Good evening.

I'd like to call to order the April 15th, 2026 meeting of the City of Nashua Planning Board.

First item on the agenda, roll call.

Sam, oh, sure.

Mayor Doncius.

Michael Peterson.

Bob Bollinger.

Here.

Adam Barley.

Cameron Green.

Mary Hirsch.

Here.

Benjamin Zoller?

Here.

Paul Roman Morgan?

Yeah.

Alderman Clee.

Engineer Hudson.

Here.

Maggie Harper.

All right.

We have quorum.

Next item on the agenda, approval of minutes from the April 2nd, 2026 meeting.

Is any member of the board had an opportunity to review those minutes is willing to make a recommendation?

Mr.

Hirsch.

Move to approve the minutes as written.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Hirsch.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Zoller.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Abstentions?

Motion passes one abstention.

Next item on the agenda.

Communications.

Sam, anything come in links since we posted online?

Okay.

Excellent.

Next, report of chair, committee, and liaison.

I've got nothing.

Larry, anything to report out this evening?

All right.

Very good.

All right.

We do not see anyone in the audience besides staff.

Is there anyone on Zoom?

We are not.

There's no Zoom this evening.

Okay.

I will stipulate for the record of new business conditional use applications.

Both cases have been continued, uh postponed or tabled rather till May 7th under new business site plans.

All cases have been tabled or postponed previously to May 7th, 2026.

So moving along under other business review of tentative agenda.

Or not Mr.

Hudson.

Alright, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Hudson.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Zoller.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Next item on the agenda, Board Alderman referral, R-26-019 relative to authorizing the purchase of 14 Mulberry Street.

Yeah, happy to.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thanks, everyone, for making time this evening.

Appreciate it, particularly with nice weather outside.

I'm the community development director for the city.

Uh here on behalf of R2619.

I did just leave a just to orient you a an overall GIS visual and a picture of the site in question on your desks in front of you.

If you're trying to orient yourself, looking particularly at the overhead view, um, if you think of the yell the abandoned yellow building on Mulberry Street that's really close to us that you may drive by uh on occasion, um that's actually the building, the large building in the upper right-hand corner.

The city is looking to acquire as a 14 Mulberry Street, which is the area in red.

It's currently a multi-family property uh directly to the south of that yellow building.

I'll also point out on this overhead that 18 Mulberry is the white topped building to the bottom left.

That's actually the city's public health department uh in close proximity to uh the site we're looking to acquire it, of course, City Hall.

Uh again, the city is looking to acquire 14 Mulberry Street for a purchase price as defined within the legislation before you this evening, and that is for $730,000.

The reason that we're doing that, and the reason that this request is on such a short timeline is if you may or may not be aware, over the last couple of years, the city has worked diligently to provide a winter overnight warming station at the Elm Street Middle School for unhoused individuals.

We have a homeless census in the city of Nashua of anywhere between really 50 and 200 individuals at any given time.

And we worked back two years ago to actually establish a place in the winter where folks could stay overnight using the Elm Street Middle School and really, again, stay warm during our coldest winter temperatures.

We've been tremendously successful with that.

I can say that over the last year particularly, we've seen about 50 individual individuals regularly using that warming station at Elm Street Middle School.

But through doing that, we've realized another need, and that is the need to establish something during the daytime during the warmer months as well, that allows folks who are unhoused to get services provided to them and gives them also a space to do laundry, take showers, do other essential things that we all, I don't want to say take for granted, but that we all have access to that others may not.

And so the public health department has worked over the last two years to build the scope for what we're referring to as a an overnight rather a resource and transitional housing center.

The city has been looking really over the last year at several properties in the downtown area to fill this need.

Admittedly, our first contemplation of this resource center was a new construction.

It was a ground up new development.

We looked at several sites in the downtown core with access to services, really couldn't find anything that was a good fit.

Ultimately, we ended up looking at several properties that were more commercial in nature and trying to sign a lease to actually establish this resource center use.

I'll say that at the same time we began having a conversation about whether or not the resource center use and that warming station use that we had actually been doing for several years could coexist in the same space.

So that conversation was starting.

Admittedly, uh in late 2025 and 2026, as we were looking for space to do these functions as a city, we sort of hit a roadblock.

We couldn't find a space.

We had inquired seriously about one property that was on the market.

Um we started to hear a lot of frustration and concern from the board of Alderman, very legitimately so, because we have a lot of folks outside with a lot of need that need to be provided for.

Shockingly to us, and the reason this is moving so quickly, is in March, late March of 2026, a property came on the market, 14 Mulberry Street, and it seemed to fit many of our needs, albeit not being a ground up construction.

In fact, this would be a renovation of an existing uh an existing facility or existing building.

14 Mulberry is about a 3,000 square foot structure overall.

It's a three-unit multifamily building.

But we believe that with some level of renovation, this will actually meet the needs for again, not only that warming station for cold winter nights, but also for that resource center where folks can get services during the day.

What the aldermen are going to hear just a little bit later tonight at 7 o'clock, so again, I appreciate you meeting, is that we're also planning to offer a few units of transitional housing within this structure as well.

So we don't know exactly how the building is going to be split up, but it's going to serve those three functions warming station, resource center, and a few units of transitional housing.

It'll be sort of temporary stabilizing housing for individuals that may be experiencing homelessness.

All of those uses are going to take place on this property.

Again, the asking price here is $730,000.

You'll find if you look at the assessing data that the current assessed value is about $540,000.

That's not uh, although that looks like a $200,000 delta between the purchase price and what the assessed value is, frankly, that's not uncommon in current market conditions.

And so we're fairly confident that this asking price is proper for the property.

Your charge as a planning board is always sort of interesting when it qu it comes to the acquisition of land.

Manager Durfee and I were kind of talking about this this week.

I think there are a few tests, and this is me speaking.

You can decide to look at it however you wish in doing your recommendation, but I think there's a question of whether or not the a given property has strategic value to the city.

I think there's a question of whether or not a given acquisition was contemplated by the Capital Improvements Plan, which in fact this was both in the 2025 and the 2026 plan.

And of course, I think there's a question of whether or not the land use is acceptable.

And certainly this area is defined by multifamily residential uses, higher occupancy residential uses, and some service businesses as well.

And so it's my position at least that the use of 14 Mulberry is in line with the master plan, the zoning code more generally.

I will just note that there's an outstanding question as to whether or not transitional housing units are allowed by the zoning ordinance as they're contemplated here.

So I just want to be clear that if you choose to recommend the city purchase this to tonight, if we learn later that a variance is necessary, we will have to go pursue that.

You're in no way saying this meets all zoning requirements.

You're simply saying, does purchase of this property make sense strategically for this use?

I'll stop my comments there, Mr.

Chair, but I will just say uh this project received a score of uh 82 out of 82 out of 125 points or a 3.42 out of 5 as part of the 2027 CIP.

The reason it's it received a lower score is because in fact the project had a low readiness score because we did not have a site selected.

We now have a site.

I'm not suggesting it would have received a significantly higher score, but we're in a very different position than when that project was presented to the CIC and ranked in the CIP.

Uh with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that I can try to.

I will just say I can't speak to the operational details of how all of this is going to work.

That's more a public health question if I'm being totally honest.

Uh but I'll either try to answer those questions or get back to you as a follow-up to this meeting tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

Um I guess does the city have the funds?

Have the funds already been programmed?

Excellent question, Mr.

Chair.

Uh the funding is actually being considered this evening at the Board of Alderman.

Um what's before the board is specifically the purchase.

Uh, what the board is going to hear this tonight as well, though, the Board of Alderman, I should say, is that to renovate the structure is going to be in the upwards of anywhere from three to four point five million dollars.

Those monies have not been secured.

That's subject to another vote and further consideration by the board.

Uh, but the 730 we're hoping will be authorized this evening by the board of aldermen.

Okay, thank you.

You thank you, Matt.

You actually answered my second question.

Um the next question um is is the the unit presently occupied, either partially or fully, and and I guess I'm trying to again it's it may be outside the purview of this board, but I'm trying to figure out timeline.

Are there existing leases that are well, I think I've led you far enough, so I'll let you answer.

Yeah, no, great, great question.

And this is something that's come up in front of the board as well.

Um the good or bad news is that it's going to take us time to actually renovate this structure to a point where it can be used for those three uses that I mentioned.

So we have we won't be able to provide the services quickly, but what it means is that we have time to work with the tenants to try to get them rehoused.

And the commitment that's that's been made at the Board of Aldermen is that we are going to work to get these folks placed in new housing.

Um some of them are on month-to-month leases.

I believe one is a longer term lease of the units in there.

We are it sounds political, but we are entirely committed to the fact that we cannot displace these individuals in order to establish this use.

That would be frankly uh pretty ironic, to be honest.

Um, and so we're going to try and define them units that they can move into prior to any work being done or them being displaced.

All right.

Thank you.

Um I'll like to open it up to the board.

Larry, go right ahead.

Yeah.

Yeah, and Matt, I've got a little concern about this.

Sure.

The quote the total cost of the project, then it's gonna be in the three million dollar range.

Yeah.

We put an awful lot of money for the square footage you're talking about.

Yeah, so Mr.

Chair, if I'm not sure, has anyone done a study of any sort to really or any sort of planning to figure out what because in addition to taking three units off the market, you're gonna lose the taxes also on the building.

Yeah.

It seems like a and you're dealing with a building which may not be physically uh appropriate for what you want to do.

It's an older building, I'm sure it's got it's got a fair amount of inefficiencies built into it, just with hallways and the usual for apartments, and what yeah, but for three million dollars, you can I guess tear it down and build a new building, uh, if that's what you have in mind.

I don't know.

I'm just kind of wondering, it seems to be like an awful lot of money for what you're getting.

Yeah.

Mr.

Chair, if I may respond to to Larry.

Yep, please.

Larry, those are all very, frankly, very good questions.

Um I will tell you that we've done the analysis of whether a new build would would save us money, and the answer is is likely no.

Um it's it's close, but the demolition and the time associated with new construction are so impactful that uh those have a cost associated with them.

The time has a cost associated with it that we are not willing to take on.

But back to your question, it's a really good one.

Why are those costs so high?

As you just said, this is an old multifamily residential building.

Its systems are old, they are sized for residential uses.

At this moment, we cannot even fully speak to the adequacy of things like the sewer service, the electrical service, the gas meter.

We've done a preliminary review of the property, but we've waived many of the contingencies that would customarily be associated with a property like this.

So the what the alderman hear tonight is that it's really between three and four point five million dollars.

That it could be on the low end of those rent that range as we get into the building and we just discover that some of the systems are in a better place than what I just said.

But in the event that we need to upgrade to full commercial plumbing throughout the structure, we need to install new accessible restrooms to your to your point, an accessible ramp, we need to do some structural work.

That that four 4.5 area is sort of the top end of what we think it it it could cost to get in there and establish all three of those uses right away.

Um but back to your question, we we could choose to find either find a property and wait and deploy a bond and construct new.

Our concern is finding a property.

We could instead choose to purchase this property, demolish after moving the people out, and then build new.

But our my concern, I guess I should say, is that that timeline could be 18 months.

Rather than here, we're talking about a timeline more between six and nine months using an existing structure.

And I think it's my position, at least, and possibly the position of others that that nine months to six months is critical timing where we need to be in there.

Does that answer your question, Larry?

I want to make sure it does.

I I hear what you're saying.

My problem is, and I understand what you're saying.

Sure.

My problem is you're talking basically for 3,000 foot of efficient space, which is not gonna be efficient space.

Say 3,000 square feet your baseline, you're looking at about a thousand dollars a square foot for that building.

Yep, which is a lot of money.

Uh and also it's going to take you by the time you do your planning, engineering, and everything else, it's going to take you probably at least six months from the time you acquire the property to get all that done.

And then you've got to start your construction, which won't be quick.

So the reality is you're probably at least a year out or more, 15, 18 months from being able to use the place for what you want.

I I just feel as a cost from a cost point of view, it's totally crazy.

Has anyone ever done an RFP of any sort to up to the city publish published the requirement?

Is that a lot of properties in the area that could be purchased garages?

I'm thinking about some of the garage buildings, for example, in the area downtown, which then could be renovated, it would be much more efficient for that kind of use.

We we did actually RFP for a warming station and we received and we did that twice, and we received zero inquiries.

And and to to be fair, I think there are things we could have done differently to find to find something different in the way of results.

But we did go out for RFP and we received no inquiries.

Okay, I didn't see them, I wasn't aware of it.

Yeah, no, that no, that's that's that's okay.

But we we were looking at that time for a specific space to house our warming station.

But the challenge there, and Larry, why I said I think we could have done things differently is we were also looking for an organization, we were looking more to lease than anything than to construct new.

So that we're looking at a very different base of clientele or properties, and that's why I don't think we'd received any responses.

So I I I can't really I can't really disagree with your perspective because I think you're right.

This is a lot of money.

We looked at to your point we looked at 900 square foot, is generally what we were assuming for assumptions in the building.

It's very high, extremely high.

But it it's our position that the need is so imminent and this location is so ideal that the board of aldermen will need to decide whether or not that's a value to them.

I don't disagree that number is high though.

I yeah, I mean, I'm if I can just improve.

No, please Larry, continue.

I I'm total I'm aware of that.

I mean, I I'm very sympathetic by the way to the homeless population.

Yeah, sure.

Personally, I'm a business guy, but I'm looking at it it's just for a whole variety of social reasons, it's just yeah, it is really awful here.

I I guess my question to you is why not go into an interim step and then try to, you know, for a year or two.

Like sort of modular uh you know uh office trailer type of thing.

Office trailers are like what were they like, 7,800 square feet usually.

But I and I'm I'm just thinking out loud right now.

I haven't obviously done any research or anything else.

But to me, this is a totally insane thing.

Because the other problem I have is that what if I've looked, I looked at that building, I walked around it uh yesterday, and that is a really tight situation over there.

What if you can't do what you want to do with it?

Uh and what and you've also again I go back to the fact you're losing three housing units, yep, you're losing the tax revenue.

Uh I the whole thing to me doesn't make any sense.

It's like we're almost like rushing to something which hasn't been really thought out completely.

Uh and I feel that you know if someone has gone out basically and gone to somebody over in somebody's garage and say, hey, look, I'll give you $300 a square foot to buy your garage or $200 a foot or whatever, you could probably have lined up something which and the timing may not be that different than what I think you're getting into here.

Yeah, I so a couple a couple of responses back to that.

So I I we did explore portable classrooms, we have explored other options, and they all involve costs north of a million dollars, even to place two portable classrooms to fit those up to do the uses that we were talking about.

They were certainly less expensive, but they were still an investment.

And and you said it perfectly, Larry.

We we thought we thought, why don't we try those for two years, see how it goes operationally, and then decide whether or not we want to make a permanent investment.

But I think our perspective has been, when I say hour, I'm talking staff.

Our perspective has been if they're gonna there's gonna be a million to a million and a half investment in those, but the city policymakers seem to be committed long term to providing for this population.

Are we not then just wasting a million to a million and a half dollars?

I don't think you're gonna hear anyone say that this site is ideal, even public health.

You know, they're excited because it offers the potential to do what they're talking about, but I don't think anyone is going to argue this site is a perfect fit.

It's it's it's not.

But if you haven't done architect, I'm gonna have an architect.

Serious studies to see layouts and everything else to see what you can do there.

How can you decide that so this thousand dollar square foot project where else is going to make any sense?

Yeah, so so Larry, we have had an architect in there multiple times to look at this.

That's where that that derivation of the Ford 4.5 million dollars is coming from.

Uh but we have not developed detailed design plans.

So we have had an architect under contract, we've had them in there several times to look at it.

Yeah, it and it's so but to your point, rough takeoffs, right?

They have rough takeoff numbers.

These are you see the range I'm giving you, three to four point five.

It's a it's a massive range.

And so it's it's but what I can tell you is that our fire department, our building department, our public health department, uh police have all been been to the site, they've looked at it.

They believe that we can accomplish those uses there, subject to improvements in the mechanicals, installation of a sprinkler system when we establish an assembly use.

We believe all of those things can be done there.

And you mentioned one other thing that's interesting.

The the site is tight.

You know, if you need parking there, right.

The advantage is that we have other municipal municipal facilities in the close proximity to that site.

But I completely agree.

If you talk about bringing a resource van on site, uh having you know shopping cart storage on site or something to that effect, the space is going to run out quickly.

Um so I think again, it's not even ideal in that way, but right now we're at a point where this resource center has been on the top of minds of many for two years, and we need to act, or we're simply not going to do anything.

And so I think we need to either accept the imperfect solution that's being put in front of us that will serve this need, or we we can wait.

Like that that is an option.

I'm just concerned that we're going to struggle to find a more ideal location for this.

But perhaps there perhaps there are to your to your point.

Well, you know, I just I just drive drive around the city.

I'm I'm real estate guy, I look at buildings, that's what I do.

Yep.

And uh when I look at some of the properties, there's an old restaurant, for example, on uh East Hollow Street.

I think you I think I might know what you're referring to.

Yeah, it's obvious, it's been here for years.

Right next to the bike path.

I mean, I they're buildings around.

I was just wondering how you did your research and what kind of what kind of outreach was done.

Yeah.

Because this to me is just is crazy numbers.

Okay.

Understood.

Uh, you know, I'm talking about frugal right now.

That's that's all right.

I think for a long-term value to the city, if I felt it were, you know, it were something that you know had a lot of long-term inherent value.

Great.

I just don't see that value there.

Yeah, at all.

Understood?

And and you're losing again three housing units, you're losing the taxes uh and everything else.

Uh and I I don't know how you've uh who's researched it or what's been done in terms of the other locations in the city.

Okay.

So I will just do it.

And I completely understand that.

I I don't want to be argumentative, but you you're 100% correct.

But what I can tell you is that we have been looking at properties and negotiated close to being in lease conditions with several properties over the last two years.

I've been part of those.

So I I can just tell you we've looked at many properties.

We've had non-public meetings with the Board of Alderman about acquiring properties.

We've been very close.

Yeah, I have no idea of any of those.

No, no, that's okay because honestly, we haven't really talked about it a lot publicly because it's been very frustrating to try and find something.

But we have we have been trying, uh and frankly, I think that trying is evidenced by the fact that we are accepting a location that is not ideal in many ways.

And that's all that's all I can say, unfortunately.

Thank you.

There has been some level of discussion with the surrounding neighbors.

Um interestingly enough, some of those neighbors, of course, are the city, so those let's exclude those for a second.

Um we have not conducted outreach to my understanding, though, of the two direct abutters that are directly to the east and to the south of the property.

They're aware that the properties on the market, obviously.

Anecdotally, I had heard that one of those abutters may have been part of one of the sitewalks because they had seen the group congregating outside, but I don't want to say for the record they were there.

But we have not done direct mailing to them, partially because the city is not closed on the property, and it's been sort of an odd position for us to be in when it comes to direct engagement.

I will just say that when we did the Elm Street warming station, and I expect we would do this here, we did a large community meeting.

We talked about the uses that would be established, uh the timeline for establishing them, and you know, I think maybe maybe with a little bias, but I think that went really well, and that's something that we'd again do here, Mr.

Chair.

We'd do a direct community meeting talking to these folks.

Thank you, Matt.

And just to follow up, uh directly across the street to the north.

Um, this board just within the last year, yeah, 18 months uh approved that's going to be residential across the street, privately owned, but the city owns the parking lot, I believe.

Correct.

Okay.

We have not had any direct engagement with them as part of this process, Mr.

Bollinger.

Right.

Because I I think that is probably the definition of a blighted property.

So I imagine whoever is rebuilding that is putting in it's gonna make the five million dollars for this look probably pale in comparison, and I would just I don't know what they would think, but um separate conversation perhaps.

Yeah.

Um I was wondering if if either of you might be able to retouch on the zoning element of this um a little bit because we we've heard, if not formally, uh there have been some other transitional um facilities that have been proposed or come before the board or at least discussed uh just generally how that fits in with with code or more particularly to this to the zoning district.

Sure.

So it's it's a little difficult to kind of put a point on it at the moment because as Director Sullivan uh identified, there's a number of unknowns is some some wishless items, things that we hope that this facility will achieve.

Um but until those get nailed down, we can't really classify it from a use perspective.

Um that said, and I think also pointing to the timeline that Mr.

Hirsch identified, um, we're obviously in the code update right now.

Um the structure, the use structure that we have right now in the current code is extremely rigid, uh, and we're exploring a much more um flexible kind of um use category-based approach to classifying uses, um, where in that model this would be a lot easier to classify.

Uh, I think the key identifier here is that uh one it it may have a residential component, so that would possibly be the base use, though it seems like there's also offices and services, um, but we have contemplated in the new code having a a residential plus care specific class of of residential, you know, under that residential umbrella.

Um we have not yet codified that to specific districts.

Um but the code updates an ongoing and iterative process informed by developments such as this uh to ensure that you know if this is clearly a you know uh community want, we would not then want to throw up a regulatory barrier, uh which would be very counterproductive to the work that's happening tonight, both at this board and the board of all of them.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um other questions from the board.

Ben, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I have two lines of questioning uh roughly in regards to you know the aspect of providing housing.

You know, I get to thinking about the uh the Fair Housing Act and ADA compliance and you know, when you're providing housing, you know, you do kind of open yourself up to any kind of liability risk with you know having a wheelchair turning circle inside the building in the hallways and looking at an older building.

I mean, are we I I think it's fair to say that the building as is wouldn't be ADA compliant.

Correct.

And you know, is there any kind of risk that the city would be opened up to a liability there?

Um, when you're providing how or providing housing, you know, there's lots of things that come into that in terms of ADA.

So uh that that's the first thing that came up.

Yeah, it's it's a great question, and you're you're correct.

Uh despite the the beautiful wood ADA ramp out front uh shown in one of the pictures here, you can kind of see it in the middle.

Uh the structure is woefully uh it does not meet ADA code as is.

Um one of the questions that feeds actually the cost piece a lot is if we're gonna establish transitional housing units on the second story, there is a question that is outstanding as to whether or not an elevator would have to be provided in the facility.

Um that is a major cost item again, as Mr.

Hirsch does well.

The elevators are extremely expensive, and that's one of the drivers of that uh range of pricing.

One way we think that could be provided for is by having one transitional housing unit on the first floor of the structure and fully accessible.

And certainly we know we would have to make uh all of the community spaces and the resource center warming station areas fully accessible, including upgraded upgrades to the restrooms, all of the egress paths, that would all have to happen, and that's a huge driver when it comes to the cost of renovation.

But bottom line, full compliance is necessary with ADA.

Okay.

And we're not there yet, the building isn't currently.

Absolutely not.

Okay.

Okay.

My second line of question uh or second line of questioning.

In regards to the transitional housing units and the management of those units.

Yes.

Was there any thought in regards to a nonprofit or other agencies that you know do this on a daily basis providing transitional housing?

Is there a thought to having a company like that or not a company, excuse me, a nonprofit manage those units for the city?

Maybe there's more experience there, maybe you know, a nonprofit would be able to accomplish that task uh better than the city would.

It is the city's intent to contract with a nonprofit entity.

The city does not intend to operate the transitional housing component.

Um I guess the one caveat I should offer so that I don't get myself in trouble here is that uh that is Director Bagley's position as of today.

Uh that's not to say that through conversation with the Board of Alderman that couldn't change, but I think she understands that the public health department are excellent at what they do uh and they are not in the business currently of providing transitional housing support while other organizations are.

And so I think she will say tonight, in fact, maybe at the meeting at 7 o'clock, uh, that her intent is to provide a partner uh to find a partner to in fact provide those services because they're specialized.

Absolutely.

That's it for me, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Ben.

Other questions from the board.

Okay.

All righty.

Um obviously we're we're not being asked to either approve or disapprove of this this evening.

Um it's with respect to granting the uh the city permission to purchase the property.

Um that said, um personally I I do have I do have some reservations.

Um I I think it's being done a little bit hastily.

Um I understand the the intent uh could not be better.

Um I understand there's been some frustration with trying to establish similar facilities in the past.

Um given I think the amount of work that that needs to be done, the location, um I I have some reservations, so I I do not think that I would be able to support this.

Um I guess I would remind the this board, um the board of Alderman is gonna undertake this matter regardless um of whether we provide a favorable or unfavorable recommendation.

Uh I'm certainly not trying to sway your your vote in in any way.

Um I'll stop there simply by stating I I do have some reservations uh about this as currently proposed, and I think there's a lot of outstanding questions with respect to cost zoning and some other items that are gonna be necessary um to I guess to have it fully come to fruition as a as a truly helpful operational facility.

Um obviously love to love to hear others' feedback on that.

Dan, please.

Um so I view this as enabling legislation currently.

This is just you know, do we support the city buying the property or not?

Um as opportunities to acquire property come up, you need to act quickly, so we don't have all the answers.

I don't think we could wait to get all the answers uh maybe before we lost the opportunity to purchase property.

Uh I would just I I kind of view it like there's a lot more work that needs to be done, but uh and sometimes these things don't work out.

The city's bought property before with an intended uh intended idea for its use, it turned out it didn't work out, and so we ended up uh reselling the property.

So that's kind of how I view it is yeah, we don't have all the answers, but um but maybe it's worth purchasing a property to allow further exploration of those ideas will be how I look at it.

So I'll offer that up.

Thank you, Dan.

Thank you.

Larry, please is anyone explored the potential to purchase an option to purchase the building.

You have an option an option fee, basically, uh to get a 60 or 90-day period to evaluate it.

Larry, that's a great that's a great question.

Um my understanding is that an option was discussed with the seller, and they were not interested in that at this time.

Uh, but we to your point and Dan's point, we would have, I think, preferred that so that we can conduct some of this due diligence, but my understanding is that an option was not available uh to the city.

Good good question, though.

I'm glad you asked.

I may add to add to that.

Part of the agreement was that there was a closing date that had to happen by April 30th.

That was a non-negotiable.

Correct.

Yeah, but for money, it's amazing how things can change.

I apologize for that.

As I can tell you, you know.

Dangle money, it's amazing.

Fair.

Other questions or discussion.

Well, I guess we've reached the point where I don't know if a member of the board is willing to make a motion.

Um not sure which motion it would be, but um if the member was so inclined to make a motion to either grant um favorable, I guess to grant favorable approval.

And we would see uh see how that that plays out.

So I'm a sharing direction.

Okay, thank you.

Motion, please.

I'll make the motion uh to approve um the property as as recommended.

All right.

Thank you.

Motion by Alderman Morgan, is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hudson.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Two ayes.

Motion does not pass.

The planning board does not provide a favorable recommendation to the board of aldermen.

Um do we need to be more articulate in just saying that the planning board makes a motion to provide an unfavorable recommendation rather than just a failed favorable motion.

Okay, that's yeah, the alternate way.

I guess I but I and I think to the extent possible, and if this falls outside the normal course of business, please ignore what I'm gonna ask for.

But it would be helpful to have a bit of an explanation with the motion to not recommend if possible.

Um just so that I can attempt to convey the board's position to the board of aldermen with a bit more detail, if possible.

The problem is there are a lot of reasons.

I mean, how do we how do we articulate it in such a in a logical way that you can work with what I'm saying?

Yeah, I could have right a dissertation, but it doesn't.

No, I mean, other than then saying I don't know, I don't want to say scattered and premature because that has a specific meaning of the case.

Sure, but sure.

It's almost like that.

There's there's there's cost considerations, there's and an understanding the purchase alone, if it's 700,000 plus or minus, I understood that's that's what that is.

Um but I have concerns with the fact that there's currently tenants there, so even if if you have like a realistic uh timeline for construction, your your time, your zero time start is when they're no longer there.

And as you alluded to, you can't just force them out, you know, kind of flick them away because you want to get going and break ground.

So I would say uh costs cost and timing.

Um and if if we need to rephrase the motion, um I I guess I wouldn't be opposed to that, but um, I think without a greater degree of specificity.

There are so many uncertainties.

Uh well wait, I saw Alderman Morgan's hand first.

Go right ahead.

And so if I may, Mr.

Chair, I would ask everyone to pretend as if this was a different uh person coming before you with this project and give the feedback through that lens so that you're there's no uh bias of the city is asking you to do X, Y, and Z.

So if this was somebody else, what I'm hearing is there was no um a butters considered for this.

Um the timeline is rushed.

So through that lens is the feedback that I would recommend.

That sounds constructive.

But but uh again, we're we're not trying to to go through like I'm not gonna go through the site plan approval criteria understanding.

It's just I I think I think you you you probably get the general sense of of where we are at this, but Ben, I I saw you wanted to chime in.

Yeah, I just to explain my position, my concerns would be more ADA compliance related and you know, liability for um for whomever uh would be owning the property, whether it's the the city or anyone else, uh you know, having old outdated housing, you know, and to update it for the modern world and modern regs.

I think that's that's a very significant cost.

The elevator I didn't even think about uh but yeah, it's there would be a significant cost because it's such an old building, bringing it up to today's code is uh is a significant cost.

And liability and and I think just my my sentiment alone, I won't speak for the board.

uh you know having old outdated housing you know and to update it for the modern world and modern rags I think that's that's a very significant cost the elevator I didn't even think about uh but yeah it's there would be a significant cost because it's such an old building bringing it up to today's code is a is a significant cost and liability and and I think just m my my sentiment alone I won't speak for the board um this has nothing to do with the intent or not recognizing that there is not a problem um it's just I think everybody wants to get to a good place and and why I decided to not vote favorably is I I just don't think we have enough information yet and uh I I just don't know if this is the right spot and uh I guess I'm I'm kind of stuck in the mode maybe maybe haste makes waste and I I wouldn't want that to uh turn into something you know haste is why we're having a special meeting this evening haste is why the board of aldermen is meeting right after we're meeting like it it's uh I I would prefer to probably see a fuller picture personally but um so I don't know if other board members have additional thoughts on that go for it Larry I guess my only thought is that the end result is out of line with the costs they're gonna be involved in order to I think you can get as a business guy uh what you're putting into it is well and good but it's so far you know the cost is gonna be just is is is so insane I think in terms of the the end result the apartment units for example you can buy apartment units you know in this city for if you're doing transitional housing for a lot less money than you're talking about here just bring an elevator in if you could find the space to put an elevator yeah uh because it has to elevators I understand has to have to be able to handle the wheelchairs and all the term wheelchair terms.

I don't know if you have a room structure to put an elevator in uh but again it's just you know my limited knowledge yeah I I think yeah okay understood got so is there any interest in uh restating a not unfavorable recommendation so we would we or without rationale do we do we need to so does this need to be part of the formal record other than the verbal recorded record or or Matt's note taking I think it would be best for there to be a motion for an unfavorable recommendation and I think you've provided you've provided plenty of explanation I think that we're we're we're good on that I just think there should be a motion that everyone votes on for an unfavorable recommendation if that's the direction we're headed in well it's gonna assuming assuming patterns say the same it's it's gonna it's gonna be three two the other way like it's just the reciprocal so it's it's uh I and then do we would go ahead Danny I mean I would like the board to uh maybe make some at least one finding that we we uh all uh appreciate the need for uh the use the proposed use um you know the hastiness and whatever we all I don't I think we all agree this is on a fast track nobody disagrees with that it's just a matter of whether people are comfortable with that or not um the cost is a concern of course but I don't know I don't know what we can do but I think we're on record that we uh understand the need for such a use and and uh I don't want to I don't want to vote uh I I don't find the value of voting against uh the reverse motion I guess is my point I I would agree um I again it's not uh procedurally I don't think we we we need to um we tried to paint it I I think with a lot of resolutions that come through here I don't want to say it's a presupposition but it's it's it's rare there's been a few where where we have voted unfavorably but I I think the way that the uh the motion was made you know the the the presumption so was that it was going to be favorable and the the vote just did not turn out that way um and I I think there's been sufficient reason cited and to Mr.

Hudson's point uh if this is conveyed to the board of aldermen in such a manner it is not for lack of understanding the problem or lack of wanting to find a solution um but uh timing finances um the practicality of ADA compliance um the fact that some of the neighbors may not be fully aware of the fact this might be purchased for this for this purpose um I I think I think that just gave uh gave enough members of this body pause okay okay thank you thank you all right I appreciate everybody's thoughts on that I know um that that was uh I I found that a challenging one um the you again I stand by the fact that I think everybody wants a solution here um but we we voted how we voted and I I stand by my vote so um with that being said I think uh we do want to thank um Mr.

So um with that being said, I think uh I would do want to thank um Mr.

Sullivan, thank you for for your time and your continued involvement in this in this process.

Um that is completely appreciated.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um so I think with that um that was our last item.

So I think we'd be looking for a motion to adjourn.

Anyone?

Mr.

Hirsch?

Motion motion to adjourn.

All right.

All those in favor?

Aye.

And we are adjourned at 646.