The proposed access road connecting the Polaroid property to Nahatan Street was temporarily shelved after strong objections from abutters in the surrounding neighborhood.
T At a private meeting, Christopher Ingraham, vice president of Polaroid’s camera division, informed residents that the company would cancel the plan for at least one year while considering alternative solutions. Ingraham stated that Polaroid was responding to community concerns and acknowledged that the original plan had been based on a verbal commitment that the road would be used only for emergency access.
Residents, however, feared the road would bring heavy trucking into a residential area. A petition signed by 383 neighbors had already been submitted to the selectmen on May 24. Abutters argued that the plan was unrealistic, noting that traffic from Polaroid would empty directly into a neighborhood already burdened by congestion on Nahatan Street. William J. Plasko, a leader of the opposition, said neighbors were “appalled” that the company would consider building such a road, warning it would “completely destroy the character of the neighborhood.”
Polaroid officials explained that the company needed a reliable way to move 2,500 employees on and off its 230-acre site, especially given heavy traffic on Route 1A. John Shea, a Polaroid engineer, noted that employee numbers were expected to rise to 3,000 over the summer. The company outlined three alternative access options: widening the existing Upland Road entrance, improving the Clapboardtree Street road, or constructing a new road tied to a proposed building.
Abutters also referenced past agreements. A 1965 letter from then-Polaroid president D.W. Skinner confirmed an understanding with the planning board that the fire road would eventually be used for motor vehicle traffic. Despite this, residents maintained that the current plan was unacceptable. Paul Abely, a direct abutter, said he was “cautiously optimistic” after the meeting, noting Polaroid’s willingness to listen. Robert Palmer, Polaroid’s director of public relations, expressed hope that the group would reconvene to discuss solutions.
The debate underscored the tension between industrial expansion and neighborhood preservation, with residents determined to protect the character and safety of their streets while Polaroid sought practical access for its growing workforce.
Archival Note: This article has been dynamically reconstructed from the original public record print archives of the Patriot Ledger
Discover more from Norwood Historical Society
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.