Aldermen, Board of

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Monday, December 23, 2013, at 7:30 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. President Brian S. McCarthy presided; City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron recorded. Prayer was offered by City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron; Alderman Lori Wilshire led in the Pledge to the Flag. The roll call was taken with 14 members of the Board of Aldermen present; Alderman Melizzi-Golja was recorded absent. Her Honor Mayor Donnalee Lozeau and Corporation Counsel Stephen M. Bennett were also in attendance. REMARKS BY THE MAYOR Thank you, yes, Mr. President. I would begin this evening by thanking both Mr. Robert Earley and Mr. Daniel Gagnon for their willingness to serve as members of the Board of Assessors. They are on your agenda this evening hopefully for confirmation. As you can imagine, finding somebody that can put in the time and have a good understanding of the city and properties and things like that is not necessarily an easy task and I’m very grateful that they’re willing to serve. I would send out sympathies tonight to the family of Peter Cote. I know some of you in here served with him as I did. Peter, years ago was an alderman, he was a state representative for a time, he was very diligent on the county board as well and he was somebody that was a veteran but he was somebody that also really gave back to the community. He was very interested, engaged, dedicated, had no problem speaking his mind, and stayed involved to the bitter end. When I didn’t see him at the Veteran’s Day Parade this year, I thought something might be amiss and I just wanted to thank his family for sharing him with his country, his state, and his city for such a long time. And, I know this is a particularly heartbreaking time to lose somebody that you love. And, then on a more positive note, Mr. President, I’d like to just take a moment to recognize some of my colleagues here that are leaving the Board. I’m going to recognize you in order of years of service – I was trying to figure out how to do this – so, three of you tied for eight years of service, so the three of you are in alphabetical order. The rest, however… I would begin with Alderman Craffey, thanking him as the Ward 4 Alderman from 2010 – 2013 in sincere gratitude for your public service to our community. If I could give that to you… Alderman Vitale, you come in at six years on the Board of Aldermen but that doesn’t include your time on the Zoning Board, so you’ve certainly given us a little bit of extra time and the same would be to Katherine D. Vitale, Ward 1 Alderman, 2004 – 2005, 2010 – 2013, Zoning Board of Adjustment, 2008 – 2009, also in sincere gratitude for your public service to our community. And then, Mr. President, for those of you with eight years of service, we have Alderman Mark Cookson, Ward 1 Alderman 2006 – 2009, Alderman-at-Large, 2010 – 2013, also in sincere gratitude and Alderman Barbara Pressly, At-Large Alderman, 1986 – 1989, 2010 – 2013. And then, also eight years, Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko, Ward 5 Alderman, 2006 – 2013, and again in sincere gratitude for your public service to our community and, in particular, my Ward Alderman. Now each of the members have been handed in that frame, a very old linen post card of City Hall. It’s just a small token but a thank you for your time. And then, you can’t end a meeting like today without saying Merry Christmas to my colleagues and to our citizens that are celebrating Christmas and I am hopeful that everybody has all the best in the New Year to come. With that, Mr. President, thank you for your kind attention this evening. Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 2 RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR – None RECOGNITION PERIOD – None READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE THAT THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF DECEMBER 10, 2013 AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF DECEMBER 17, 2013, BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON FILE AND THE READINGS SUSPENDED MOTION CARRIED COMMUNICATIONS From: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Re: Millyard Chimney  Tabled 8/13/13 MOTION BY ALDERMAN TABACSKO THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS BE READ BY TITLE ONLY MOTION CARRIED From: Paul Garant Re: Ordinance O-13-64 MOTION BY ALDERMAN TABACSKO TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING Doris Hohensee, 15 Swart Terrace I am here to talk about the multi-lane roundabout. I don’t understand why we need it. We have four lanes, two of which are unencumbered. Rotaries are dangerous and the construction is going to be a nightmare. It’s bad enough now getting across there. There’s no gain for Nashua, even if they change the light on the other side because it’s already maximized. The two existing lanes are unencumbered - two lanes have a red light. You can’t get over the bridge any faster with a roundabout. It’s not free money – federal money is not free. There are federal taxpayers, there are people who get federal money for different entitlements so, if you waste it and squander it on this the money won’t be there for something that is needed. I am hoping you can hold it and just say no. Dennis Guilbert, 12 Shady Lane I am here to speak in favor with regard to R-13-058 to remove the parking meters on Quincy Street. I have spoken a few times on it and my thoughts are the same. We saw some of the figures at the Infrastructure Meeting and if I have the figures correctly, they took in $405.39 from October 4 th through November 27th. The meters are there Monday through Friday from 8:00am – 6:00pm, 10 hours per day. Each meter should be taking in $5.00 per day. There are sixteen meters there – they should be bringing in $80.00 per day or for the mentioned 39 days $3,120.00. It shows that the meters are being used 13 percent of the time. The meters are vacant on that street eight and one half of the ten hours. These meters were just installed in October. How desperate is the city for money? You are going to cause hardship. The only thing that meters do is drive people away. I am hoping you pull the meters out. Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 3 Paul Garant, 163 Harris Road The availability of individuals with handicaps to park as close as possible to their destination is extremely important. Eliminating that provision, which permits individuals with handicapped placards or plates to use non-handicapped parking spaces on our city streets, lots, and garages without having to pay is a valuable benefit. Eliminating this benefit would create a hardship on our handicapped citizens. However, placing a limit on the time that an individual can encumber in a non-handicapped space would not, in my opinion, place any additional hardship on handicapped individuals. Doubling the time permitted would provide sufficient time for most to accomplish their business. It appears that the nexus of this legislation is related to several individuals who work downtown and have either a handicapped placard or plate and are utilizing this benefit as a means to work around established ordinances. I don’t believe legislation is the best way to solve what is somewhat a cultural or entitlement condition. I would urge whether this ordinance is approved or indefinitely postponed, that the parking enforcement identify the individuals and establish a dialogue with these individuals and their employers to seek alternate solutions. Michelle Plante, 5 Pierce Street We are here on behalf of the request for a handicapped spot for my mother on 5 Pierce Street. She is 82 years old and handicapped. There is only one entrance into her house. She wears “Lifeline” and the last time she used it, they had to close down the entire street in order to get to her. We are requesting a handicapped spot in front of her house. Beth Scher, 111 E. Hobart Street I am here about the stop sign at the intersection of Clinton and Dudley. There is a bus route going through that intersection and there were near accidents twice over the summer. Once was when I was going through the intersection on my bike and once I saw a couple of buses going through it right after a box truck had sped through it. It’s a very hazardous area and the stop signs would make it a lot safer. Rich Lannan, 7D Taggart Drive I would like to speak on two different things. One is the parking meters on Quincy Street. I am the Vice Chair of the Downtown Improvement Committee. We feel strongly as a committee when we mapped out the Downtown District, that Quincy Street is part of it. We looked at the residential implications and we feel there are not any because they do have plenty of off-street parking. I don’t think we are going to lose a ton of revenue if we pull the meters out. First of all, there’s going to be a cost to pull all of those meters out that we just put in. Secondly, what’s the next street going to say – well, gee, we have a burden on our street too. I fear that as a committee, we are going to keep on seeing those requests come in. Every street has a different feeling. We looked at the zone very carefully and we feel that Quincy Street meters are warranted. As far as the handicapped parking, I was not able to attend the Infrastructure Meeting, however, I believe Marylou Blaisdell, Chair of our committee was able to attend. Even though I don’t believe there is a full recommendation coming to this Board, we as a committee are unanimously in favor regarding the recommendations that were made within the minutes of the meeting about doubling the allotted time. As a committee, we are fine with all of the suggestions that were made. The last speaker, who is handicapped, addressed the committee and I urge you to read his letter. Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 4 Dave Wendt, 4 Melissa Drive The first thing I would like to speak about is the petition by Hayden Green. I think that the petition is probably valid at this point in time but, I think that to protect the city from having school buses stopping by and picking up a large number of children – the city should set up an escrow account whereby Hayden Green pays how much that would be assessed and if it has been five years and there’s nobody being picked up – we give him back 50 percent. If it is ten years after there has been nobody picked up, we give all the money back to Hayden Green. As long as they comply, as they said they were going to, there shouldn’t be any problem on their behalf for paying into an escrow account and have it sent up so that they are given “X” percent back each period of time. The second thing I want to talk about is the roundabout. I was present at one of the meetings of the Public Works and one of the gentlemen there pointed out that if the traffic gets backed up, what’s going to happen to the roundabout. How is a roundabout going to function when the traffic is backed up? I drive through this intersection about once a day and if you go there at 7:30 a.m., you are going to wait a half hour because of the school buses. If you wanted to fix this thing, the first thing you do is not to allow any buses to go across that intersection, the second thing you do is to not allow trains. I don’t think we can do that but speak with the train operators so that they are not going through there at that time. Those two things will solve most of the problem. It’s not the bridge that’s causing the problems, it’s the school buses and it’s the trains. When they go through there, it’s a nightmare. Brad Westgate, 111 Concord Street I am a lawyer at Winer & Bennett, and I represent North Concord Properties, LLC the developer of Hayden Green. Last month, we filed a petition with the Board of Alderman for a full waiver of the School Impact Fees as they pertain to the Hayden Green Development. The petition if filed pursuant to §190-85 of the Land/Use Code, which authorized this Board to waive School Impact Fees in certain cases. In this particular case, under §190-85, a waiver of the School Impact Fees is in order if a proposed Elderly Housing Development can reasonably be expected not to require to additional educational facilities. In effect, this section of the Land/Use Code implements one of the states’ statutes concerning the Planning Ordinances that allow impact fees and in effect, impact fees need to reflect a proportionate share of the Capital Improvements that the city may require as a result of that particular development. When a development is not imposed a particular capital need, the Impact Fee is not to be imposed. Your §190- 85 allows the Board of Alderman to recognize that situation. Last month I appeared before the Planning Board. The Planning Board granted a favorable recommendation to this petition as did the Planning Staff and Administrative Officer. It was approved by the Planning Board as a 55 and over community – thus an Elderly Housing Community. It will consist of up to eighty five units, thirty seven of which are individual units, and forty eight of which would be in a multi-unit building. When we filed the petition, we submitted data from an independent study that was undertaken by a Planning Consultant regarding a variety of other 55 and over communities in Nashua and in the surrounding communities. We also had our own experience with a community called Summerfield of Amherst. Between that study and the units at Summerfield, there were approximately 850 units surveyed, there were twelve school aged children in this entire batch of 850 units. If you take that experience and that ratio and apply it to Hayden Green, the expectation would be one school aged child. One school aged child does not impose requirements for Capital Improvements to the educational facilities of the city. One other element to note is that under the Land/Use Code in Nashua, elderly housing for 55 and over units can only contain 1,000 square feet of habitable space so the very design of units in such a community does not lend itself to a family population or school aged children. With that background, we would respectfully request that the full waiver be granted. On another note, we coupled in our petition, a request for the return of the fees that have been paid to date. As of November, 2013, $5,456 had been paid. Since then there has been a few additional closings so $6,944 has been paid to date, which we would request be returned. Just so the Board is aware, the fees are imposed at the rate of $496 per unit. Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 5 David Swanson, 9 South Loudon Drive I am here to talk to you tonight with regard to the parking meters on Quincy Street and to ask you to remove those parking meters as soon as possible. I feel that they are causing an extreme burden on the people that live and work in that area, which has only been multiplied by the wintery conditions. Other reasons for removal include that they are located two blocks back from Main Street with no real turnover of cars, a reason to have meters. There are multiple homes on that street. The meters may force people further into their neighborhood in search of non-metered parking. The small amount of change derived from the few meters, in my opinion, isn’t worth the collection and maintenance of those meters. This is especially so during the winter months when machinery and hand shoveling may be needed to clear a way to the meters. Since the installation of the meters, the street seems barely used for parking. You have the ability to remove those meters and I would appreciate it if you would do so as quickly as possible. PETITIONS Hayden Green Condominium (Sheet 51, Lot 8) - Petition for Waiver of School Impact Fees MOTION BY ALDERMAN TABACSKO TO GRANT THE PETITION FOR WAIVER OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEES AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO REFUND NORTH CONCORD STREET PROPERTIES, LCC FOR ALL PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPACT FEES PAID TO DATE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SALE OF ANY UNITS AT HAYDEN GREEN CONDOMINIUM ON THE QUESTION Alderman Pressly I just wanted to announce that I will be voting against this and it will be mostly a policy and a token vote. This is Parcel F. As I think many of you may, this never should have been developed and the fact that it is even being requested indicates to me that the developer is extremely insensitive to public sediment and is out of touch with the neighborhood. I will be voting against this. Alderman Sheehan I too am going to be voting against this and I would urge my fellow Board members to do the same. In looking at the reports that they gave us with the figures of 55 plus housing and students in it – I suggest that it is selectively chosen. I know that in Smithfield Terrace on Hills Ferry and there are lots of children that live there that go to Charlotte Avenue and Pennichuck. It didn’t start out that way but it happens and this is a very high class level school in the city. This would also go to that school. We already have the highest classroom sizes in the city and we are asking to put more in. If we looked at all of them and got a little bit more truthful information, I might have felt more comfortable with it but I know of at least five children that live there. It doesn’t seem to hold true in every 55 plus development. Secondly, there was a bidding war to get these units. I know people who have bid on them and were outbid that have children. I don’t agree that we need this to make it marketable or that it isn’t going to have an impact because I think it does. I think each time we add these developments and we are waiving these fees – small amounts of money are making a big difference in class sizes and I don’t think saying they don’t need to pay in is the right message. I’ve gotten a lot of phone calls on this as well, which surprised because it’s not a lot of money – I think it’s the principle. I’m not supporting it. Alderman Vitale If it goes outside the scope of what the allotment is, don’t they have to go back and pay the impact fees at that time? If more of the units become units with children, don’t we have to back and reflect it in that way? Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 6 Chairman McCarthy I don’t believe that we have any control over that after this is done. However, the covenants on the properties themselves preclude families with children essentially from living there. I will comment that on every other 55 and over community that has been approved since the impact fees went into place, we have granted the waiver. Alderman Vitale That’s what I thought. This is a topic for discussion every so often and not granting it is maybe not the place to start but if we have true concerns over the collection of Impact Fees that would go into the city budget then we should be looking our zoning laws at the Planning Board level and not at this moment. Chairman McCarthy I would also point out that the fees do not go to the city budget. They go to a special account to offset construction costs for Capital Expansion and they are not spent within six years, they have to be returned. Alderman Donchess I believe that we should deny the petition and except the money from Hayden Green for our schools. I am also skeptical that we’ll only have one child there based upon the experience we already have in Nashua from the 55 and up communities. Even in those communities only 80 percent of the units have to have one person or one parent who is 55 and over. I think that the idea that we will have no school children in there is unrealistic. Secondly, the basis of public education is that everybody pays even those many people in our community who don’t have kids in school. That’s how universal public education works. Everyone pays because of the importance of providing education to the next generation. Finally, I would ask the Board to consider…let’s say this was not a 55 plus community, still 80 percent of the people would not have children. If this were a typical non-55 plus community, still the vast majority of people would not have children in school and would be paying Impact Fees. It only differs slightly from a regular condo development. Given the fact that most condo developments pay the Impact Fees, I feel we should require that this development to pay the Impact Fees and should deny the petition. Alderman Deane The Impact Fees are only to be used for capital improvements to increase the size of the facility. The operations and maintenance of the school district services that are provided are through property taxes which will be generated off of these structures that currently sit in there. So, the Impact Fee money goes into an account and it has to be used for capital improvements expansion of a facility in order to accommodate the increase of students. To the best of anyone’s knowledge, have we ever had to do that? Chairman McCarthy We have used the Impact Fees we have collected in the past to pay for the expansion of the high schools. Alderman Deane Other than when the high school was split, have the Impact Fees ever been used for expansion? Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 7 Chairman McCarthy I can’t answer that authoritatively, but I don’t believe that we have. Alderman Deane After a six year period if the funds aren’t utilized they are returned back to where they came. Chairman McCarthy Correct. Alderman Chasse Are those fees used just for the school that would be affected by the children or any school? Chairman McCarthy They are supposed to be used for facilities for which there is a rationale nexus to the development. You can expand the local elementary school you can expand the associated middle school, and the high schools. You can’t expand and elementary school across town unless that’s intended to go along with re-districting to move capacity to make up for the development that is underway. Alderman Chasse I expect a roll call on this. Alderman Wilshire I have to agree with Alderman Vitale that this issue should be taken up with Land/Use Boards and not with this Board. The petition that is before us tonight is not different from other petitions we have passed. Why would we single out this development? I don’t see how we ca not accept this petition tonight. Alderman Dowd I agree with Alderman Wilshire. I would lean towards not going with giving them relief but where we have approved it for all the others that have come in before them, and their seems to be no unique criteria that I have heard from anyone so far that would make them an exception, I do think that if we have a concern with this Impact Fee in the way that it’s structured, that ought to be taken up separately to address the law itself and not try to address that on a particular case. Every time you do that, you tend to end up in court. I am perplexed at not being able to allow it. Alderman Moriarty At the Joints Special School Building Committee meeting which we just held there was a sheet that I got for $9 million for renovations to the Broad Street School. As we know, Elm Street School, a lot of the students are taking classes in temporary classrooms…we need to expand some of our schools. Whether or not we haven’t done it in the past is irrelevant. The fact is that we need the funds and we need to expand. We need to stop granting waivers now because we need to expand the schools. If the community wants to encourage development of low income housing or senior housing, or better yet, low income senior housing, then it would sort of make sense for us to consider granting a waiver because we want to encourage that type of development. I haven’t heard anybody in the community down at the south end that wants to encourage this development so I am going to go ahead and encourage you to not grant the waiver. Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 8 Alderman Tabacsko I am going to vote in support of this and I would just point out that at $496 x 85 units is $42,000 grand total impact one way or the other. I don’t think that is going to build us very much in terms of expanding a particular school building and I think the past precedent of granting this exact waiver to other similar condo associations puts us in the position where we really don’t have an option but to grant this tonight. A viva voce roll call vote was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Ald. Wilshire, Ald. Dowd, Ald. Caron, Ald. Tabacsko, Ald. Deane, Ald. Vitale, Ald. Cookson, Ald. McCarthy 8 Nay: Ald. Chasse, Ald. Moriarty, Ald. Donchess, Ald. Sheehan, Ald. Craffey, Ald. Pressly 6 MOTION CARRIED NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS – None REPORTS OF COMMITTEE Finance Committee............................................................................. 12/18/13 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the December 18, 2013 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Committee on Infrastructure .............................................................. 12/05/13 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the December 5, 2013 Committee on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file. Committee on Infrastructure .............................................................. 12/11/13 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the December 11, 2013 Committee on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file. Human Affairs Committee ................................................................... 12/16/13 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the December 16, 2013 Human Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file. Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee ....................................... 12/18/13 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the December 18, 2013 Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file. Planning & Economic Development Committee ................................. 12/17/13 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the December 17, 2013 Planning & Economic Development Committee accepted and placed on file. WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS – None Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 9 CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS Board of Assessors MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS TO THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS FOR AN INDEFINITE TERM AT THE PLEASURE OF THE MAYOR: ROBERT EARLEY, 113 SHORE DRIVE, NASHUA, AND DANIEL GAGNON, 46 INDIAN ROCK ROAD, NASHUA MOTION CARRIED President McCarthy declared Robert Earley and Daniel Gagnon duly appointed to the Board of Assessors for an indefinite term at the pleasure of the Mayor. The Oath of Office was administered by Corporation Counsel. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-13-129 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman June M. Caron Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman Daniel T. Moriarty APPROVING A NEW LOCATION FOR THE DAVID W. DEANE SKATE PARK  Amended & Tabled – 9/10/13 R-13-150 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF AN EASEMENT TO SEGTEL, INC., D/B/A FIRST- LIGHT FIBER, FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF OVERHEAD FIBER OPTIC CABLE Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-13-150 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Moriarty I think I might have been the sole no vote on the Infrastructure Committee; I can’t remember for sure. I voted no then because I was hoping that we would put a little bit of effort into trying to get some rent or at least some money out of this easement and we didn’t. MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-13-150 declared duly adopted. Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 10 R-13-154 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A TRANSPORTATION PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A MULTI- LANE ROUNDABOUT REPLACING THE EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION WHERE EAST HOLLIS STREET AND CANAL STREET MEET BRIDGE STREET AND TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $3,661,000 FOR THE PROJECT Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN TABACSKO FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-13-154 Alderman Cookson Roll call. Alderman Moriarty I wish there was a way to redirect these funds; $3.6 million to spend to put in a rotary down there on Bridge Street is not on the top of my list. But I can’t from here vote no and redirect those funds somehow. I wish I knew how to. At the very worse it will put people to work in Nashua, hopefully. A viva voce roll call vote was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Ald. Wilshire, Ald. Dowd, Ald. Moriarty, Ald. Donchess, Ald. Tabacsko, Ald. Sheehan, Ald. Deane, Ald. Vitale, Ald. Craffey Ald. Pressly, Ald. McCarthy 11 Nay: Ald. Chasse, Ald. Caron, Ald. Cookson 3 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-13-154 declared duly adopted. R-13-155 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman June M. Caron CHANGING THE NAME OF POISSON AVENUE TO ADVENTURE WAY Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON TO AMEND R-13-155 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 11 Alderman Caron When the fire department looked at this, they asked that we start the numbers on the street with 100 or greater because of the other Ventura Way that starts with number one. They asked that the numbers start with 100. The owners of the business out there had no problem with that. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-13-155 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane I will vote against this for the sake of it is part of the heritage of the city. Alderman Chasse I am going to vote against it too because I have sentimental value regarding it. I traveled Poisson Avenue for sixteen years. It used to be the road that went all the way down to the river and that’s why they called it Poisson Avenue – which is “fish” in English. Alderman Tabacsko I am going to vote in favor. I think the business down there has done a tremendous job of investing in the community and developed a nice business that has created a lot of economic development opportunity elsewhere in the city as well. I think that if there’s a way this could be helpful to their on- going business efforts, I think we should support it. Alderman Caron I do understand the sentiment behind the this and before I agreed to the legislation, I did ask the Mayor that same question Alderman Deane about former Alderman LaRose and how he would feel about that and she assured me that this would not be a problem. That business has brought in a lot of business for the city. Some people didn’t know that Poisson means “fish” but I think it’s an important thing to do for the business that owns most of the property down there. Alderman Moriarty At any point, did we consider naming it “Fish Avenue?” It would be a compromise. Chairman McCarthy Some would contend that it was named Fish Avenue. MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-13-155 declared duly adopted as amended. Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 12 UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-13-58 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Alderman-at-Large James Donchess RESCINDING THE AUTHORIZATION FOR PARKING METERS ON QUINCY STREET Given its third reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-13-58 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Tabacsko I will be voting against this for the same reasons I had mentioned the last time it came up. As the liaison to the Downtown Improvements Committee, I think it’s important that the boundaries in the district be left intact and I think that backing into this like this is the wrong way to address the definition of the district. I am going to ask for a roll call vote. Alderman Chasse I know that Alderman Sheehan was out there on a particular day at 10:00am and there were no cars there. On the same day, I was there at noon time and there were no cars on Quincy Street. The following day was a Saturday and at noon time, there was one car parked behind the Postal Service. I will be supporting this ordinance. Alderman Sheehan While I appreciate what Mr. Lannan had to offer, I would just counter that this is the Post Office that had made it look like a highly trafficked and heavily used road that was behaving like it was downtown. Where they are not subject to coming in for Variances or Zoning Determinations, they have been able to over occupy that building and they have used that street for parking and the residents are able to use it as well but we are looking at somebody who is a different sort of animal than other streets. I think there are much higher revenue locations that will have a constant turnover such as Railroad Square. I will be supporting this as well. A viva voce roll call vote was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Ald. Wilshire, Ald. Dowd, Ald. Chasse Ald. Caron, Ald. Moriarty, Ald. Donchess, Ald. Sheehan, Ald. Deane, Ald. Vitale, Ald. Craffey Ald. Cookson, Ald. Pressly 12 Nay: Ald. Tabacsko, Ald. McCarthy 2 MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-13-58 declared duly adopted. Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 13 O-13-61 Endorser: Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. ESTABLISHING A HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE IN FRONT OF 5 PIERCE STREET Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN CRAFFEY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-13-61 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Craffey This house is located next to a business and the occupant of 5 Pierce Street has multiple appointments that she must go to every week. I have visited the location and there is no driveway for her to park her car. Because there is a business next to her home, there are times she has to park a block or two away. She is wheelchair dependent so this makes it very difficult for her. Her daughter, son, and I made a speech at the Infrastructure Committee Meeting. This will be the only handicapped parking spot on the street. I would ask my fellow colleagues to approve this. MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-13-61 declared duly adopted. O-13-62 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. AMENDMENTS TO THE OVERNIGHT ON-STREET PARKING PILOT PROGRAM Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS TO AMEND O-13-62 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess We passed the Overnight Parking Ordinance a couple of months ago and the original version of O-13-62 was a series of amendments to address some technical issues that people had raised – the Police Department – specifically. The Golden Rod copy includes one additional amendment. I’ll go through all the changes. First of all, the ordinance makes it clear even though it was intended originally that you can’t park in the Overnight Parking Zone in the permitted spaces unless you have a permit between the hours of 12:00 a.m. & 6:00 a.m. Secondly, it makes it clear that you need to park within the designated spaces, and if you do not, that is illegal. Third, there was no on-street parking on Buck Street, there was a technical problem because that meant that the way the ordinance was written that the residents of Buck Street could not park in the permitted spaces which were right around the corner. This makes it clear that the residents of Buck Street can participate in the program. Additionally, a few of the funeral homes on Kinsley Street had contacted Alderman Cookson to say that they felt having people there at 6:00 a.m. would work to their disadvantage. We had identified for the Traffic Safety Committee 600 parking spaces and we are only permitting 400 so it didn’t seem to be a problem in eliminating the spaces for a couple of blocks on Kinsley Street to help out the funeral homes. A gentleman had approached the committee and identified a problem which was that the way it was written, there could be an issue if you had a leased vehicle - if you leased a car or if your employer owned the vehicle that you drove on a regular basis. We added some language that takes care of that situation. Those are the changes that are incorporated within the golden road copy. Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 14 MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-13-62 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Chasse I will not be supporting this. You call it a Pilot Program and I have lived in Nashua long enough to know that there was parking all over the city. There are very few houses downtown that have a driveway for one vehicle and in this day of age, most people have two vehicles. A gentleman got a ticket on Sawyer Street because he left his car out there overnight. You have singled out just the “Tree Streets” for this Pilot Program. It’s not fair to the rest of the inner city. I won’t be supporting it. A dump sticker is $5.00 and this will cost $10.00. I know that I will be getting phone calls from people in my ward saying how come Ward 4 is getting a special Pilot Program. Alderman Donchess I agree with many of the points that Alderman Chasse made. What we are proposing here is simply some technical amendments to legislation that has already passed so defeating this would not accomplish any of Alderman Chasse’s objectives. I disagree with the comment that this would be appropriate for Ward 6. I disagree with the comment that on-street parking has been prohibited since the 1930’s. The legislation goes so far back that the definition of a vehicle was identified as a horse drawn carriage. A city wide lifting of the prohibition of on-street parking was defeated in a previous session of the Board. There were questions raised regarding the impacts that this would have. It was focused on the area of the city that needs it the most. The point was to try this for one year and assuming it’s successful, we continue it the designated streets but that we also consider extending it to other neighborhoods. I do have to leave the meeting early to attend a family gathering. I would like to thank all of the people that made this ordinance possible. MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-13-62 declared duly adopted as amended. O-13-64 Endorser: Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko ESTABLISHING HANDICAPPED PARKING TIME LIMITS Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN TABACSKO TO AMEND O-13-64 TO CHANGE THE TIME LIMIT TO BE DOUBLE THE POSTED LIMIT IN EACH OF THE ZONES. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN TABACSKO FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-13-64 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Tabacsko The one point I wanted to make is that this is taking nothing away; it is only enhancing the current situation. It addressed the issue of turnover which is the real issue. I would ask for everyone’s support. Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 15 Alderman Moriarty I disagree strongly with Alderman Tabacsko. I do not feel this is an enhancement to what we currently have. Just to be clear, this particular ordinance most definitely is the addition of a restriction. Currently, if you do not pass this, if you have a handicapped placard, you can park anywhere in the city for free for as long as you want. Commissioner Grant wrote a nice memo and I agree with all of his points but what he wrote did not specifically address the reason why this was brought to us. The reason this was brought to us has nothing to do with the general public parking too long. It has to do with allegations of specific individuals parking in front of their own business with a handicapped placard all day long. This is a mechanism to stop those people. Whether or not these people are abusing the handicapped placard system or not is not up to us to decide. I don’t want to get in the middle of a battle of people on Main Street. Commissioner Grant suggested they talk to the alleged individuals. Don’t add a restriction to the handicapped population. I have no problem with people who are truly handicapped parking in front of their place of business all day long. Alderman Tabacsko Just to be clear, the legislation is intended to address turnover. The legislation was not directed at any one individual. The ADA allows the municipality to enact time limits. We had to enact legislation – the question is how long the time limits should be. Alderman Craffey I am going to vote no on this because I don’t think you should impose restrictions. If you impose one, when will it stop? I don’t think due diligence was done. They did not seek input from the local community. Commissioner Grant’s input was just submitted today. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea but it needs to be studied further. I think it should be taken up in the next term. I think you need to speak to the local handicapped community and find out what they think. We represent Nashua not the people in Concord. I have a handicap and you need to understand that some of these handicap vans that have ramps make it take even longer for people to finish their business and now you want to punish them. I agree that there are some people that are beating the system but that is not everyone. I think you need to speak to people in the Nashua community as well as other organizations before you make a decision. Alderman Sheehan I am on the Infrastructure Committee and I didn’t get the feel there was a no vote, it seemed kind of deadlocked so we moved it out. When this initially came up to me, I was not in support of it. The first I heard of it was when I was with Alderman Wilshire and Alderman Pressly at the Police Department discussing changes to the Downtown Parking Plan. The police wanted us to address it so it was something that has come up from different angles. I have spoken with a few people who are mobility impaired and they told me that doubling the time limit was a good way of increasing the turnover. I will be supporting this. Alderman Pressly I think this may be premature. I would like to see two things happen before final approval. First, to reject it tonight and it can be re-introduced in another month. There has not been a lot of publicity about this and I think that would be important to the public – particularly the handicapped public. The group that has not been involved in solving any of the issues regarding the turnover on Main Street is the landlords. I think they may be able to play some role in determining where their tenants park. I do know of one landlord in the city that includes “there is to be no parking on Main Street” in his lease. Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 16 Alderman Tabacsko I think the worst thing in the world would be to delay it. We have heard from one of the bigger landlords who was fully in support of this. I think we have gone around and around on this. I hope we don’t fall prey to this – well, let’s just push it off for the next Board to handle. I would like to see this voted on tonight one way or another. I would like to request a roll call. Alderman Craffey I don’t think we have gone around and around on this. It just came before the Infrastructure Committee last week which resulted in a no recommendation vote. Tonight we approved an amendment to double the time limit. It seems to me like we are trying to push it through and I think we should ear on the side of cautioned. This can be re-filed. I think other groups need to be involved. Alderman Cookson I think it’s important to go back and look at the original suggestion that came from the Downtown Improvement Committee. If you park in Zone 1, you get an extra 30 minutes – a total of 120 minutes. In Zone 2, there is no extra time. Alderman Tabacsko didn’t want that version and I don’t blame him because it’s not appropriate. Alderman Tabascko suggested that we double the time limit and we did have that conversation at Infrastructure. Most of the committee believed that was a more appropriate solution. The other half of that conversation was do we know the issue enough to be able to make a recommendation and the answer to that question was no and that it would be up to the full Board to vote on it. With that said, there is still more work to be done to better understand what the true issue is. If only a few people are abusing the privilege of a placard then Commissioner Grant is correct in that we should not be using legislation to fight this problem. I don’t think it’s a widespread problem. The Parking Enforcement Officers did request that something be done because right now there is nothing that can be done to enforce it. We are going to have a new Board in less than fifteen days. It would behoove this Board and the next to do their due diligence on this. I think the right thing to do is to let this die with an indefinite postponement and let the next Board take it up. There are two solutions – one is a legislative where you double the time limit which we as a committee thought was a fair one but we didn’t move forward with that because we didn’t fully understand the entire aspect of the issue. Alderman Chasse I think both sides have good comments. It came out of committee with no recommendation and that tells me there’s more work to be done. MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO TABLE O-13-64 MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-13-64 declared duly adopted. O-13-65 Endorser: Alderman Richard A. Dowd AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING TWO TRACTS NORTHEAST OF AMHERST STREET FROM PARK INDUSTRIAL (PI) TO GENERAL BUSINESS (GB) Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-13-65 ON THE QUESTION Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 17 Alderman Dowd This involved two parcels of land on Amherst Street. Through the years, almost all the lots on Amherst Street have been changed to allow Commercial Business instead of Industrial. I am not sure why we haven’t addressed the whole street at once but I am going to look into that. These two lots already get taxed as commercial and the Planning Department has asked us to do this by ordinance rather than by a variance. About 90 percent of all the parcels on Amherst Street have already been changed to Commercial Business. MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-13-65 declared duly adopted. O-13-66 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. PROHIBITING PARKING IN THE MIDDLE OF CUL-DE-SACS Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY TO AMEND O-13-66 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Moriarty After a thorough discussion and analyses with the Infrastructure Committee, we all wanted to ban parking in the middle of the cul-de-sac on Whipple Street without it affecting the entire city. The amendment is to add the words “at the north end of Whipple Street.” I would add that it means the actual middle of the cul-de-sac. Alderman Dowd Just so people know, Whipple Street is paved in the middle. Alderman Craffey The middle says no parking. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-13-66 AS AMENDED MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-13-66 declared duly adopted as amended. O-13-67 Endorsers: Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Diane Sheehan AUTHORIZING STOP SIGNS ON DUDLEY STREET AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH LINTON STREET Given its second reading; Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 18 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON TO AMEND O-13-67 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Caron We spoke on this at Infrastructure and there was some debate as to whether to put the stop sign on Linton Street or Dudley Street and we decided it would reflect as being put on Dudley Street. Everyone was happy because that was the original intent of the neighbors. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-13-67 AS AMENDED MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-13-67 declared duly adopted as amended. NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS - None NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-13-68 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau CHANGING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE INCREASE IN SEWER USE FEES RATES AND CHARGES Given its first reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE SECOND READING OF O-13-68 MOTION CARRIED Resolution O-13-68 given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-13-68 MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-13-68 declared duly adopted. PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Doris Hohensee, 15 Swart Terrace I come to you with a problem - it’s about First Amendment rights. There was a rally last Thursday at Library Hill and the first thing we did when we were planning this rally was to ask everyone we knew what the protocols were. As far as we knew, there were no permits needed. We talked to the Mayor’s Office, Risk Management, and the Clerk’s Office. There is an ordinance, O-285-9 that states a permit is required for obstructing. This required us to get a permit for conditions to be deemed safe and proper. It doesn’t say that we had to have liability insurance which we absolutely could not find. The insurance agencies we contacted refused to insure this type of an event. It was impossible to get the liability insurance in order to get the permit. I called the Mayor’s office multiple times to ask her to intercede because I did not want the people on the sidewalk to be arrested. The permit to encumber says its permission to be on the street or right-of-way, it doesn’t say sidewalk anywhere in this. I am submitting to the Mayor a request for the Right-to-Know. We have a right to free speech and I think this Board needs to enable the Mayor provide another mechanism or revisit what you have got. The group hired Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 19 two off-duty police officers from the Nashua Police Department to make it safe and proper. We got no guidance from the Mayor. Doug Lasito, 10 Buck Street I disagree with the roundabout. It is definitely not needed there. You don’t have any idea what driving down that road is like. I can guarantee you that you are going to have accidents there and if it is my wife, I am coming back for an explanation. Thank you for approving the overnight parking. I have three kids and I can’t park on my street overnight. The City of Nashua requires us to park on Elm Street which is over a mile away. We didn’t realize we couldn’t park on the street. Hopefully other streets will be able to do it next year. REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN Chairman McCarthy Several of our colleagues will not be re-joining us next term. We would like to provide our outgoing members with a small token of appreciation. Presented to Barbara Pressly on December 23, 2013. In grateful recognition of your service to the City of Nashua. Alderman-at-Large 1986-1989 and 2010-2013. Your commitment and dedication have been greatly appreciated. Presented to Alderman Cookson for his four years of service as Ward 1 Alderman and four years as an Alderman-at-Large. Presented to Alderman Craffey for his four years of service as the Ward 4 Alderman. Presented to Alderman Vitale for her service as Ward 1 Alderman from 2004-2005 and from 2010-2013. Presented to Alderman Tabacsko for his eight years of service as Ward 5 Alderman. I wish Happy Birthdays to Alderman Deane and Alderman Vitale. I wish you all the happiest of holidays. Alderman Pressly This Board passed R-13-113 regarding a sun canopy for the Roby Park Playground. I am pleased to announce that we have come up with a nice plan. It’s a health issue for the kids. The difference is 30 degrees under a canopy. Alderman Caron and Alderman Melizzi-Golja will take over the project. Alderman Cookson I wanted to say thank you to the citizens, it’s been an honor and a privilege to represent you over the past eight years. Alderman Craffey It has been a pleasure to serve and I wish the current Board and the future Board all the best of luck. Alderman Vitale I would like to thank all of the constituents from Ward 1. I’d also like to thank the members of the Board that I have served with. Alderman Deane I’d like to present this expression of thanks to Chairman McCarthy – President – Board of Alderman – 2010-2013. I read today that the soup kitchen got another donation of $60,000 and they are fast approaching their $2 million mark. Board of Alderman - 12/23/13 Page 20 Alderman Sheehan Thank you to those who are leaving. Alderman Tabacsko I want to thank the citizens and constituents from Ward 5, it’s been an honor to serve for the past eight years. I also wish Alderman Elect Soucy the best of luck. Alderman Caron I’d like to thank Alderman Chasse and The Club National for the fundraiser we had last weekend. We are hoping to do it again but have it at the senior center so more of our elderly citizens can attend. Alderman Chasse I wish everyone a safe and happy holiday season and I wish everyone well. Alderman Dowd I’d like wish the Alderman that are leaving well and it’s been a pleasure serving with you. Alderman Wilshire I’d like to thank you, Mr. President, for all of the years you have served. My best wishes to all. Committee announcements: The Finance Committee will meet one more time before the new Board. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN CRAFFEY THAT THE DECEMBER 23, 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:27p.m. Attest: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk