HomeMy WebLinkAbout1935-12-06•
MEMO REPORT
Friday, December 6, 1935
At 7:30 P. M. Mr. Duffy and Mr. Kimball met Mr. Robert
Merriam for an informal discussion concerning treatment of the
Merriam Factory property on Oakland Street,
Mr. Merriam stated that the present tenant was vacating
and that he would have a non -producing property on his hands
by the new year. There is no opportunity for manufacturing in
Lexington as labor cannot be obtained.
He has considered putting shutters over the windows, in-
stalling the necessary protective devices and 'doing the building
as a storeage warehouse. Carrying charges were prohibitive to
this plan. With a feeling that a demand existed for moderately
priced apartments of 4 or 4 rooms, Mr. Merriam advances the idea
of utilizing the present structure for such a purpose. Tentative
plans and costs have been prepared, based on current prices,and
favorable modification of existing town by-laws (Building & Zon-
ing) which indicate that remodeling might, in the long run, prove
profitable.
Removing the present buildings and replacing with an en-
tirely new plant would require too heavy an investment. `j'he
salvage value of the present structure is probably about suffi-
cient to clear the ground at no expense and leave the real estate,
a parcel approximately 114 feet deep with a 325 ft. frontage, to
be disposed of.
The proposed plans provide for raising the entire floor
level to permit basement rooms or garage, the roof to remain as
at present, with separating walls of fire resisting material
filled with mural wool, extending to the ceilings, the latter
being covered with this same material. This leaves an unob-
structed blind attic the entire length of the building. There
will be some 12 apartments;, each a complete unit with a floor
space of approximately 15 x 30 and separate outside entrances.
The office building will be used for two apartments. Rentals
will run from 45.00 to $55.00 per month.
It is realized that the proposed plans are in conflict
with the existing building laws although Mr. Merriam felt they
were of a nature which could fall under Board of appeal ruling
and not require Town action. He was to talk with the Town
Counsel on this question.
The neighbors have been approached informally and no
opposition has developed.
Mr. Duffy reviewed previous projects of a similar nature
and expressed the opinion that,in fairness to all concerned, the
Board should have rather definite assurances that finances are
Merriam
Factory
�J
-2 -
available to complete the project before any definite action to-
ward zoning changes be instituted.
br. Kimball pointed out that under the most favorable
speed, the time element for consideration, preparation of a
petition, holding of hearings and reports to a Town Meeting,
even providing a special Town lueeting was held, would preclude
definite action on Mr. Merriam's part before the middle of
January and in all probability the middle of March.
Pair. Merriam is to present plans and anything of a more
definite nature for the full Boards action on December 12th,
1935.
At 8:00 P. Y.J. Mr. Duffy, Mr. Cosgrove and Mr. Kimball
met with City Engineer Beal and Chairman of the Planning Board
Potter of +altham for an informal discussion of the Circumferen-
tial Highway.
The ?zialtham people are in complete agreement with the
proposed easterly route although they anticipate opposition
from Weston and possibly Lincoln. It was agreed that little
could be accomplished through a general meeting of all the
Boards interested in this route and that the most satisfactory
method was for each pair of Boards attempting to iron out their
own common problems and then lining up their own Town officials,
their Senators, and each appealing to the State Planning Board. Circum -
Side treatment was discussed from the points of view of:
1. Parkways
2. Definitely protective strip
3. Parallel street development.
Abutting property owners rights to entrance over parkway
land has been definitely established and little proteot4*ion
arises from this method.
Incorporating a protective strip in the legislative
Enabling Act providing for the highway, would probably control
entrances and should prove the most satisfactory solution. Ex-
perience in the attempt to obtain legislative action towards a
set back on the Concord Highway is not encouraging toward this
treatment. Parallel street development seems to offer the most
practical solution. Mr. Potter suggested that one lot depth
between the highway and the street would encourage facing on the
street. No definite conclusions for action on this subject were
formulated.
Mr. Beal raised a question that we were not sure as to
what route the present bill calls for and copies of the act are
to be obtained.
Respectfully submitted,
Clerk Pro tem
ferential
Highway