Acton board continues hearing on Primrose Schools proposal after pushback from historical commission, neighbors and reviewers

The Acton Select Board continued its public hearing on Feb. 23 on Primrose Schools’ application to convert 457 Massachusetts Ave into a two‑story, roughly 14,000‑square‑foot childcare facility, citing unresolved preservation, grading and circulation issues.

Alyssa, the board’s planning liaison, opened the discussion and summarized legal constraints: the proposed childcare is protected under the Dover amendment, meaning the town cannot deny the educational use outright, though the board can impose “reasonable dimensional requirements” within eight statutory categories and must be specific and transparent when doing so, she said. She also noted the board had only just received a third‑party engineering peer review that morning.

Jonathan Silverstein, counsel for the applicant, and Adam Drake of Stonefield Engineering presented site plans that show a 7,000‑square‑foot footprint (two stories), 46 parking spaces, fenced outdoor play areas totaling about 8,000 square feet, and a significant earthwork plan requiring retaining walls at the site’s steep grade. Silverstein said the applicant’s traffic analysis does not predict a significant traffic impact and that Primrose will submit revised plans responding to the peer review.

The hearing attracted strong concern from the Acton Historical Commission and nearby residents. William Dickinson, chair of the historical commission (letter read into the record), urged adaptive reuse rather than demolition, citing an 18‑month demolition delay imposed in 2025 and noting an architect found the structure in “good condition for a building of that age.” Neighbor Ron Laughlin, who lives immediately behind the site, objected to removal of trees to the lot line and asked for clearer timing; the applicant said the demolition delay expires in late November and indicated construction would likely begin in spring.

Board members pressed for more detail on several topics: the recently posted peer review by GCG (driveway left‑turn restrictions and snow‑storage locations), the extent of tree removal and proposed mitigation, the feasibility of interconnecting the site parking with the adjacent school driveway via an easement, artificial turf materials and testing for PFAS, and whether the historic house could be retained or relocated. Adam Drake said site grades make on‑site incorporation of the existing structure challenging; Silverstein said the team would try targeted outreach to identify relocation or reuse options but warned it may be difficult to find a party willing to move an extensively altered building.

The board also discussed potential waivers (open‑space, parking landscape separation) and safety items such as a second egress for fenced play areas. Planning staff and the applicant agreed to circulate revised plans; the applicant estimated a 2–3 week turnaround for updates. The Select Board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to March 16 at 6:45 p.m.

The next hearing will give the peer reviewer time to comment and the applicant time to return site plan revisions, additional elevations showing retaining walls and street view impacts, artificial turf specifications and any draft easement language or pro forma financials the board requests. The board emphasized that any conditions imposed must be specific and defensible under the Dover amendment framework.

Provenance: Topic introduction SEG 710; topic finish SEG 1956.