Search

ORDINANCE O-21-048

consisting either of two separate dwelling units on separate floors or of two
separate dwelling units connected and separated by a common wall connecting
living spaces, perpendicular to the longest dimension of the structure, and having
a common length equal to at least: 4) 90% of the widest part of each structure
measured perpendicular to the longest dimension, if the longest dimensions are
parallel; or Gi) 90% of the widest part of one unit measured perpendicular to the
longest dimension, and 50% of the longest dimension of the other unit, if the
longest dimensions are perpendicular to each other.

hse

()

Driveways for residential uses shall be subject to the following provisions:

Driveways where they meet the public right of way and continuing to the
rear line of the front yard setback shall be no more than 24 feet in width.
Such width may be divided between two approaches to the right of way
but no more than two. “Width” shall be measured along a line generaily
perpendicular to the line of intended vehicular travel.

Driveways shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from an intersection.

Driveways crossing a sidewalk shall maintain and continue the sidewalk
width and cross slope (2% maximum). Sidewalk approaches shall be
reconstructed in kind as necessary to make smooth transitions to the
driveway crossing. Sidewalk width and grades at driveway crossings shall
comply with ADA standards,

Driveway throat length. Driveway throat length shall be measured from
the edge of the property line to the end of the driveway. The "end of the
driveway" means the point at which a lane or opening in the driveway
permits vehicles to enter or exit the driveway lanes. A minimum driveway
throat length of 25 feet shall be required. The purpose of the driveway
throat length is to allow for traffic entering the site to be stored on site in
order to avoid obstructing sidewalks or public ways.

Driveway approach angle. The angle of the driveway approach shall be
approximately 90° for two-way driveways and between 60° and 90° for

one-way driveways.

Driveways shail be paved within the right of way and constructed per
Division of Public Works standards, including permitting and inspection

requirements,”

This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage.

LEGISLATIVE YEAR 2021

ORDINANCE: O-21-048

PURPOSE: Amending the Residential Districts ordinance with respect to
residential driveways

SPONSOR(S): Mayor Jim Donchess
COMMITTEE Planning and Economic Development Committe
ASSIGNMENT: Nashua Planning Board
FISCAL NOTE: None.
ANALYSIS

This legislation amends the Residential Districts ordinance by adding language regarding
residential driveways. The Community Development Division has provided a memo that
explains the purpose of this proposed change.

State statute (RSA 675:2) and NRO Section 190-132 require a public hearing and referral to the
city planning board. The public hearing is conducted by the aldermanic planning and economic
development committee with notice published in a newspaper of general circulation and posted
in two public places at least ten calendar days prior to the date of the hearing, (Notice period
does not include the day notice is posted or the day of the public hearing. RSA 675:7,1.) A
favorable vote of two-thirds of all the members of the board of aldermen present and voting
would be required if a protest petition is filed pursuant to RSA 675:5. Under RSA 676:12 and
NRO Section 105-3, no building permit may be issued after the legal notice has been posted if
the proposed changes would, if adopted, justify refusal of the permit. This limitation applies for a
period of 120 days.

Approved as to form: Office of Corporation Counsel

yoruba (Los Mo
Date: 2 por wdast Parl

O-21-049

ORDINANCE

AMENDING THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS SUPPLEMENTAL USE

REGULATIONS

CITY OF NASHUA

In the Year Two Thousand and Twenty-One

The City of Nashua ordains that Part I] “General Legislation”, Chapter 190 “Land Use’’, Part 2
“Zoning Districts and Supplemental Use Regulations”, Article VI “Supplemental Use
Regulations”, Section 190-40 “Conservation Subdivisions” of the Nashua Revised Ordinances,
as amended, be and hereby is further amended by adding the new underlined language as

‘follows:

Ҥ 190-40. Conservation subdivisions.

C. Uses and density.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Permitted uses are governed by the applicable zoning district regulations.

‘The minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district (Article HI, §
190-16) shall not apply to a conservation subdivision. However, a
conservation subdivision shall not exceed the maximum density permitted
by § 190-16, Table 16-3 (Dimensional Matrix), [Note: See example
below.]

In order to provide undivided open space for direct views and access, at
least 40% of the lots within a conservation subdivision shall abut a
conservation area.

Direct pedestrian access to the open space from lots not adjoining the open
space shall be provided through a continuous system of sidewalks and
tratls.

Additional dwelling unit density may be obtained if the incentive(s)
described in Table 40-1 are fully satisfied.

ORDINANCE O-21-049

(6) Conservation subdivisions may contain more than one principal structure
ona lot.

This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage.

LEGISLATIVE YEAR 2021

ORDINANCE: Q-21-049

PURPOSE: Amending the Conservation Subdivisions Supplemental Use
Regulations

SPONSOR(S): Mayor Jim Donchess

COMMITTEE Planning and Economic Development Committee

ASSIGNMENT: Nashua Planning Board

FISCAL NOTE: None.

ANALYSIS

This legislation amends the Conservation Subdivisions Supplemental Use Regulations by adding
language that permits more than one principal structure on a lot. The Community Development
Division has provided a memo that explains the purpose of this proposed change in detail.

State statute (RSA 675:2) and NRO Section 190-132 require a public hearing and referral to the
city planning board. The public hearing is conducted by the aldermanic planning and economic
development committee with notice published in a newspaper of general circulation and posted
in two public places at least ten calendar days prior to the date of the hearing. (Notice period
does not include the day notice is posted or the day of the public hearing. RSA 675:7,1.) A
favorable vote of two-thirds of all the members of the board of aldermen present and voting
would be required if a protest petition is filed pursuant to RSA 675:5. Under RSA 676:12 and
NRO Section 105-3, no building permit may be issued after the legal notice has been posted if
the proposed changes would, if adopted, justify refusal of the permit. This limitation applies for a
period of 120 days.

Approved as to form: Office of Corporation Counsel

By: Vwnbey Corder
Date: iS ele untins FOF

O-21-050

ORDINANCE

RELATIVE TO TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURES AND ELEMINATION OF CERTAIN
ON-STREET PARKING FOR USE BY RESTAURANTS FOR OUTDOOR DINING IN
2021

CITY OF NASHUA

In the Year Two Thousand and Twenty-One

WHEREAS, through Governor Sununu’s Executive Orders, the State of New Hampshire
continues to be in a declared state of emergency due to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19);

WHEREAS, Govermor Sununu’s Emergency Order #52 (An order regarding public
health guidance for business operations and advising Granite Staters that they are safer at home)
has been extended multiple times, most recently through March 26, 2021;

WHEREAS, Exhibit B to Emergency Order #52 states in part that “as an extension of the
curbside and delivery model, permit outdoor dining. Restaurants are permitted to expand outside
wherever an outdoor area can be set up safely, such as parking spaces close to entrances,
sidewalks, existing patios, [and] lawn areas”;

WHEREAS, the City is seeking to assist restaurants by accommodating expanded
outdoor dining areas abutting and directly in line with a restaurant’s property;

WHEREAS, this legislation authorizes the closure, for a period of months, of portions of
certain roads to vehicular traffic, elimination of some on-street parking, and relocation and
creation of some handicap parking while recognizing that the situation is dynamic; and

WHEREAS, similar legislation approved by the City last year (O-20-015) was very
successful.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Aldermen of the City of
Nashua that the roads and on-street parking as depicted on the attached maps which are
incorporated herein, shall be modified and portions closed, parking spaces eliminated, and
handicap parking spaces relocated and created as shown on the map.

Board of Aldermen 2-06-2020 Page 16

a good job. So | chose to come back to Nashua to serve as a public servant. | am the Executive Director of
the Nashua Community Music School which is a 35 year old non profit organization that serves this area. | also
currently serve as the Chair of the Nashua Arts Commission and | have also been fortunate enough to be
asked to be part of this wonderful Steering Committee for the Performing Arts Center.

| speak strongly in favor of this amendment; | think it is really important that we give the good team that we
have assembled more time to be able to put together and amazing project that has already been two years in
the making. | can speak firsthand saying that | think Nashuans as a whole, they have a lot of heart. So we
have a lot to say, right? Alright, we have a lot to give to others; the charitable community in this area is so
warm and so welcoming and | say that as a member of it because of the Nashua Community Music School and
our nonprofit status, | see that first hand. And | think Nashuans see that there’s a lot of value in what we have
now, but | think it is really important as public servants, for myself and the folks on the Board, that we also
embrace all the potential that we do have to still reach. This Performing Arts Center project and your choice to
extending the time and allowing us to have more time to make it as successful as it has the potential to be, will
really help us reach that level of potential.

As the Chair of the Nashua Arts Commission, | want to share, there are 6 goals that exist in our most recent
Nashua Arts & Culture Plan. The Performing Arts Center hits all of them. We want to create an identity for
Nashua as an arts destination. We want to increase a marketing value, something that draws people here.
This project does that. Mr. Mayor and Director Cummings have spoken at length about the economic
development benefits. That addresses the commerce goal of our current Arts & Culture Plan. It will inevitably
bring growth and education, to not only the people who are currently here in the City living and working and
enjoying what we do. But it also provides a centralization effort knowing that this Performing Arts Center is an
integral part of our downtown of our center. | ask you, Board of Aldermen, the team that is on this project is
good. The Steering Committee has not acted in haste. There are two dedicated groups; one working on
design and operations and another working on financial fundraising, and they are proceeding thoughtfully and
carefully. They want to act strategically; they don’t want to be rushed to fit a means that is not going to be
successful and what we deserve.

There has been a specialty team working with the volunteer committee, of architects, of theater consultants of
lighting consultants, acoustic consultants. The Committee themselves is a group and a mix of audience
members, arts lovers and people like myself, musicians and theater professionals who are with the project
every step of the way saying this is going to be the best thing for our Performing Arts Center to be successful
and this is the best way it is going to serve our community. | need you to consider an extension of time for this
funding, an extension of time for this funding could have such a negative effect it could effect or derail the entire
project, but an extension of time for the funding of this project does not mean we are asking for an extension of
time for the project as a whole. If we are allowed to proceed as we are currently working, our goal is so that the
project will be open and operational in the fall of 2021. That’s our goal right now. If you give us more time
there’s a really good chance we will be able to have that and see that success firsthand. If you choose not to
give us that extra time, the building within the center of Nashua that could be the heart of what we do here and
who we draw here, could be empty, could be a vacant space, could take years to become a new level of
potential for us here in Nashua to reach. | think that everyone in this room, whether you’re on the board or you
are in the audience; | think everybody wants to the same thing. | think we want to make Nashua a special to
live a long and happy life. This project, | ask you to vote in favor of this amendment because this project will
help us get there.

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

Ken Siegel Hello everyone, Ken Siegel, 224 Parker Street, Lowell, Massachusetts, former Board of Aldermen
member. How are you? | see some of my former colleagues on here. I’m not in opposition to the arts center, |
am actually addressing this specific piece of legislation which goes to whether or not there should be a time
frame on the fund raising or not. | was the person that put the original amendment in that called for the 2 years.
The reason I’m here is | think Alderman Klee was rewarded for starting a thread in the Nashua Civic Sounding
Board and just tried to be nice and got basically beaten about her head | think.

Board of Aldermen 2-06-2020 Page 17

So | applaud her for her bravery. The reason that | put in the 2 year time limit and I’m not saying you should
keep the 2 year time limit, I’m just trying to provide some historical perspective, so every body here can make
an informed judgement about what to do, so I’m addressing the legislation.

The reason that it was put in there was because we were under the gun. In the Fall of 2017 John Koutsos had
offered to the Board of Aldermen and the City of Nashua, Alec’s Shoe Store for $4 million dollars. So unlike
most of projects, you sort of got the building before you had the concept behind it. But he had other buyers, he
was willing to give the City of Nashua a break so we had to make a fairly quick decision about what to do with
the building. We voted to acquire that because the understanding at the time was that, in the event that there
was no Performing Arts Center, it was still a very valuable piece of real estate and most likely it could be sold
and the City of Nashua would not be on the hook for that $4 million dollars permanently. So when the
Performing Arts Center ideas were being developed, | think some of my colleagues may remember, we actually
had some intern come by and do something that looked like it was out of Vanity Fair, a drawing which was a
little futuristic, clearly not appropriate, we were fairly clear back then that there needed to be a lot of legwork.

The two year time frame did not come from members of the Performing Arts Center. The way that came about
was | had a breakfast with Simon over at Norton’s because he was asking my opinion about everything trying to
solicit votes. | was talking to him about the fundraising, asking how close he either was or wasn’t and we got to
talking about timeframes and | said, “Well would two years be enough time to get the money”. Absolutely
based on where they were at the time, his thoughts, they felt that would be an appropriate amount of time. My
feelings in putting an amendment in there was we needed a kill switch to the entire project because in the event
that it couldn’t be properly funded with public and private donations, you have a $4 million dollar asset on the
books that is just going to sit there forever. | think people tend to forget about that. And that’s why | felt
compelled to come up here to give you a little bit of history.

That problem still exists. Now | think Director Cummings underestimated the affect that Alderman McCarthy’s
death had on the entire process. It wasn’t just we had to shuffle some meetings and re-arrange things, he was
more than the point man for this, he had been the heart and soul of that entire project for years. | mean my first
term on the Board Brian had been talking about putting a Performing Arts Center on the roof of one of the
garages if you recall and we went through that whole discussion. So there’s a long history there. So | am very
sympathetic with the idea of extending the timeframe because you took a very big hit. | know the public is
demanding to know how much money has been raised. | would actually say there’s an alternate question to be
asked, which is how much money was de-committed after Alderman McCarthy died? Now | don’t know the
answer to that. | actually agree with your fundraiser that you really need to be confidential.

What | would urge the Board of the Aldermen is to recognize that you still have that $4 million dollar asset, you
are still working towards the goal of having the Art Center. Whatever | think or don’t think, I’m in Lowell now so
| can enjoy a Performing Arts Center so | can say “Yay great, more free stuff absolutely please build it”. But |
want to caution you that you are on the hook for a $4 million dollar asset and if you want to do something
extend the deadline, but don’t eliminate it. You really do need a cutoff and frankly | think it wouldn’t hurt the
fundraising to know that this has to be done by a certain amount of time or the opportunity will not exist
anymore. So rather than eliminate the deadline entirely, | would strongly urge you to amend it and provide a
longer deadline if necessary. Thank you very much.

Mike Soucy Thankyou, 3 Roseann Circle. I’m a life long resident of Nashua, 60 years as a youngster | worked
in the Parks & Recreation Department; | worked for the School Department as a substitute and a coach, |
worked for the Fire Department for 3 years: | was a Police Officer for 20 years, Fire Commissioner for four
years and a past Alderman in Ward 5. So | don’t think anybody can challenge my love for this City. Thank you
Alderman Jette for your thoughtful questions, | really appreciate it.

Here are my concerns, when this went on the ballot, | actually checked off “no” at the time because | thought
the goal was too lofty, | didn’t think we could meet that requirement. And lo and behold if we did, we wouldn't
be here today. We didn’t meet it, so now we are asking for a rule change. OK. But what happens if we don’t
meet the next goal, are we going to ask for another rule change? | mean let’s talk math. My biggest concern is
the lack of transparency; you can see it all over social media.

Board of Aldermen 2-06-2020 Page 18

Everybody that | talk to, the nice questions that | heard from Alderman Jette, what have we raised at this point?
I’m hearing strategic plan, that we can’t do it, I’m hearing all types of things, but when a big donation such as
the $250,000.00 comes out, that’s quickly acknowledged or the $100,000.00. What else? Are we at
$250,000.00 if we meet a requirement but if you don’t meet that requirement that’s gone? Where are we at?
You are the Aldermen, you are the elected officials that we trust with our purse. You are the people who are
going to put us in this $15 million dollar bond. | am standing here today as one of the largest or as a
representative of one of the largest investors in this project, a taxpayer, $15 million dollars. We deserve to
know, we deserve to know if this is viable, if people are actually contributing. We are being told that it is on-
going and it is moving fast forward and all that, but that’s not what we are seeing, we are not seeing that.

And the math that I’m talking about basically is change of rules plus lack of transparency equals distrust in
Government. And I’ve got to tell you at this point, | really don’t trust what | am seeing until | can see some
numbers. | can have my mind changes, I’ve always been open minded on everything, but | need to see some
numbers, | need to see something. And as an Alderman, when | was sitting in the Ward 5 chair, there’s no way
| would have approved $15 million, $5 million dollars, or even $10.00 without having the facts before me.
Thank you.

Laurie Ortolano 41 Berkeley Street. | think my issue here is similar to the gentleman who just spoke. | think it
is about public trust and transparency. Mr. Clemons brought up the issue which is appreciated but he put it in
terms of “people are curious”. | can tell you my questions were not because | was curious, they were because |
wanted to do a reality check and that’s different. And | do respect that you want to maintain confidentiality, but |
think that there’s got to be a better balance between confidentiality and transparency and public trust. | wrote
my initial question to Mr. Cummings just out of curiosity because | knew this was happening, where can | find
out the money raised? | got the shortest answer, contact you, but by name, the Capital Campaign Person, I’m
no longer involved. | didn’t get a name of a phone number. | didn’t even know who that was. Then there were
other postings on social media on this page where another woman went out and she got a better response.

| think you should have had a better response, the City knowing this was happening. People were going to ask,
| asked. | sent an e-mail out to all of you because | figured you’re coming in here, you guys must know. And |
only got one response from an Alderwoman. So you know, | yeah, | think it is important that we have a different
level of transparency and my concern here is just with the total package, not just this extension. But | happen to
think the New Market Tax Credit, | studied that extensively, that’s a longshot. And | am concerned that we can’t
pull the whole thing off. And | don’t know that | believe that the total cost of $23.8 is fixed, the more time we
take, the higher the costs go. | think when you get into dirt costs and you start digging, you can see some
really big run ups and that’s concerning to me.

| believe your campaign is going well and you believe your campaign is going well, let’s face it the market last
year was hot, the investment market. Last year was a great year for people to come out and donate money. So
you don’t get a lot of years like we had last year; I’d love another one this year. | hope it is that was for us
again, because it would be wonderful from a donating standpoint. But last year was the year to really rip down
some private donations because the market was so good. I’m concerned that we still don’t have enough. The
$294,000.00 that come from the State Credit Program, do we know how many people bought into that
$294,000.00? You know that was a fixed program that went out and people could buy into that, and it was all
done; do we know how many bought into it?

Chairman Dowd

Your time is up, but if you have a question?
Ms. Ortolano | just asked it.

Chairman Dowd

Mr. Cummings, do you have an answer.

Board of Aldermen 2-06-2020 Page 19

Mr. Cummings
No.

Ms. Ortolano Alright, thank you for my three minutes.

Karen Bill Good evening, Karen Bell, 95 Parnell Place, can everybody hear me way in the back? OK, Nashua,
| am a Nashua native also and thank you for all of your comments, former Alderman Soucy, very well thought
out. | can’t agree more. The residents of Nashua in the original resolution were lead to believe that there was
$4 million dollars waiting in the wings for this project, OK? That there were people known to the City
Management that would be donating, that was not and is not the case. When | asked last year in a private
setting about the private donation money raised, the answer was, “I don’t know’. That’s not an acceptable
answer in any professional arena. If the Mayor asked Treasurer Fredette how much money is outstanding in
unpaid property taxes, do you think the answer “I don’t know” would be acceptable. | don’t, it would not be
acceptable in any financial situation.

The $250,000.00 from Bank of America is contingent, it is not a given, it doesn’t come without strings, it is
contingent on raising the $2.5 million. Again, the target is just going to keep moving, we don’t have the money
yet, that’s ok we will present a resolution to move the target for however long. | don’t know if there is a date in
that resolution. Then we won’t hit so we will move it again. | ran a non-profit in this town | know how hard it is to
raise money. | know about quiet phases, | know that people can cancel, but you know, in the January 26" letter
to editor Chuck Hafemann made some really great points. | have it if anybody wants to read it. Fundraising
didn’t commence until almost a year and a half after it had passed. An official was quoted in the article saying,
“| was naive and didn’t realize we couldn’t start the fundraising”. You know when you get a job you have to
produce what you say you are going to produce in a certain amount of time. You don’t get to say, Oh I’m sorry
that | didn’t know that | didn’t know how to do this job and | can’t meet any of the deadlines’.

Joan Stylianos did a story in the Union Leader and a friend of hers asked, “Oh how much of the private funds
have been raised and she said, “well you know, we don’t know”. Some taxpayers feel duped because no
renovation or construction could start until the $4 million in private funds was raised. She was having a
conversation with Joseph, | don’t know how to say his last name. The minister of music at First Church and
performed as a guest conductor at Symphony NH who said, “Nashua bought the building too quickly and
without the proper legwork”. He said, “they don’t have a pit, it's not a good location, you have Elm Street that
has an orchestra pit and could do a lot of renovations instead of buying a place that needs beyond what some
place like Elm Street could use.” | think we bought the building way too fast, | think people said, $4 million?
They thought that there were people lined up, there are not that we bought it without doing our due diligence
and we will be doing everyone a disserve if we continue to say yes, we are just going to keep moving this
target, because I’m a tax payer and my taxes have gone up 27% in the last ten years. So you know, if I’m
going to be footing the bill, no, | am not your biggest investor, | don’t want to be.

Fred Teeboom 24 Cheyenne Drive. Now | attended nearly all the PAC Committee meetings, | read every one
of the proposals and | am pretty familiar with this project at this point. | do look forward to buying a season
ticket, | think they have a good proponent in the form of Tim Cummings, you have a very active team, the PAC
team. But! am concerned about the financial viability of this project. First of all, we’ve spent a long time talking
about the $2.5 million dollar, what they call the Capital Campaign but no discussion about that $4.2 million
dollars that’s supposed to be raised with these tax credits. So in 2019, we got zip. What if we get zip in 2020?
So | did an analysis and I'd like to make this analysis part of the public record. | have enough copies, | am not
going to into details because there are a lot of details on this sheet, that’s not the purpose. But | do want people
to have a copy and | want it to be on public record as part of the minutes.

The two things that | want to bring out are the following. The original budget for this PAC was $15.5 bond and
a $4 million dollar private funding. That’s $19.5 million dollars. You just heard the number, $23.7 million. Now
if you look at this sheet, the actual construction cost of the PAC is $15.2 million dollars. The original estimate
was $11.5 million, I’m not going to go into how that happened, there’s a lot of deception on $11.5 million. The
fact is that is way over budget.