Times Observer photo by Josh Cotton City council heard opposition on a proposal for a downtown senior living project during Monday’s meeting, taking action to lift an unused easement that the city had on the property.

A proposed downtown senior living facility on the corner of Liberty Street and Pennsylvania Avenue was back before the City Council on Monday.

The issue at hand was removing an unused easement that had proved a hindrance to the developer, Hudson Companies, who has previously indicated that construction is projected to start in August.

But council heard about a lot more than just that easement.

A member of council and multiple members of the public voiced their opposition to the project generally before the easement was discussed in any kind of detail.

Hank LeMeur said that project “does not have widespread public support and doesn’t compliment the riverfront.

He suggested that the city should act not to terminate the easement if doing so would give the city an opportunity to reconsider the location of the project to somewhere more appropriate.

“I don’t think Warren needs any more senior citizen housing,” John Hanna added. “The last I knew, the current housing that we have had lots of vacancies.”

He argued that the proposed location “is not a good location” as “developing a riverfront behind it has started real well” and said a four-story building there would block the view of the city from the river.

Calling for attracting young professionals to Warren, Hanna said that “attracting more senior citizens to the town is not going to get us any future development anything. You’ll never see them in a restaurant” or “in a store in the downtown area.”

“We were actually approached by the city to develop this property,” Kelley Coey, director of development for Hudson Companies. “Our market study does show that there is a great need…. We do know that there is a need there.”

Coey told council that they are developing new drawings that will show a new look for the building “that we believe will compliment the downtown and all of the buildings in the downtown area.

She said the project will use all brick, not siding, which had been raised as a concern earlier in the planning process.

Total cost is roughly $14 million. The lion’s share of the funding comes from state tax credits awarded to the developer that the developer then will sell. Councilwoman Wendy McCain asked who the investor is and Coey said they might not provide that as she is “not sure that’s relevant to anything that we’re doing.”

Coey confirmed in response to a question that it is their intent to proceed with the project.

“I understand that there are a significant number of people in the community” that have raised “legitimate questions” about the project.

He said his decision comes down to three issues – population decline, declining tax revenue and a lack of development underway in the community.

“This is providing an avenue for dozens of new people or potentially people who already live in the city (to) stay here or live here,” he said, stressing that the city can’t provide services and support business growth if it can’t keep people here.

On the development side, Wortman said that “if we do not have new growth and new business… we don’t have the subsidiary benefit that comes from all of that” like hotel and restaurant use.

“I fully recognize the project might not be the perfect solution,” he said. “For me, I don’t understand given the position the city finds itself in… why we would not support the endeavor moving forward.”

“Development in and of itself is not good,” McCain said. “Development that spurs growth and new business is what would be fruitful.”

She said that there has been a request made for a public hearing on the proposal by a city resident.

“If we insist on voting tonight, a no would give us an opportunity to pause, engage the community” and approach Hudson, calling for a coalition to find a more appropriate location.

She then suggested that the project be referred to the Redevelopment Authority for review.

“Knowing (there is) public opposition, can we not pause and have some of those questions answered?” she asked.

Mayor Dave Wortman said that if the vote to lift the easement failed that result would “come to pass.”

“Hudson owns the property,” Councilman Maurice Cashman said. “They can start construction when they’re ready to go. Period.”

The vote on the easement didn’t fail. It was approved 6-1 with McCain the sole vote in opposition.