Board of Aldermen 03-08-2022 Page 3
this is just the first of several items that come forth to help mitigate the problems that may arise with the increase in traffic.
Thank you.
Brad Westgate, Esquire
Good evening Madam President and members of the Board. My name is Brad Westgate. I’m a lawyer at Winer &
Bennett, 111 Concord Street, Nashua. Here to speak on the Petition filed by Elizabeth Lu relative to building permit
authorization for a vacant lot at 19 Roby Street. Ms. Lu and her husband Matthew Plante are here as well. They live at
17 Roby Street. 19 Roby Street as | mentioned is a vacant lot. They would like to build a single family home and related
retaining wall and other improvements on 19 Roby Street. They would have to go through a number of processes to have
the permits necessary to do so. They have been before the Zoning and Planning Board for a number of permits already,
but are before this Board because of a Petition | filed on their behalf on January 31.
There is a State Statute that requires the governing body of a municipality to authorize the issuance of building permits
when the property doesn’t have frontage on a city accepted street and that’s the case here. This end of Roby Street was
never built out and accepted by the city, of course, most of Roby Street was. It was laid out on a plan many, many years
ago — 1916 actually. What happens is that when 20 years pass after the laying out of the street and the city doesn’t
accept it, the law at the time provided that that street effectively reverted to private access only. So this Statute requires
this Board in this particular case to authorize the issuance of building permits if they’re able to pursue getting the
necessary building permits for the project. You’re action doesn’t actually generate the permit, they still have to go through
the normal Building Department channels for that process.
Earlier this evening just before the meeting started, | had passed out, and | think all of the members of the Board received
it, wo sheets of paper. One was a proposed motion that | had edited from the motion that Miss Graham had sent out with
your packets earlier today and the second page of that sheet is the edits that | actually did to that motion. The reason
essentially for the edits was that Adam Pouliot, the Fire Marshal, had met with Mr. Plante yesterday or the last day or so
he’s been communicating with Mr. Plante and also with Miss Graham and Matt Sullivan, Planning Director, regarding his
initial letter of February 22 commenting on his thoughts relative to access. Because of his meeting with Mr. Plante and
further review of the matter, he came to the conclusion - that is Mr. Pouliot - that the access as provided in the plans that’s
made by Hayner Swanson for this project would be satisfactory.
Because the original motion tied into his letter of February 22, which had some specific recommendations regarding
access, given that those have now really changed, | suggested the motion for approval be modified to rather than tying
into his February 22 letter and instead reference just generally that the requirements for the Fire Marshal be satisfied in
connection with the issuance of the permit. Thank you Madam Chairman. We respectfully request that the motion be
granted and we respect your time.
Laurie Ortolano
Laurie Ortolano, 41 Berkeley Street. | am here to speak about R-22-008 the Expendable Trust Fund for 14 Court Street. |
am not in support of this and feel that we should be looking at another way to address Court Street and | would hope that
the Board would think a little about this. There is an existing resolution that was passed in 2011 - R-11-160 which is sent
up to establish an Expendable Trust Fund and has been funded for renovations, repairs, and maintenance for various city
buildings. So I’m wonder why R-11-160 is not being utilized.
The other thing is that Laura Colquhoun is going to dial in and talk to you about the special revenue fund that’s used by
the Hunt Building. | think you have a lot more transparency when you put a building like 14 Court Street into that special
revenue fund. Now personally 14 Court Street is a white elephant. It’s a money pit and | think the only reason why we
maintain that old building is that the central fire station emergency call lines come in from the north and south into that
building and | don’t know if that can be moved. That's the significance of that building. There are call lines there and so if
that’s not the case, Alderman O’Brien can clear that up but there is some significance with the Fire Department in that
building and the rest of the building is so expensive to maintain. You know the communication by the Administration when
they spoke to the Board last week when they said they hoped this would become self-sufficient. | think what should have
been said is “most likely it will never be”. That hasn’t been a self-sufficient facility probably in 50 years and | don’t think
you’re gonna get it there. | think Peacock Players and other places that are utilizing those theaters you should look for
spaces downtown that you can move those places to and not operate that building anymore.
We were not told accurate information last year about the roof cost. It was budgeted for $750,000 and ended up being
$250,000. Money ended up being shifted over there. | think there was a total lack of transparency in what went on with
that building and | don’t want to create an avenue that allows that to exist so use the existing resolution if you want or pay
