Restaurateur pressing for clarity on 17 Building rights; board endorses permit application before sale subject to counsel review

Sal, a local restaurateur who responded to the development corporation's request for expressions of interest for the 17 Building, told the board he has repeatedly updated a submission but remains unclear whether he holds exclusive negotiating rights or a binding letter of intent.

“I'm not a contractor. I'm a restaurant,” Sal told the board as he described his plans to convert the 6,000-square-foot building into a restaurant and banquet facility and estimated, “it's probably gonna be, like, 2,000,000.” He said he wants clarity on whether he has exclusivity before spending on designs and engineering.

Board counsel and staff explained the difference between the earlier request for expressions of interest and a formal letter of intent. Bob Murray, who identified himself during the meeting, advised Sal to retain experienced counsel and to have that attorney negotiate directly with corporation counsel to secure contractual exclusivity before spending on designs or seeking financing.

“Your counsel should be experienced with economic development or commercial real estate,” Murray said. “If you have that lawyer, and Lisa and Paul, we can share a link to the documents that impact this property.” Murray and other staff offered to make the board's document repository available to Sal's counsel.

Separately, developers said they want to apply for a building permit before the sale closes to preserve timing relative to recent state legislation and construction requirements. The board approved a motion, subject to counsel review, authorizing a developer to seek a building permit while the property remains under the corporation’s control; meeting remarks described a cost authorization of $50,000 to cover related steps. Board members approved the motion by voice vote.

During the discussion, staff and counsel noted other technical approvals Sal will need: planning-board approval, floodplain variance work with FEMA and state agencies because the building’s finish-floor elevation is close to regulatory triggers, and approvals from the Canal Corporation and city departments for external changes such as doors and signage. Counsel warned that until Sal secures a formal letter of intent or an exclusivity agreement, another proposer could submit a stronger bid.

Why it matters: redeveloping the 17 Building into a restaurant would add a downtown business and event venue, but the developer faces technical hurdles — environmental review, floodplain/fema issues, parking and design approvals — and legal vulnerability without a negotiated letter of intent.

What comes next: Sal was encouraged to retain counsel; staff offered to share recorded site reports and prior documents. The corporation said it will coordinate with Sal’s counsel and the board’s counsel to draft any letter-of-intent terms and to support, if appropriate, an application for a building permit prior to closing.