 1970 and 1980 (figures in thousands of dollars)


Alternative


Non-School


%


School


Total


Operating


Capital


K - 8


High


School


Operating


Capital


Operating


Capital


1963


435.1


48.2


34


578.3


164.0


160.3


132.6


66


1,418.5


Total for High Residence: With :


1970


744.0


41.0


30


1,213.6


218.4


345.0


94.2


2,656.2


Low Conservation Low Industry High Industry


752.0


82.5


31


-1871.2 for all-


2,705.7


767.0


89.5


31


2,727.7


High Conservation Low Industry High Industry


759.0


118.4


32


2,748.6


774.0


125.4


32


2,770.6


Total for High Residence: With :


19 80


1,297.9


13.0


2,192.2


263.1


487.5


70.8


4,324.5


Low Conservation


Low Industry


1,307.9


45.0


High Industry


1,344.9


52.0


-3013.6 for all-


4,366.5 4,410.5


High Conservation


1,322.9


72.6


Low Industry High Industry


1,359.9


79.6


4,409.1 4,453.1


155


III. D. 3. Summary Sheet - Cost and Revenue Projections


a. Low Residence Costs - 1970 and 1980 (figures in thousands of dollars)


Alternative


Non-School


%


School


.


Total


Operating


Capital


K - 8


High


School


Operating


Capital


Operating


Capital


1963


435.1


48.2


34


578.3


164.0


160.3


132.6


66


1,418.5


Total for Low Residence: 1970 With :


639.0


39.0


30


1,066.0


191.9


300.0


62.1


2,298.0


Low Conservation


Low Industry


647.0


80.5


31


-1,620.0 for all-


2,347.5


High Industry


662.0


87.5


32


2,369.5


High Conservation Low Industry High Industry


654.0


116.4


32


2,390.4


669.0


123.4


33


2,412.4


Total for Low Residence : With:


19 80


935.8


2.0


29


1,683.7


202.0


375.0


42.4


3,240.9


Low Conservation


Low Industry


945.8


34.0


30


-2,303.1 for all


3,282.9


High Industry


982.8


41.0


31


3,326.9


High Conservation


960.8


61.6


31


3,325.5


Low Industry High Industry


997.8


68.6


32


3,369.5


156


III. D. 3. Summary Sheet - Cost and Revenue Projections


c. Assessed Valuation : Low Residence - 1970 and 1980 (figures in throusands of dollars)


Residential


Alternative


Land


Buildings


Non-Res.


Open Land


Personal Prop.


Total


1964


1,776.6


10,062.4


183.6


478.5


1,079.5


13,580.6


Total for Low Residence : With :


1970


2,150.6


12,582.4


183.6


470.7


1,259.5


16,646.8


Low Conservation Low Industry High Industry High Conservation Low Industry High Industry


14,733.0


213.0 2,088.0


429.3


2,167.5


19,417.8


213.0 2,088.0


398.7


1,274.5


16,619.2


393.3


2,167.5


19,381.8


Total for low Residence: 1980 With :


2,776.6


16,782.4


183.6


445.5


1,559.5


21,747.6


Low Conservation


Low Industry High Industry


19,559.0.


258.6


390.6


1,597.0


21,805.2


for


all


4,944.6


378.0


3,829.5


28,711.1


High Conservation


311.4


1,597.0


21,726.0


Low Industry High Industry


258.6 4,944.6


298.8


3,829.5


28,631.9


434.7


1,274.5


16,665.2


for all


157


III. D. 3. Summary Sheet - Cost and Revenue Projections


d. Assessed Valuation : High Residence - 1970 and 1980 (figures in thousands of dollars)


Alternative


Residential


Non-Res.


Open Land


Personal Prop.


Total


Land


Buildings


1964


1,776.6


10,062.4


183.6


478.5


1,079.5


13,580.6


Total for High Residence: With:


1970


2,452.6


14,598.4


183.6


451.5


1,319.5


19,005.6


Low Conservation Low Industry High Industry High Conservation Low Industry High Industry


17,051.0.


213.0


415.5


1,334.5


19,014.0


for all


2,088.0


410.1


2,227.5


21,776.6


213.0 2,088.0


379.5


1,334.5


18,978.0


374.1


2,227.5


21,740.6


Total for High Residence: With :


19 80


3,572.6


22,158.4


183.6


417.9


1,959.5


28,292.0


Low Conservation Low Industry High Industry High Conservation Low Industry High Industry


25,731.0


258.6


363.2


1,997.0


28,349.8


for


all


4,944.6


350.1


4,229.5


35,255.2


258.6


284.0


1,997.0


28,270.6


4,944.6


270.9


4,229.5


35,176.0


158


4. Higher Density Development


a. Two major factors leading to study:


- current proposals for development of existing General Residence District - proposed develop- ment shows 75 units; Bylaw would permit 125


- question of providing housing for Town employees, retired persons on fixed income, older persons desiring to remain in Lincoln without maintaining a single family home.


b. Town Employee Survey :


- 115 replies received. Findings indicate demand for apartments under $130 per month, but question of amount people would be willing to pay not adequately covered. Survey did not cover re- tired persons.


c. Non-Economic Issues :


- need to meet housing needs of specific groups mentioned above


- desirability of increased diversification of the population


- these largely matters for Town determination - amount of housing likely to be involved not large enough to alter the general components of the Land Use Plan.


d. Economic Issues :


- School costs largest factor. Experience shows that impact on enrollment from apartments is considerably less than for same number of people housed in single family homes.


- Cost comparisons :


Example : 100 units @ 3 persons/dwelling unit = 300 persons


1 school child/5 units = 20 pupils


1980 costs to Town based on low residence alternative:


Non-School $128/cap. = $38,400 School $1130/pupil = 22,600


$61,000


159


1


- Investment


Two rules of thumb indicate investment of 6 to 81 times the gross annual rent


- Revenue


Average Rent per Unit: $125 $175 $200


Investment Range($000):


975.0-1,250.0 1,365.0-1,750.0 1,560.0-2,000.0 Assessed Value (371-3):


365.6-468.8 511.9-656.2 585.0-750.0


Revenue ($105/$1000):


38.4-49.2 53.7-68.9 61.4-78.8


- Conclusions


Revenue figures based on derived tax rate for low residence range. Revenue would vary with total land use mix as well as initial investment.


Figures suggest that rentals averaging less than $175 per month could be self-supporting. Thus needs of Town employees could be met without cost to Town.


This doesn't reflect possible market conditions. A developer building in Lincoln might well invest more money than he would for similar rentals in another location.


Economic criteria could be less important than other objectives listed under paragraph c. above - a matter of Town policy. Use of Federal programs could of course lower rent levels without necess- arily sacrificing quality of design.


160


E. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS


1. Evaluation of Data


a. Alternatives selected for study include only extreme of possibilities for each land use, to indicate maxi- mum differences in economic impact. Many other interim combinations possible.


b. Recall that no attempt was made to project value of assessment base existing as of 1964. Valid to compare 1980 alternatives with each other (but not with present) as indication of likely difference in tax per house.


2. Findings


a. Higher rate of residential growth somewhat more expensive, other factors being equal.


b. Importance of non-residential development increased in high-growth situation.


c. Cost of conservation program very low in comparison with effect of program on revenue per house.


d. Figures indicate maximum impact of industry; in actuality not likely that all of this would be developed. Could also examine impact of industry in 10-acre incre- ments. Certainly with full development importance of keeping traffic on major roads would be increased. Even modest figure of 20 employees per acre would mean more than 1500 cars at peak hours. However, locations were chosen with this in mind - maximum isolation of industry from residential areas.


e. General Residence areas will not produce cost compar- able to same number of people in single family houses, primarily due to differences in school costs.


f. Probable that apartments would return more than their cost to the Town, but this not only basis for justifying them. Other objectives may support apartments even if benefit to cost ratio is unfavorable.


161


3. Possible Amplifications of Data


a. Data is set up to permit comparison of numerous mixes.


b. Can examine industry in terms of amount required to maintain even tax rate for any given growth alterna- tive.


c. Alternatives presented here cover only single family housing on two or one acre lots plus General Residence District apartments. Comparisons could be evolved for other density combinations such as 60% of development on 2 acre lots and balance in mixed units at 4 families per acre. While model doesn't suggest any major dif- ferences in per capita non-school costs for various alternatives, school costs could vary considerably based on kind of units built (numerous studies indi- cate significantly lower portion of school age children in higher density developments).


d. Thought should be given to certain intangibles which it was not possible to put into the model:


- while Recreation-Conservation costs are included, revenues do not reflect the possible appreciation of property values due to the program


- immediate program to acquire important open space areas could allow Town to permit greater flexibility in development of remaining land, in terms of both kind of building permitted and assessment policy on remaining open land


- the model reflects some differences in house values for different rates of growth, but further refinements can be made


- possibilities for expanded type of cluster develop- ment, as suggested in paragraph c. above, should be studied for impact on composition of population and for desirable controls over site plan and gen- eral design.


162


PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS


BOARD OF APPEALS


William N. Swift, Chairman Alan McClennen Henry B. Hoover James Jagger Hans Van Leer


J. Lewis Cunningham, Associate Member Betty L. Lang, Associate Member


Hearings were held on thirteen petitions to the Board during the year 1964. Set forth below is a summary of the petitions:


Petition filed by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company for a special use permit to main- tain a public utility building in a residential zone on the south side of Route 2A; and the following variances: permission to construct on a lot of 4,781 square feet without frontage on a public way, a vari- ance as to width of lot, and variances as to the front, rear and side yard requirements. Permission granted with certain conditions.


Petition filed by Paul E. and Margaret B. Marsh for a renewal of permit to use the cellar of a barn on their property for a private nursery school operated by the Lincoln Nursery School, Inc. Per - mission granted.


Petition filed by Alvin Levin and Peter Helburn for a variance to allow alterations, improvements and additions to two structures on their property on Old Winter Street, both of which are less than 30 feet from the side lot line. Permission granted.


Petition filed by Bruce R. Fillmore for per- mission to remove gravel from his property on Cam- bridge Turnpike. Permission granted with certain conditions. .


Petition filed by Bruce R. Fillmore for per- mission to keep rabbits for commercial purposes on his property located on the Cambridge Turnpike. Per -


163


PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS


mission granted for three years with certain con- ditions.


Petition filed by Wes-Lex Corporation for a permit under Section VI, B, sub-paragraph (8), of the Zoning By-Law, to allow the subdivision of a parcel of land on Tower Road as a cluster develop- ment. A favorable report having been filed by the Planning Board, the permit was allowed with certain conditions.


Petition filed by Dr. Charles McKhann for a variance to allow construction of a single family residence on Lot 1 of the Todd Pond subdivision within 30 feet of the westerly side lot line. Per- mission granted, provided all other requirements of the Lincoln Zoning By-Laws are met.


Petition filed by Gertrude S. Eaton for a per- mit to convert a small storeroom into a kitchenette which would adjoin a small sitting room, bedroom and bath on the ground floor of her home on Bedford Road. Permission granted, subject to two conditions. Per - mission renewable from year to year.


Petition filed by Vernon D. Turner for tem- porary permission to place a house trailer on his lot on Old Sudbury Road for a six months' period. Per- mission granted for a six months' period.


Petition filed by John H. and Thelma C. Fitz- gerald for permission to construct an addition to their home on Lincoln Road, which addition will be less than 30 feet from the side lot line. Per - mission granted.


Petition filed by John Swinconeck for a vari- ance to permit the construction of a one-car garage on a non-conforming lot on Concord Road. Per - mission granted.


Petition filed by Thomas Aprille for a vari- ance to permit a single family residence to be moved to his lot on the Cambridge Turnpike, said lot con- taining an area of 39,315 square feet. Permission granted.


164


PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS


Petition filed by Albert W. Hanlon, Jr., for a variance to permit building on a lot on Old Bed - ford Road, said lot having less than the required frontage. Permission granted.


INSPECTORS OF BUILDING, WIRING AND PLUMBING


William M. Dean, Building and Wiring Inspector Daniel J. Murphy, Plumbing Inspector


Building Permits Issued During 1964:


New residential buildings


32


Alterations and additions 37


Move building


1


Renew permit


1


Demolish building


2


Swimming pools


7


FEES COLLECTED


$1,830.20


Plumbing Permits Issued During


1964 : 55


FEES COLLECTED


388.00


Wiring Permits Issued During


1964 : 78


FEES COLLECTED 414.25


165


PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS


i


WATER COMMISSIONERS


Stuart B. Avery Alan McClennen Russell P. Mahan, Chairman


Early in 1964 the Board of Water Commission- ers embarked on the vigorous work program outlined in the 1963 report. This fell mainly into three


groups of activity :


1. Main Cleaning


2. Main Replacement 3 . Main Extension


1964 Main Cleaning. Fortunately the success-


ful bid for main cleaning was far enough below the estimate to offset some interesting and unexpected overtime work, thereby allowing for the cleaning of about 30,000 feet of main at a cost of $11,685, not including regular Water Department personnel sal- aries. The following mains were cleaned :


Baker Bridge Road (6000 ft) from Sandy Pond Road to Concord Road ;


Concord Road (3500 ft) from Baker Bridge Road to Baker Bridge; Old Concord Road to South Great Road;


Old Concord Road (2500 ft) from Baker Bridge Road to Concord Road;


166


PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS


South Great Road (2600 ft) from Lincoln Road to Concord Road;


Lincoln Road (10,000 ft) from Town Center to South Great Road;


Weston Road (4200 ft) from Town Center to Silver Hill Road;


Trapelo Road (1100 ft) from Town Center to Lexington Road.


A number of breaks in some of the old unlined cast iron mains during the cleaning process required "around the clock" work. The Water Commissioners are grateful for the diligence of the department em- ployees and cooperating contractors during these emergencies, and especially for the patient under - standing of the townspeople who were inconvenienced during the cleaning program.


1964 Main Replacement was a smaller item, but also was completed at slightly lower costs than the estimates and appropriations. A weak link in the main grid of the system has been remedied by paral- leling the nineteenth century 6 in. main on South Great Road (Route 117) from Farnsworth's Corner (Lincoln Road) to Wheeler's Corner (Concord Road, Route 126) with 2600 ft of new 10 in. cement asbest- os pipe at a cost of $19,600.


The old 4 in. main on Old Winter Street was replaced by 2000 ft of 8 in. cement asbestos pipe from its southerly end northerly to a hydrant near the sharp curve and hill at Dewey's. The new 8 in. main on Old Winter Street was laid for the most part in the trench of the old 4 in. pipe. Although at times somewhat serpentine, use of the old trench saved tremendous blasting expense and kept the ex- penditure to well under the original estimates. The existing 4 in. pipe completes the circuit back to the 6 in. main on Winter Street passing partly through private property.


Connection Charge. Both the Board of Water Commissioners and the Board of Selectmen have been concerned about the few areas in the existing water


167


PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS


system with inadequate pressure, as well as other deficiencies in the system, in addition to areas of the Town without Town water or fire protection from hydrants. To meet at least a share of the financial needs of the capital improvements re- quired to rectify these deficiencies, the Board of Water Commissioners raised the connection charge to $750, applicable to all new services after July 1, 1964 and all new connections after January 1, 1965.


1964 Main Extension.


At a Special Town Meeting on April 15, 1964, the Town voted to extend the water system to the end of Sandy Pond Road and Fox Run Road. In August the Town again determined that the water system should be extended, this time as far as Stonehedge Road on Tower Road. This was paid for in large part by a previous gift of the developer of Stonehedge. In summary form these extensions, all of cement asbestos pipe, are as follows :


Cost


Sandy Pond Road - 6060 ft ) of 8 in. pipe ) Fox Run Road - 300 ft of ) $33,400. 8 in. pipe; and ) 400 ft of 2 in. pipe )


Tower Road - 1400 ft of 8 in. pipe $15,300.


1963 and 1964 Subdivision Mains - New sub- divisions were laid out with new cement asbestos water mains in both 1963 and 1964 as follows:


Goose Pond Road - 500 ft of 8 in.


Deer Run - 1000 ft of 6 in.


Brooks School Addition - 500


ft of 8 in. (ex- tension of old main).


Todd Pond Road - 3500 ft of 8 in. - Lincoln Road to end.


Meadowdam Road - 700 ft of 6 in. -


Todd Pond Road to end.


Woodbrook Road - 600 ft of 6 in. - Todd Pond Road to end.


168


PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS


Short Hill Road - 400 ft of 8 in. - Todd Pond Road to end.


Partridge Lane (Deerhaven)


1200 ft of 8 in. - from old pipe to end.


Giles develop- ment off South Great Road


-


Hiddenwood Path -


600 ft of 6 in. - from South Great Road to end. 540 ft of 6 in.


1964 Flushing and Testing, Late in Novem- ber in spite of low water in Sandy Pond, it ap- peared desirable to flush the system, even though the system received considerable flushing during the cleaning program. With the assistance of the Park Department and Highway Department employees, a vigorous and complete program of flushing and flow testing was carried out. The flow tests


showed conclusively that the pipe capacity had been increased as had been indicated in earlier limited tests. Further, the program identified a few un- satisfactory hydrants which are being repaired or replaced. Detailed records were kept which will be supplemented in the spring when a second "go around" of flushing will take place.


1964 Meetings, The Commissioners' record of meetings, usually noted, will be omitted this year because so much had to be done that the Com- missioners and the Superintendent were in almost "continuous session".


Most particularly we want to thank the Se - lectmen for their help along with the Park Depart- ment and Highway Department crews who have been most cooperative and especially our Executive Assistant, Warren F. Flint, who was responsible for the coordination of all the departments.


1965 Plans. Surveys, discussions with land owners, and appraisal work continued in res- pect to the well site on Tower Road, and it is ex- pected specific action on this subject will be placed before the Town at Town Meeting. Other foreseeable work in 1965 will be additional clean-


169


PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS


ing, including the Sandy Pond and Bedford Road 12 in. mains, along with the 6 in. mains on Sandy Pond Road, Trapelo Road (below Huckleberry Hill ), Tower Road (Lincoln Road to Pierce Hill Road) and Pierce Hill Road. This should complete the old main cleaning and should leave the system in good shape as far as flow and pressure are concerned excepting the old unlined 4 in. mains which are to be replaced.


New construction to replace these old 4 in. mains is planned for Winter Street, south of Mason's, and along Old County Road, as well as West- on Road from De Ford's to Silver Hill Road. Final limits on this work depends on the reserves left in the 1964 bond accounts and the general borrowing capacity of the system in the light of long term needs.


The program for the year ahead in brief is tentatively set as follows:


Winter Street and Old County Road - 4 in. replacement ; Weston Road - 4 in. replacement; Completion of main cleaning; Study the design and installation of automatic controls for pumps; Acquire land for well; Replace and repair defective hydrants.


SUMMARY. In summary, it may be stated that 1964 was a very busy year for all concerned. How- ever, very substantial progress has been made in bringing the system up to present day standards. At least we are beginning to understand the prob- lems and have made a start on their solution. Water Department records of pipe sizes, locations, and details on gates and hydrants are complete and all parts of the system have been tested in more complete detail than was ever possible in previous years.


170


PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS


WATER DEPARTMENT STATISTICS 1964


In Use 12/31/64


Added in 1964


Pipe


34 miles


1 mile


Hydrants


293


14


Stop Gates


335


20


Blow-offs


27


0


New services


1084


18


Meters


1098


36


Renew service


13


Range of pressure


in mains


40 - 100 P. S. I.


Total gallons pumped


in 1964


115,295,800


Decrease from 1963


12,490,200


BUILDING CODE STUDY COMMITTEE


William A. Halsey, Chairman


Douglas M. Burckett Harold Rosenwald Stanley D. Porter


The Building Code Study Committee has com- pleted its work, and the revised Code will be pre- sented to the Town for acceptance at the Annual Town Meeting.


Copies of the Code may be seen at the Town Hall, Library and the office of the Town Clerk.


171


PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS


HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT


Raymond P. Maher, Superintendent


The highway program for 1964 covered the re- surfacing of over six (6) miles of the Town's ways, drainage improvement in a number of cases, white line painting, guard rail construction and the patch- ing of those areas where deterioration of the pave- ment existed. Town forces were used for the greater part of the construction on South Great Road which took the major part of two months time in late sum- mer and fall.


Snow and ice removal demand a sizeable percent- age of the department's time from mid-November through March - plowing snow, hauling and spreading salt and sand.




Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.