Search

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 13
MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared Mary Greene duly appointed to the Hunt Legacy Board of Trustees for a term to
expire December 31, 2018.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-17-086
Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty
AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF A CERTAIN SEWER EASEMENT RESERVED ON FORMER HILTON
AVENUE (OFF DANE STREET)

Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-086
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-17-086 declared duly adopted.

R-17-090
Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty
AUTHORIZING PENNICHUCK CORPORATION AND PENNICHUCK EAST UTILITY, INC. TO
BORROW FUNDS FROM THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING
LOAN FUND

Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-090
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-17-090 declared duly adopted.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - ORDINANCES

O-16-020, Amended
Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess
CLARIFYING AND UPDATING THE ELDERLY HOUSING SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS
AND RELATED PROVISIONS

Given its third reading;

MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI-GOLJA TO AMEND O-16-020 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT
WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA

ON THE QUESTION

In terms of changes, the first change in the title referring to housing for older persons and not elderly housing.
The categories and definitions have all been removed. If you go to Section B,2, you will see that there is a list
of facilities and services that may be included but are not limited to and that has been added.

MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI-GOLJA FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-16-020 AS AMENDED

ON THE QUESTION

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 14
Alderman Deane

| won’t be supporting this piece of legislation. This is a perfect example of you know, the premise behind the
beginning of it, cases before the planning board. Amendments or not, | can’t support that kind of activity and |
won't.

Alderman Siegel

| tried to kind of follow what’s been going on. This thing has been ping-ponging around for quite some time.
Normally | am pretty good about following what’s going on. I’d like to understand what motivated this and how
we arrived where we are at today. | don’t understand what’s going on with this or what motivated it. There
wasn't anything associated with the legislation that drove me to feel one way or the other about it, so where did
it come from and why?

Mayor Donchess

Many amendments have been made by the committee. | think they did a good job at looking at the issue,
negotiating and talking with Mr. Brad Westgate, who is the lawyer for many of the so-called elderly housing
developments and have come out with a compromise that everybody can live with. What motivated me was
just the fact that this type of development can result in a serious increase in density. Often times that makes
sense where it is proposed. For example, Hayden Green where there is not a lot of neighborhoods surrounding
it. But in certain locations, a very significant increase in density over what otherwise would be allowed, can
have a very negative impact on a neighborhood. For example at 122 Manchester Street where the Planning
Board had previously rejected four or five units in a small single family lot as being too dense. Then they come
forward with something under the elderly housing ordinance making it 18 units where 5 or 6, whatever the
number was before, was too dense. Nowit’s 18. | thought we needed to take a look at those issues and try to
balance our desire to provide housing options for people that are over 55 with the need to preserve
neighborhoods.

Although it kind of says that this provides a more reasonable, lower price unit for people over 55, it really
doesn’t. If you look at Hayden Green, those units are nice but they are same or maybe more expensive than
other condominiums around the city. So again, just to try to take a look at these issues, come up with
something that worked better for neighborhoods as well as for the proponents of the increased density. | think
the committee worked on it a long time and came up with a reasonable compromise.

Alderman Siegel

Since I’m not familiar with all the events, you pointed out the example of 122 Manchester, which | can infer was
a motivator for this perhaps. May | ask you, Mr. Mayor, was the revised plan which was rejected by the
planning board under the proposal to have elderly housing, was that plan approved under the ordinance as
they existed at the time? Was the developer given the opportunity to do that with the change of plan?

Mayor Donchess

122 Manchester Street was examined. It went to the ZBA for various technical reasons. It was examined
under the current ordinance and was not affected in the end by the proposed changes. They were applying
the laws that exist today not as is proposed in this new ordinance. | think that was your question.

President McCarthy

I’d like to ask Attorney Bolton to comment. My recollection after the amendments is there was no change in
the density that’s allowed in any of the zones. Is that correct?

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 15

Attorney Bolton

| think there may have been but not so that it would affect 122 Manchester Street. 122 Manchester Street will
only be affected by this new ordinance if that developer chooses to have this ordinance apply to it. Maybe he
or they would, but if they want to present their plan under the ordinance that exists as we speak, they have a
right to do that. They have started their process before this got introduced. | think it’s more correct to say that
that illustrated some of the potential problems that the original proposal was designed to clarify. Whether the
amended version makes things better or worse depends on your point of view | suppose.

Alderman Siegel

| do appreciate the idea of not having density blow up in the middle of our neighborhoods, but what concerns
me, and I’m just not clear on this which is why | am asking these questions, is whether or not a fundamental
right which was granted to a property owner to develop as they chose would be modified or taken away after
the commitment of potentially significant financial resources to realize that the development based on the laws
or the ordinances as they existed at the time. That! couldn’t? support because | don’t think that would be fair.
Again this has had so many twists and turns, I’m not sure where we are at if that has happened. | would
support this if we didn’t take away somebody’s rights.

President McCarthy

My understanding is that the Planning Department determined that because of the timing of the application that
site was not held to the provisions of the new ordinance.

Alderman Siegel

So everything is effectively grandfathered in until such point as something comes before after this is passed?

President McCarthy

Yes.

Attorney Bolton

Any application that’s been noticed of the Planning Board hearing has been published for is as you say
grandfathered. Anything the Planning Department doesn’t know about or the public doesn’t know about
because of that posting, is not grandfathered. If someone goes out and buys three acres in the middle of a
residential neighborhood and the city is not a party to that transaction, the expectation of that purchaser may
be frustrated or may not be frustrated by passage of some ordinance change. That would not be
grandfathered. You have to have a proposal, notice of which has been published.

Alderman Moriarty

I’m going to vote for this, but | support Alderman Deane’s decision to vote against it and he has a good reason
for it. His reasons make sense. One could say it was created to stop a certain development and that would be
a justifiable reason to vote against this. In the end what we have is no more restrictive than what was originally
there. There was a section that would have made things a little more restriction. That was eliminated. For
those of you who weren’t there to see Attorney Westgate, he did a great job of tutoring us all on land use
codes. If you vote for this, you’re not making the code significantly more restrictive one way or the other. Ina
bigger picture, in Concord they passed laws encouraging senior housing and making it easier to put higher
density units to take advantage of elderly housing which for politically correct reasons we changed it to housing
for older person. State law allows a developed landowner to put in high density units in a residential area that
normally wouldn’t support high density units, so | personally don’t like that idea at all. If you’re going to put ina
house, it should look like a house in the neighborhood. But I’m not in Concord and there’s nothing | can do
about it.

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 16

President McCarthy

There are a number of things in the ordinance that are simply technical corrections where the old ordinance
made reference to state rules that no longer exist and laws may have been changed. Primarily the wording in
this cleans that up.

Alderman Dowd

Also, Attorney Westgate represents several developers. They worked on compromising languages to get this
as clean as possible so it’s a win-win on the city and the developers. They can live with the ordinance as it is
before us this evening. | think working togheter with corporation counsel, they have come up with wording that
we should support.

Alderman Siegel

| do have respect for Attorney Westgate, having used himself. | am well aware of his capabilities. | do also
support the idea of limiting some density in neighborhoods. Now my concern is the definition that corporate
counsel gave us was notification via the planning board process. However, if somebody buys a piece of
property, the first thing they are going to do is they buy it with an assumption of what is possible, develop some
planning, some financing. They do something well before they get to the point where they are ready to have a
notice before the planning board. Again that represents a significant financial commitment. Is there some kind
of delay that we could put into this to allow for some sort of grandfathering in fairness or am | overthinking this?
Part of me also wants to understand if Alderman Deane has some valid objections, through you, Mr. President,
| would love to hear Alderman Deane’s objections if he would be willing to share them with us. I’m curious.

Alderman Deane

| look at legislation to be filed to address what we might see as issues, but the whole process of what went on,
and this is aimed directly at 122 Manchester Street, was just wrong. It was wrong. I’m sure down the road
we’re going to hear about it.

Alderman Schoneman

| was unable to attend some of the meetings where these things were discussed. | appreciate the insights that
folks are sharing tonight. | received a call from a constituent who had some concerns about this in an earlier
version and now believes their needs are addressed by it. Nevertheless, | share Alderman Deane’s deep
concern for this type of thing. We're going to talk about process a lot tonight. | think we need to be very, very
careful and not draft legislation that targets a particular activity or place. Whenever you do it is going to
perhaps interrupt someone’s development. | think occurrences is a little different than a specific driver, a
particular project that was a particular driver. So although | know there was work on this and can live with it
and | would prefer to give it my support on that basis, | feel | can’t base on the process. Thank you.

President McCarthy

Again, | want to point out that this legislation was not applied and does not apply to the development at 122
Manchester Street.

Alderman Lopez

The initial legislation was proposed months ago. There was no quick pass going on. There was some
concerns raised and that was one of the first things we discussed at committee. Is anybody in process right
now who is going to be held up by this. My interest was protecting the residential neighborhoods and keeping
the character of them, but also encouraging density in areas where density is a good thing. The process did
serve us. There must have been at least 8 editions that were proposed, if not more. It was a very much a
back and forth process, which can be confusing, but that was mostly because it was an open dialogue where

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 17

we were pretty transparent in what we were doing and what our reasoning was. Every line that was changed
had discussion and dialogue associated with it. Particularly, | was focused on making sure we clarified any
language that was referencing state laws that were no longer in effect. There’s one tiny application that | am
vaguely concerned where someone could take a larger building and decide in a unique circumstance they
could profit by offering less unit. That was described as very rare so it’s not really an objection that | have. |
can’t speak to what the intentions were when it was created, but | do know that the process ensured that it was
something that was in Nashua’s best interest.

Alderman Clemons

| was not going to support this right up to the very end for a lot of the same reasons that were discussed here
this evening. There was a paragraph, Paragraph B,3, which would have restricted these kind of developments
to non-residential areas which | thought would have been overly restricted. We went back to the original
language that was in the ordinance and is the reason why | am going to now support it because essentially it is
no more restrictive or less restrictive than it was before. It does update the language and gets it in line with the
current state law. For that reason, | will support it.

Alderman Cookson

| want to understand how this came to us. It is my understanding, and correct me if | am wrong, through you to
Attorney Bolton, my understanding is that Attorney Westgate forwarded to Corporation Counsel some
suggested verbiage or language with regard to this legislation.

Attorney Bolton

There was a lot of discussion between myself and Attorney Westgate. But! think he brought his suggestions
to the Planning & Economic Development Committee. | would say that would be more accurate than to say he
brought them to me.

Alderman Cookson

I’m sorry, | didn’t hear that last...

Attorney Bolton

| think it would be more accurate to say that Attorney Westgate brought his suggestions to the Planning &
Economic Development Committee initially. Thereafter, they may have been some discussions between he
and | about making sure that the amendments that the committee intended to make were carried out correctly
and no wording got changed or missed, etc.

Alderman Cookson
| think it was Mayor Donchess who indicated maybe it was in his opening comments that Attorney Westgate,

I’m not sure who said it, | don’t want to attribute, but what | heard was Attorney Westgate represents many of
the developers for these developments.

Attorney Bolton

He has represented some of the developers who have done this sort of project. | think it’s probably true that
there are some developers out there interested in doing other similar types of projects that he either does
represent or may represent in the future.

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 18
Alderman Cookson

How does this legislation benefit Attorney Westgate and his client over and beyond what the current legislation
would?

Attorney Bolton

Are you talking about the existing ordinance compared to what is before us tonight?
Alderman Cookson

Correct.

Attorney Bolton

| think what’s before us tonight probably makes it clear that they don’t have to build one of six or seven
designated types of facilities. Now it is basically any facility that is restricted to 55 and older or 62 and older
will qualify if there’s a certain level of facilities and services appropriate to the needs and desires of older
persons. Currently the existing ordinance provides some ambiguity as to whether the list is supposed to be all
inclusive or merely examples of the types of developments that would qualify. This clears up that ambiguity
and | would say it clears it up in favor of the developers. | think the current ordinance somewhat expands
where these types of developments can be located. Under every version that | know of, there was no
exclusion from the existing residential zones where it is allowed. If anyone was under some impression that it
was exclusively in business or industrial zones that was, to my knowledge, never in any version. That slight
expansion exists. Otherwise, | think it’s approximately the same. If you pass it tonight it is approximately the
same except as | have mentioned.

Alderman Cookson
There’s another development that | am aware of. As you take Chestnut south to its terminus. Between
Chestnut and Ash, Southern New Hampshire Services has built a facility there. Under this new proposed

ordinance, nothing would that change? That facility would still have every right and availability to build at that
location and provide the services that it provides?

Attorney Bolton

Any existing facility, any facility that has already obtained its approvals...

Alderman Cookson

If it were new, and it was just going before that process upstairs in the auditorium and it hadn’t been developed

yet. If Southern New Hampshire Services came in and said | want to build at this property between Chestnut
and Ash at the south end, nothing would change?

Attorney Bolton

Without having studied the full plan and that project was underway and going through planning board before |
occupied this chair,

Alderman Cookson

Understood.

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 19

Attorney Bolton

| don’t think this ordinance as being proposed to you this evening would alter their approval process at all.
Alderman Cookson

Thank you.

MOTION CARRIED

Ordinance O-16-020 declared duly adopted as amended.

O-17-029
Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
REGARDING SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS FOR A LOT WITH MULTIPLE PRINCIPAL
BUILDINGS
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT OF O-17-029
ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Cookson

How does the city planning board provide a favorable recommendation and the committee sees indefinite
postponement as the solution to this piece of legislation?

Alderman Clemons
| would have not have supported it. | felt it was too restricted. It was also pointed out by some people in the
public comment that it might make for some existing lots to be non-conforming and would present problems for

future development of those lots. In my opinion, it’s too restrictive. There could have been a lot of unintended
consequences so for that reason | will be supporting indefinite postponement.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
It came back from planning board with a favorable recommendation, but based on some input we received at
our next meeting during public comment and discussing it, as Alderman Clemons said, some of the items that

were brought before us were discussed and reconsidered. If seemed if something was going to be done we
should probably think it through again.

Alderman Moriarty

| voted against the indefinite postponement, and | am going to vote against indefinite postponement tonight
because | don’t mind the additional restrictions. | kind of want them.

MOTION CARRIED

Ordinance O-17-029 declared indefinitely postponed.

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 20

O-17-031
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Ben Clemons
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
RELATIVE TO THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM FUND AS A SEWER FUND
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-17-031
ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Schoneman

| distributed this evening a copy of a proposed amendment which actually was distributed by email yesterday.
The text of that proposed amendment is at the bottom of page two, and we'll get to that in just a moment. | want
to start with commenting on some of the public comment we heard tonight. Based on what we heard | think
there are a lot of issues with this proposed ordinance. The Spending Cap piece that | was most concerned with
is only a piece of it.

Public Works Commissioner Pappas spoke about shared employees. Apparently there are a number; she had
a long list of people who are shared, some portion of their salary is in one department, another portion is in this
fund that would be moved out. The percentages vary from % to full or whatever it was. There wasn't just a
couple of employees. It sounded like there was a lot. To me, | don’t see how we can have half an employee
outside the budget and half inside. What Mrs. Pappas pointed out, as | think as a possibility for future abuse, it
could happen, or future use, would be to start moving those percentages around in and out of the budget to
accomplish a savings in the budget to allow more spending and then transfer this outside. | don’t’ know that we
have a way to really account for the hours that are spent. My understanding is that there are some folks whose
time is not specifically shared in the budget but they perform duties inside. For instance, a wastewater
employee might possibly drive a plow truck for the city and plow city streets. | think that poses a problem. |
don’t’ want to see that potential abuse. Also, if we were to use that in the future, to move employees out or
move whatever else out into that other department because it’s still just a department as part of public works,
are we saving money in the budget and then forcing the sewer rate up higher and higher? It seems to me that
there’s that possibility. A possibility could exist. I’m very concerned about that. | think that’s a problem that we
have to take a very close look at.

Secondly, Mr. Teeboom talked about the AAA rating. | think that’s great that we got that AAA rating. One of the
things that he said, he quoted, he said spending is discipline, and the Spending Cap is strongly adhered to. A
strong discipline, strongly adhered to. Those are my notes, maybe that wasn’t his exact quote but we got our
AAA rating because we have a procedure in place for handling budget problems and we follow it. That’s what
they are saying. If we start playing with that, do we jeopardize our AAA rating? Maybe, maybe not. But if it
were known that we were doing things like this, and someone says we have a Spending Cap process that is
strictly adhered to and that our spending is disciplined. I’m not sure they would draw that conclusion.

We heard from a couple of other people. The third gentleman, | forgot his name, and from Mr. Sullivan. Both
spoke about the tax rate and about the effect that this can have. | think reasonable tax rates are usually seen
as reasonable by those who maybe aren’t paying them or aren’t’ paying the tax, aren’t paying the cost. We all
pay our tax rate. But if we are going to be doing spending, in my mind going outside of a process that rightly as
| said before has a higher threshold of ten votes, and as was pointed out by the speakers, are we really ending
up with a reasonable tax rate? | think the reasonable thing to do is to follow the process, have faith in the
process. | said before that although spending is very, very important, | think it is very important to Ward 3 tax

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 21

payers. There is a method, there’s a process for overriding the Cap. If we say that not adopting this is
tantamount to draconian cuts, | think that’s simply not true.

There are now significant issues with this. Apparently the city could be opening itself up for a serious loss and a
suit. It looks like, as another example, in the past we had numbered accounts for all these things that were
inside and outside and the numbers have been lost with time. We'll get to my amendment. | want to hear what
other folks have to say. This is very, very important. In the end, we may want to consider not making a motion
at this time. We may want to consider sending this back to committee to be a little more carefully vetted. We
spent one session on it. | think there are some very serious issues here that we need to address. Thank you.

Alderman Siegel

| Know we could have a very lengthy debate here. There was a lot of public comment. I'd love to address
some of it, but | really think that Alderman Schoneman has presented a possibility of an amendment before us
and has done it in a fairly time constraint fashion. | didn’t see this until yesterday. | think in order for us to vet
that properly, | don’t think this would be the correct forum to do that. | strongly would suggest that we send this
back to committee to have our colleague’s suggestions properly vetted in committee, not before the full Board
and that we don’t spend a lot of time here debating something only to send it back to committee where the
debate should actually happen.

President McCarthy

Is that a motion, Alderman Siegel?

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RE-REFER TO THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Dowd

| could be wrong, but | believe the same motion was made at the Budget Committee meeting and was rejected.

President McCarthy

| have seen these amendments for the first time in the last day, so | don’t believe we have taken them up at
budget.

Alderman Dowd

It was at least similar if not exact wording.

Alderman Siegel

There was some suggestion that this might be something to consider, but this is something that has actually
gone through the legal department which the other stuff had not. | think that’s a very important distinction. We
would be vetting something that’s already gone through the process of being properly vetted legally so we
could have a discussion about the merits rather than having to craft the legal definition.

Alderman Cookson

| was just going to lend my support and agree with Alderman Siegel. If we all read the minutes that we
accepted and approved this evening and placed on file, each one of us would know that the motion was
brought up. Attorney Bolton indicated that he was going to go back and work on the language. Apparently we
just received that language yesterday. So! wholeheartedly agree that we should send this back to committee
and have that discussion where it should be.

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 22

Alderman Moriarty

Just in case anybody who is paying attention gets the wrong idea and thinks that Alderman Schoneman was
late in submitting this request for this amendment, | can vouch for him that he made the request on the Monday
prior to the last meeting that was cancelled due to snow.

Alderman Cookson

The minutes are from February 27.

Alderman Moriarty

What I’m saying is I’m going to go ahead and support the motion but I’ve known about this amendment for a
long time because | was watching the exchanges and was part of the discussion like three weeks.

You guys only got it yesterday. The fact that it took three weeks to get here is not Alderman Schoneman’ s fault
is what | am trying to say. Okay? He made a request a long time ago to get this through. It just took an
unusual amount of time to get through legal.

MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance O-17-031 referred to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE
Alderman Schoneman

| just want to say that | did receive this from Attorney Clarke, and | want to thank the Legal Department for the
work that they did. | really appreciate it, and | think that having a formal process to work through is good.
Whatever the timing was, I’m glad we will have a chance to vet it further. Thank you very much.

Alderman Siegel

Now you understand why | said previously there might be something before the Board next week. The reason |
said that is we have a Budget Committee meeting on Monday.

President McCarthy

We have a budget meeting on Monday that is a hearing and at least two members of the Budget Committee will
not be here for that. | would actually prefer to hold this until the Chair and Vice Chair of the committee, at least
one of them, is present.

Alderman Dowd

As Chair of Budget, | will call a meeting of the Budget Committee two weeks from now.

Alderman Lopez

| observed that the legal department was probably really busy working on the amendments to the Planning &
Economic Development Committee legislation. Our process was to send it back and forth repeatedly. | feel this
is a discussion better had at the committee level.

O-17-034

Endorser: Alderman Ben Clemons

ADDING BADGER STREET TO THE OVERNIGHT ON-STREET PARKING PROGRAM
Given its second reading;