Search

Board of Aldermen — 8/8/17 Page 10

President McCarthy

According to the Charter yes.
Alderman Cookson

Are they able to currently maintain and keep up with that demand?

President McCarthy

Within the realm of the budget given to them by this Board yes.
Alderman Cookson

| think this Board has been generous with the amount of money that we’ve provided our Divisions and
Superintendents to maintain the city. | will take that response as probably not. We’re going to expend these
funds potentially in the future to build additional bike paths and sidewalks and yet we may not be able to
maintain the infrastructure the we newly develop or the infrastructure that we currently have. Thank you.

Alderman Siegel

I’d just like to point out that the balance in the trust fund is relatively small so whatever maintenance there
might be would probably be about 25 feet of trail at this point at least.

MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-17-109 declared duly adopted.

R-17-110
Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess
REPROGRAMMING ACTIVITY BALANCES AND REVISING FUNDING UNDER THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (“CDBG”) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018

Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-110
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-17-110 declared duly adopted.

R-17-111
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Sean M. McGuinness
Alderman Ken Siegel
AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF NASHUA TO AMEND THE LEASE FOR THE HERITAGE RAIL TRAIL
COMMUNITY GARDEN
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LOPEZ FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-111
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-17-111 declared duly adopted.

Board of Aldermen — 8/8/17 Page 11

R-17-112
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
Alderwoman Lori Wilshire
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman Michael O’Brien
APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE NASHUA PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND THE NASHUA PUBLIC LIBRARY
EMPLOYEES, AFT, FPE, LOCAL #4831 FROM JULY 1, 2017 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2020 AND
RELATED TRANSFERS
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-112
ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Schoneman

The note here on the agenda says the Budget Review Committee recommends final passage. I’m on that
committee and | was absent for that vote because of a concurrent meeting down the hall that | was required to
attend for a quorum down there. | didn’t have a chance to weigh in at that meeting. I’d just like to speak on it
here just very briefly. Our library is great. | think that the employees that we have there do a wonderful job. |
cannot support this however solely because | just don’t think we have the money at this time. While I’d like to
give as much as possible to employees to reward their hard work, to incentivize them, to continue with the
work that they do and while again I’m very grateful for it. | just think that the city right now doesn’t have it and
I’m afraid | cannot support that for that reason. Thank you.

MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-17-112 declared duly adopted.

R-17-113
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
Alderman Lori Wilshire
Alderman Benjamin Clemons
Alderman Michael O’Brien
Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman Richard Dowd
RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $36,000 FROM DEPARTMENT 194 “CONTINGENCY”,
ACCOUNT 70100 “GENERAL CONTINGENCY”, TO DEPARTMENT 101 “MAYOR” ACCOUNT
683434 “OTHER EXPENSES ACQUISITION COSTS” FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERING INTO
A FORTHCOMING OPTION AGREEMENT FOR 201 MAIN STREET
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-113

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Schoneman

Again this was at the Budget Committee and | did have the chance to speak there. | think that the question

about what to do about an arts center on Main Street is going to require a lot of debate, a lot of analysis. |
have some grave reservations about its applicability to that particular location and thoughts perhaps about

Board of Aldermen — 8/8/17 Page 12

might better go into that space. Nevertheless in the committee | support the $36,000 to keep the option open
at least to transfer the funds at this time. | support it now for the same reason. | think that the analysis
deserves a fair hearing and if we’re going to have it be meaningful, | think the option needs to remain open.
Again | have grave reservations about the project but | think that giving ourselves the time to analyze it
thoroughly would be a good idea. Thank you.

Alderman Deane
Roll call on this one Mr. President.
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Dowd, alderman Caron, Alderman Siegel,
Alderman Schoneman, Alderman McGuinness, Alderman O’Brien,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy 9

Nay: Alderman Deane, Alderman Cookson, Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty 4
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-17-113 declared duly adopted.

R-17-114
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
APPROVING A THIRD AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NEW CINGULAR
WIRELESS RELATIVE TO ITS CELLULAR ANTENNA SITE AT MINE FALLS PARK

Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-114
ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Cookson

Just briefly. | just wanted to let the Board know if they didn’t get the opportunity to review the Finance meeting
minutes which I’m sure they all did, there was discussion about the fact that this is the third of four. We should
be seeing another resolution come before us with the last tenant of the old pole moving to the newer pole that
was built by the New Cingular Wireless. With that being said, | believe that Attorney Bolton indicated that the
last tenant of the old pole their lease runs out in 2023 is that correct Attorney Bolton?

Attorney Bolton

| believe that’s right.
Alderman Cookson

So 2023. So that’s in another six years that we’re going to have two poles erected within feet of one another
when we ourselves have an ordinance that says we won't have two poles within a mile of one another. When |
posed that question to Attorney Bolton, the response was well we’re not going to do anything against
ourselves. That being said, we’ve got an ordinance that says we will not have two poles. | think this is a great
opportunity to persuade the last tenant of the pole to move their equipment knowing what our existing
ordinances are. With that being said, | think we should do everything in our power to get the last tenant moved
off of that pole so that we can deconstruct it and only have one pole within Mine Falls. Thank you.

MOTION CARRIED

Board of Aldermen — 8/8/17 Page 13
Resolution R-17-114 declared duly adopted.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS — ORDINANCES

O-17-036
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
AMENDING THE ACCESSORY DWELLING ORDINANCE
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO AMEND O-17-036 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH
THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Moriarty

| followed this. | was on the committee and it was hard to follow. In general, my perspective of this so people
buy houses. When they buy the house they move into a neighborhood based on what they see is in there
when they move in and you have code that restricts or guides how houses are supposed to be put together,
frontage, maximum size, etc., etc. My concern is just what bothers me inherently about this accessory dwelling
ordinance it already sort of lives in the code anyway for the most part. The fact that someone can buy a house
based on what they saw conforming and then some years later can get a special exception to sort of zoning in
order to do something. So somebody up in Concord was legislating in favoritism and creating this thing called
“accessory dwelling” ordinance or created a law which allowed Nashua to put together accessory dwelling
units which is on the books. So what is this thing doing? From what | can tell, it is slightly more restrictive
than what’s already on the books. It’s not a huge difference. It’s slightly more restrictive. Since I’m against the
whole concept of the accessory dwelling favoritism in the first place, I’m going to vote for this because it’s
slightly more restrictive than what’s on the books | think. Thank you.

MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-17-036 AS AMENDED

ON THE QEUSTION

Alderman Dowd

| sort of have a problem with B. 5 where the owner of the property must occupy for at least five years. The
thing that concerns me if the owner of the property sells the accessory dwelling, you end up with two rentals
instead of an actual residence? That would concern me because now you're over time changing the zoning
and you end up with two houses on the same lot with two different people. I’m just concerned about that. My

feeling is that the owner of that property ought to have to reside on that property. What they do with the
accessory unit is subject to the new law.

President McCarthy
You can’t wind up with separate ownership. It’s still a single parcel that’s in single ownership.
Alderman Dowd

The person that owns the property can sell it but the person buying the property has to occupy.

Board of Aldermen — 8/8/17 Page 14

President McCarthy

That is correct.
Alderman Dowd

| just want to be clear that the ordinance states that. Can | get confirmation from Corporation Counsel that that
is in fact the way it reads.

Attorney Bolton

Well it cannot be in separate ownership. | cannot have it converted into a condex, separate condominium
units. So it has to be in single ownership. This provides that for a period of five years the owner has to reside
as their principle place of residence either in the primary or the accessory unit. After five years, that condition
no longer applies.

Alderman Dowd

In essence somebody could own the property and lease both the main part and the accessory to separate
people.

President McCarthy

No. They have to live in one of them.
Alderman Dowd

So after five years...

President McCarthy

If the Board would indulge me for a minute to talk about the background of the legislation. There is a problem
that we’re going to have address that I’m going to take up with Attorney Bolton at some point. The legislator
changed it to State level was to simply allow accessory dwelling units by right in virtually every zone. We are
allowed to put some restrictions on that which is what this legislation does. One of them is the ownership
issue. There’s an issue there that was brought up by Alderman Clemons in the committee which is why the
ownership requirement is five years. There’s competing issues here of we don’t want somebody to move into
a house, flip it, put an ADU in it, and then flip the whole thing and make it a rental property. We want to avoid
the case where let’s say an elderly person living in Nashua has a single family home, their children live in
another city, and go to the trouble of building an accessory dwelling unit for the parent to move into so they can
continue to live in Nashua and rent out the big part of the house, and the parents shortly thereafter pass away.
We now have the problem of that child is now faced with marketing a property that they can’t market the way it
is on its face without moving into it because of the restrictions in our zoning code. We have that problem from
day one which is the one | think we’re going to need to address. | think that the State legislation fails to
address that and we may actually have to talk to the legislator about it at some point. What the committee
decided to do was put the restriction on for five years as a boundary between those two competing interests.

Alderman Dowd
My understanding the Planning Department sent a recommendation to strike that paragraph.

President McCarthy

The Planning Board recommended that we remove the five years and make it just continuous ownership. The
committee did not vote to do that.

Board of Aldermen — 8/8/17 Page 15

Alderman Moriarty

And at that committee meeting, | didn’t do a good job of explaining what | was trying to convey about this issue
of the five years that if someone owns a property and decides to make use of a special privilege that this
ordinance allows and create this dwelling unit, the it’s my belief that that person should be obligated to take on
the responsibility of whatever obligations come with that special privilege. The problem is is that if someone
inherits the property, they’ve inherited property that gained value due to a special privilege that was taken
advantage of. So | don’t have a problem with that person having to deal with the fact that they have to
maintain the obligation of living in that property or selling it to somebody who’s willing to live in the property.

So it’s tricky. President McCarthy did a good job explaining the pros and cons but | voted in favor of making it
forever so the owner has to live in that property forever that way we never have the problem of it turning into a
dual rental.

Alderman Siegel

While I’m sympathetic to Alderman Moriarty’s arguments and | agree that there’s a special privilege, | think the
problem is if somebody dies and they have relatives that are way out of State, it implies that they have to move
from their location where they have family, jobs to live in a structure just for the purposes of disposing it for an
estate sale. | don’t know how to resolve that.

Alderman Moriarty

One option is for them to just sell the property. If they already live out of State and they don’t want to move to
New Hampshire, well then they’re not going to move in it anyway. So what they’re forced to do is instead of
renting it out and keeping it forever, they’re forced to sell the property. Particularly that’s what this provision
would say.

Alderman Siegel

As | read this and correct me if I’m wrong, this ordinance would prevent that from happening. Am | wrong?

President McCarthy

Whoever bought it would have to live in it.

Alderman Siegel

For five years?

Alderman Moriarty

For five years. As it currently is amended, that requirement only last five years. So if the extension is made,
the owner lives there, unfortunately passes away six years later, then there’s no longer the obligation for the
people who inherit the house to do anything. They can just rent it out as it’s currently written. The way it is on
the books right now whoever inherits it has to either move in or sell it to someone who is willing to move in.
Complicated.

Alderman Deane

Do we have an influx of issues pertaining to this type of activity?

President McCarthy

We don’t’ but the State law has not taken affect yet. It goes into effect next week thereabouts. Soon.

Board of Aldermen — 8/8/17 Page 16
Attorney Bolton

The problem is it is more expansive. It doesn’t wait for us.

Alderman Deane

What's the driver behind this? Something created this. A situation created this legislation.

President McCarthy

There was a movement to push the State legislature to do things to allow for more affordable housing in the
State of New Hampshire which resulted in the legislation that was passed.

Alderman Deane

That’s the drive in this resolution?

President McCarthy

Yes. | believe this was under the category of a workforce housing initiative.

Alderman Schoneman

Then a question. | think Attorney Bolton answered it already but just to be clear. In the absence of having this
legislation in Nashua, whatever the State law says will be allowed in Nashua in the next two weeks or so when

it takes effect. This is more restrictive. It protects Nashua a little bit in the face of what some might say is
onerous legislation out of Concord.

President McCarthy

This ordinance puts some ownership restriction on it which would not be there without it. It puts a size
restriction on the accessory dwelling units that would be much larger without it. Those may be the only two
substantial restrictions.

Attorney Bolton
Attached, detached.

President McCarthy

It makes it have to be attached yes.

Alderman Lopez

| think we obviously a shortage of affordable housing here in Nashua. | think the State took a step towards
creating a way for property owners to address that which | appreciate. Personally, | like the idea of owner

occupied dwellings where the landlord is physically present, | physically overseeing and taking care of the

property. So I’m in favor of this.

Alderman Dowd
My concern isn’t what’s going to happen right away. After some of these are built and we're five years

downstream if the person doesn’t have to live there, somebody could buy it and have two different tenants on
the property which is to me basically doubling the occupancy of lots. | guess one of my questions is can we

Board of Aldermen — 8/8/17 Page 17

amend this in the next five years to come up with something that’s a little more restricted or a little more
defined. If not, | can’t support this.

President McCarthy

Well let me address that in two points backwards. If we don’t do this, then a complete free for all happens
instead because anybody can put an accessory dwelling unit on that is larger and there is no restriction that
requires them to live in the house at all. Basically anybody can convert one of our single family homes into a
two family rental property as soon as the ordinance takes effect. To go back to it, yes we can put a restriction
on it if accessory dwelling units are added. In the meantime, they will likely only be subject to the five year
restriction that’s in this ordinance because they’d be grandfathered in that regard. It is my intention to try to
readdress that problem after we have done something to put a logical framework in place to do it with the
accessory dwelling unit legislation.

Alderman Schoneman

Just one other question and again maybe the answer is obvious. Does our ability to restrict through legislation
like this extend to our ability to say no we don’t them at all?

President McCarthy

No it does not.

Alderman Wilshire

| agree. | think I’m going to support this just because it gives us at least the five years but I’m hoping we
continue to look at this and make changes because | think this is really going to explode. | think people are

already looking at it. Already looking to add these accessory dwelling units to their properties and | think there
will be quite a few.

Attorney Bolton

At the risk of turning this into a planning committee meeting, one possible alternative that might deal with the
concerns you express is that if the owner is not living there to require one of the units to remain vacant. Then if
you have someone die either within a five year period if you’re going to include that five year period or
whenever, the people who inherit can just leave that unit vacant until they’re able to sell to someone who can
meet the restrictions.

Alderman Deane

That’s a wonderful amendment. | could always look at that this was going to be the sticking points.

Alderman Deane

Would it be possible Mr. President to make that amendment?

President McCarthy

We could. It will take a while to do it. | would actually prefer to introduce it as a new piece of legislation at our
next meeting.

Alderman Deane

| will co-sponsor that.

Board of Aldermen — 8/8/17 Page 18
MOTION CARRIED

Ordinance O-17-036 declared duly adopted as amended.

NEW BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-17-115
Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess
ESTABLISHING POLLING TIMES FOR THE MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7,
2017 AND ISSUING PRECEPTS TO THE SELECTMEN OF THE CITY WARDS

Given its first reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR
THE SECOND READING OF R-17-115
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-17-115 given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-115
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-17-115 declared duly adopted.

R-17-116
Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Lori Wilshire
Alderman Richard Dowd
Alderman Michael O’Brien
Alderman-at-Large Brian McCarthy
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE
AMOUNT OF TWENTY-EIGHT MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($28,500,000) FOR
WORK ON PHASE ONE OF THE CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY LOCATED
ON BURKE STREET AND THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
Given its first reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD TO ACCEPT THE FIRST READING OF R-17-116 BY ROLL CALL,
ASSIGN IT TO THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, AND
THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2017, AT 7:00 PM IN THE
ALDERMANIC CHAMBER

A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Ald. Wilshire, Ald. Deane, Ald. Cookson, Ald. Dowd,

Ald. Caron, Ald. Siegel, Ald. Schoneman, Ald. McGuinness

Ald. LeBrun, Ald. O’Brien, Ald. Lopez, Ald. McCarthy 12
Nay: Ald. Moriarty 1

MOTION CARRIED

Board of Aldermen — 8/8/17 Page 19

R-17-117
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman Thomas Lopez
RELATIVE TO THE USE OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FUNDS FOR 22 MARSHALL STREET
Given its first reading; assigned to the HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President McCarthy

R-17-118
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman Richard Dowd
Alderman June Caron
Alderman Michael O’Brien
Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderman Lori Wilshire
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF A $2,900,000 LEAD-BASED PAINT
HAZARD CONTROL GRANT FROM THE US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
Given its first reading; assigned to the HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President McCarthy

R-17-119
Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
Alderman Michael O’Brien
Alderman Lori Wilshire
Alderman Richard Dowd
Alderman June Caron
RELATIVE TO A BALLOT REFERENDUM TO ALLOW KENO WITHIN THE CITY OF NASHUA
Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President
McCarthy

R-17-120
Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Richard Dowd
Alderman Michael O’Brien
Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Brian McCarthy
Alderman Lori Wilshire
RELATIVE TO AN AGREEMENT FOR COUNSEL SERVICES CONCERNING POTENTIAL OPIOID
LITIGATION
Given its first reading; assigned to the FINANCE COMMITTEE by President McCarthy

R-17-121

Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess

RELATIVE TO THE RE-APPROPRIATION OF FISCAL YEAR FY2018 ESCROWS
Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President McCarthy