Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All

[snorts] right. Good evening. The hour of 6:30 p.m. having arrived, I will call to order this regular meeting of the Joint Planning Board and Planning and Licenses and Development Committee. [snorts]

Anyone wishing to view a copy of the agenda and supporting materials will find it on the city website. Pardon me while I put on my cheaters. If you are in our audience tonight, you may access the agenda from any mobile device. Copies of the printed agenda are available in the wall pockets just as you entered the meeting room. To receive electronic copies of future agenda packets, please go to the homepage and subscribe to the city meetings email list. The public and other board members will be recognized to ask questions and make comments on the agenda item under discussion. After being recognized, all remarks are to be made through the chair. Uh and just for the folks that are new uh to this uh joint meeting, um the [clears throat] planning board and the PLLD rotate the chair of this particular meeting. So, this happens to be my lucky month. And uh Randy will have his shot in the in the uh in the fire next month. Anyone who wishes to address the committee is asked to go to one of the microphones in the room and identify themselves by name and address prior to speaking. Will the staff please conduct the roll call

for the planning board? Harold Ferington here. Robera Master Giovani here. Mayor Jay Khan. Councelor Molly Ellis here. Michael Hayer here. Ken Cost here. Andrew Madison here. And it doesn't look like we have any alternates here tonight. And then for the PLLD committee, Randy Filio here, Phil Jones here, Bobby Williams here, Ed Hos here, and Laura Rutle Miller

here. Thank you, Miss Burner. Okay, next on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from October 14th, 2025. So, these were included in the agenda packet. Hopefully, people had a chance to read through them. And at this time, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. I would move to approve the minutes, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Councelor Jones. Second.

Thank you, Councelor Hos. Uh any questions, comments, or changes to the minutes? Seeing none, I will call the vote. All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Minutes from October 14th are approved. And we have one annual item here which is the adoption of the 2026 meeting schedule for this uh joint committee. Good evening, Mayor Khan.

I'll let you get settled. We were just about to vote on the uh 2026 schedule. So, I'll entertain a motion to approve the 2026 schedule as was included in your agenda packet. So, moved. Thank you. Uh, thank you. Uh, was that Ed or Bobby?

Oh, was Phil. Okay. Sorry. I knew it was on that side. All right. Um any questions, comments? You'll know one date in uh yellow is uh a Tuesday. Traditionally, we meet on a on a Monday. That Tuesday, I think, is uh for a holiday, Columbus Day. Yep. Great. So, Councelor Williams,

uh, one concern about the schedule based on a problem we had with last year's schedule, uh, September the September meeting is after the PLLD meeting, uh, the way the the [clears throat] the second Wednesday and the second Monday line up, um, it's really better if we have the joint committee meeting before the PLLD meeting, which happens three days later, as opposed to waiting a month for the next PLLD meeting. So, um I'm a little concerned about that that September date and uh I don't know if we want to change it now because I'm sure there's other things that it would affect, but I do want to highlight that it could be a concern and we might consider changing it after we've had some time to look at the schedule some more.

Okay. Um I [snorts] would note that the previous Monday, which would be the natural candidate, uh is Labor Day. So that's that's out. Yeah. Um but doesn't mean we couldn't meet on a different week night than the previous week, but but I know a lot of it depends on when council chambers are available and things like that. So it's probably not something we could decide today, but um I hope um maybe staff will look at it and potentially come up with another idea. Well noted. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Well, why don't we go ahead and vote on the schedule as it exists. So uh we do have While we're pointing some things out, uh, city council will be on break, uh, for that August 10th date in all likelihood, meaning that we will hold our August meeting. We have must have one, but it'll be the week before that. Uh historically there's always a couple meetings of the this committee that gets cancelled during the course of the year. So yeah,

you know, I think uh I think we should just go ahead and approve this and then play it by ear as we get closer to them to these dates.

So all those in favor of the schedule? Any opposed? Schedule is approved. Thank you. Thank you for pointing out those those two items. All right. Uh so now we have a uh we have one public workshop for this evening's meeting and we are missing our only thing missing is the public. [snorts] Uh uh this item is a public workshop for ordinance 0-2025-40 relating to setback exceptions, accessory dwelling units and parking regulations. Petitioner City of Keen Community Development Department proposes to amend section 1.3.4.8 A of the land development code to clarify that retaining walls are exempt from setback requirements. Modify section 8.4.2.8 by removing the requirement for an interior door and access to city utilities for accessory dwelling units. Amend section 9.2 to increase the percentage of parking spaces. [cough] Excuse me. [clears throat] uh amend section 9.2 to increase the percentage of parking spaces that can be reduced administratively from 10% to 25% and prohibit the creation of remote parking spaces on parcels with a residential primary use and update table 9-3 to include parallel parking. Great.

[snorts] So, at this time, I'll ask uh Oh, there she is. I'll ex ask Miss Forson to proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Megan Forson, planner. Um, so as you described when reading the description of the proposed changes, this is an ordinance that is going to make a slew of changes or not a slew of changes, but it [clears throat] proposes a couple different changes to the land development code related to um the location of certain structures within setbacks, the requirements for accessory dwelling units, as well as a few different sections of our parking regulations. So, I'm just going to take you through a very brief slideshow of the proposed changes. Um the first item that we're going to discuss are setback exceptions and those are specific to retaining walls. Um this is listed under the first section of the land development code where all of our measurements and different um terms related to zoning are defined. And so historically uh retaining walls are considered structures under our land development code definition of what a structure is. It's basically anything that is located on or in the ground or is located on top of something that has location on or in the ground. It's a very broad general um regulation. And one of the issues that we've had is noting that um some property owners aren't able to comply with setback requirements when it comes to things like retaining walls just due to the size of their property, due to the topography or the layout, the way that it's already um developed. And so, um, under the current building code, a building permit is only required for a retaining wall if it's going to be greater than 4 feet tall from the bottom height, which could be in the ground, to the top of the retaining wall, or if it's going to be uh subject to any lateral or um basically horizontal or vertical forces. So, if you're installing a retaining wall that's going to be used to hold up a portion of your property so that it's not eroding away, that's something that would require a building permit, rather than have people go through two processes whereby they

need to comply potentially with zoning and get relief there if they're not able to comply with the setback requirements, um, we would just rather have them go through the building permit process to ease the site design process for them. The second proposed change is related to accessory dwelling unit standards. And the two proposed changes are to remove the requirement for an interior door to be provided between the accessory dwelling unit and the main house if they're attached. And the second proposed change is to remove the requirement for ADUs to have access to city water and sewer. Um, the intent behind these proposed changes is just to basically bring our current regulations into compliance with some updated state legislation that was passed during the 2025 legislative uh, session. Uh, next proposed change is to increase the percentage of uh, required parking reductions that can be performed by staff. So right now um if a property owner isn't able to provide all of the parking that they need for a use on their site, they can go to our zoning administrator and request a 10% reduction. So you can see there there's a table showing different number of parking spaces 10 25 and 65 and the number of parking spaces that could be reduced under our current practice and then the greater number of spaces that could be reduced under a five uh 25% reduction. Um, we have basically found through this parking reduction process that offering a 10% reduction isn't really enough to meet the needs of applicants, especially for projects where the total number of parking spaces required is fewer than 25. Um, additionally, the next step up is you could request a 50% reduction from the zoning board through a special exception process. And that has proved to be a little bit cumbersome for some people. So they decide not to move forward with the process or they decide to just seek a variance which would grant them any percentage above 50% in their parking

reduction. Um there are also a few other small changes proposed um as part of an administrative reduction greater than 10% applicants would be asked to provide a reserve area which is an area of land that could be used for future parking spaces. And we would also include the requirement for all administrative parking reduction requests of more than 10% to provide a traffic and a parking analysis, not a full study. So that could be just a memo from a traffic engineer stating that what they're going to be providing for parking is going to be sufficient for their particular use. The next proposed change is to remark uh remote parking. Um and this is basically to allow remote parking spaces on any non-residential lot. Um, some of the requirements for existing remote parking spaces are that they have to be within 1,000 feet of the property lines of the parcel that's seeking the remote parking. And um, you currently can't obtain remote parking on a site that's located in a residential district. So, in [clears throat] the high density district, it's that's a good example where you can have four to six units and someone might not be able to provide all parking on their site. So, if they're within 1,000 feet of a commercial use, say there's a store or something like that that has extra parking, even if that commercial use is located in a residential district, they're not able to get parking from from that uh lot that might have extra space for parking, if that makes sense. So, under our proposed change, you would be able to get uh remote parking spaces from any parcel that's a commercial use, even if it's located in a residential zoning district, just to provide people with more um flexibility. And then the last proposed change is just related to travel lane dimensions. Um table 93 in the land development code outlines the requirements for travel

lane width for uh currently four types of parking spaces. um we don't address parallel parking spaces. So, we're including that information to make it more clear um for both staff and for people wanting to use that method of parking when designing their parking lots. Um I'm happy to go through the consistency with the master plan, but all of that information is included in your staff report. So, I guess I would say if you have any specific questions, I'm happy to answer them as best I can. Thank you, Miss Forson. Um, as she mentioned, does any board members have questions at this time? Mr. Cost. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. [snorts] I have a few. Can I just

Yeah, they're quick. Um, I wanted to understand just the idea of the re if someone's going to ask for less parking spots, they have to demonstrate they have reserve area to add parking spots. Is that what it I understand? Yeah. On their property or somewhere else, right? Um, sorry, c can I jump in here really quick? So, um, that's actually just for residential uses. I should have clarified that and I think I was going

I was going pretty quickly. So, if somebody is requesting a parking reduction for any residential uses greater than 10%. Then they would need to provide that reserve area. If they're requesting a parking reduction of only 10% or less, they don't need to have that reserve area. Okay. So, the effect is kind of what I was thinking though. So they would not be able to add an addition to their say house for more for another unit because they have to reserve the land for parking anyway. So even though they're not providing parking, they have to keep the land available for parking in the future. Correct. Yeah, that would be uh if it's greater than 10% okay

of a reduction that they're requesting. So it doesn't get us more anything. It's just they don't have to pave it. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Um and then um on on the parallel parking um I was just curious, it talked about the aisleways and all of that, but is there a mention of the width

of how wide a parallel space has to be? Is it 8t? Uh, so yeah, typical parking space regardless of the angle is going to be 8 ft wide by 18 ft long. Um, or 9 ft wide by 18 ft long for a typical not an accessible parking space. Um, so yeah, parallel parking would still have to meet those requirements. It's really just the width of the travel aisle adjacent to the parking space that's going to be outlined. Okay. And then my last question was about the um the remote parking and you showed a circle. Yep. And you were talking about someone could find land on a another commercial property. Could they also just say, "Hey, we're within uh a city parking lot or a city garage and that could count as remote parking."

Yeah. So, the remote parking and parking in general has quite a few different components to it. You can request the reduction. You can have remote parking spaces. You can have an off-site parking lease agreement. So there are and also proximity to public transport and proximity to on street parking are other things that can be taken into consideration or or a public lot or Yes. Correct. If they're they are able to rent parking spaces, but they have to rent it. They can't they have to rent it from the city. Yeah, we have a Okay. a parking um Okay. space rental program through the parking department. Yeah, that's it. Thank you. Y Mr. L Miller.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so I just regarding the part um the parking for the reduction piece, how are the initial the base parking requirements calculated? Is that per like if it's a multi-unit space like per apartment or

Yep. So article 9 of the land development code has all of the requirements for parking in terms of design, in terms of parking requirement. So for example, it has all of these categories lined out. Every use that's allowed in the city of Keen is assigned a certain parking requirement. So for office, for example, it's four spaces, I think, per 10,000 square feet. So if you were if a change of use were taking place and you know a building was going from apartments where you'd have to have like one space per unit to say a restaurant where you'd have to have one space for every four or five seats. That's how you would calculate the parking demand would be based on either the square footage of the building or the number of seats. It's particular to that use.

Okay. So, it's not necessarily that somebody would not have a parking spot in the building since it's based on square footage. No, potentially. Right. Right. Okay. All right. Cool. Thank you forifying. Council House. [clears throat] Thank you, chair. Um, thank you, Megan. Um, couple questions. One, uh, so we're measuring four feet tall. Is that from the bottom of the footing or from grade on the wall? That's going to be from the bottom of the footing. Okay. It might need to be clarified to add that wording. Uh we certainly could.

See what you think. See what you think. Um then uh so as I read we got to go for a building permit uh if it's over four feet or if it's subject to any vertical or lateral forces. Correct. uh seems to me any retaining wall is subject to lateral forces. So any retaining wall is will require a building permit.

Yes. I with retaining walls, it's hard because we think of retaining walls in the traditional sense of they're stopping erosion on a property or you know they might be needed for drainage or storm water purposes. But really in this definition, we're also trying to capture maybe stone walls or more aesthetic retaining walls, in which case, unless it was over four feet tall, that would not require a building permit. Um, so it's it's a little bit hard. It's kind of I see it's I'm just thinking about a a wall that's not holding anything back is more like a fence. So you could have you could have a concrete wall on your property line up to four feet high with nothing behind it.

Correct. Okay. Um just clarifying um I had oh on the um the parking uh reduction uh requests for more than 10% to provide a traffic and parking analysis. Um boy, I'd sure like to see the traffic analysis part of that go away because uh what is the analysis measured to? Uh elsewhere in the uh code, you revert to the IT standards and the IT standards are a nightmare for anybody or you can read them and interpret them any way you want and make it come out any way you want. So, I might look for some clarification or just the elimination of the idea of a traffic analysis. A parking analysis should be good enough.

Um, yeah, and if I can just clarify the intent behind having that there. Um, we're not talking about a full-blown traffic study where you'd have someone parked on the side of the road and they're doing turning movement counts or anything like that. Um, but rather it would just be potentially a letter prepared by a local traffic engineer stating that the proposed use is not going to generate as much traffic or require as many parking spaces as really anticipated or projected based on it which is the institute for traffic engineers and that's what we use for modeling traffic for different uses. That's what the public works department uses. So definitely noted. We can I just wanted to provide that clarification. And um I feel like there was one more thing that I wanted to note that I now can't think of. I guess a good example of this would be we're currently reviewing a planning board application that's going to require 12 parking spaces on a site that's located in high density. The property is already developed. The prop it's really just a change of use. The property owner is not proposing to make any changes to the outside of the building or the site, but they only have room for eight parking spaces. So, we've been going around with them to see could you get a 10% reduction? Should they get a special exception from the zoning board? Are they close enough to get remote parking somewhere? And under our current regulations, it's really going to be an arduous process for them to have to go through. So, if they could get a greater than a 10% reduction and just have a letter prepared by a traffic engineer, it's uh much less of a process to have that applicant go through versus having to go to zoning board in some capacity or another. I'd love for them to have it easier than going to it.

Miss Bernard, did you want to clarify something on that?

Oh, I just wanted to add that um to your point about the IT, it doesn't always work for every use and that's what we're trying to recognize with this parking reduction option. So if as long as they have somebody a professional who looks at the numbers, looks at the facts, they know the area and they can give us some documentation, some assurance that this isn't going to create a nuisance for the surrounding properties. That's really what we're looking for. Um in recognition of the fact that, you know, the IT trip generation manual is based off of like suburban communities in the Midwest, which is not us. So um there is some variation within office, for example. Not every office has the same parking demand, but they're all treated pretty much the same under the it. So that's this is trying to add in more flexibility because of that.

Thank you, Councelor Jones. Thank you. Um Mr. Chair, um just because we have some new people here, can I just mention something procedurally? uh this this ordinance um the petitioner is the city

which makes a big difference because when the petitioner is a city we can amend it at this level here uh feel free to offer amendments. Uh usually if it comes from a private petitioner he or she has the right to have it sent to the city council the way they wrote it unless they agreed to an amendment with us. Uh so there's a big difference and so this is a city amendment and we this is a city uh ordinance and we can amend it the way we want with the majority. Yeah. Thank you. That's uh that's useful. Mayor Khan,

thank you. Um, so on the parking, and I want to go back to the retaining wall after this, but on the parking, we just had an instance where a petitioner uh brought a letter and uh essentially what they were uh saying is that it won't have more than a hundred trips. to and from a site in the course of a day.

My point in saying this is it's not a very high standard uh for somebody to get a letter from a traffic engineer to say the impact isn't going to be that great when the bar is really set pretty high in order to uh cause you to have to jump through hoops. just offer that as that was a surprising observation. Not not a very effective uh barrier if that's what we were aiming to do. I think I think the resting the authority with some with an administrative authority is an okay thing to do. uh but it's with an observation that it's not a high bar. Okay, that a given. Second, uh on the uh on the retaining wall uh I know I've put some in at at Keen State.

They were mostly for signage uh and we put them down four feet line. That makes sense. If that's the barrier, I mean, if four feet, I I think the wording should be altered to say four feet above the ground.

If that's the and and and then frankly uh another concern there because we're going to avoid the the requirement alto together, so why make a change in the wording? uh except that I'm trying to envision what's the problem of having uh a height limit over which if you do go over uh there would be a an approval process. Uh and that four feet above a ground for a retaining wall is causing me to think, wow, what what are they holding back? you know, and that's that's I I just can't picture it. It sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

Miss Burner,

thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, um I keep jumping in, but I think there's a little bit of confusion here. So, the the proposed change in the ordinance doesn't have anything to do with the height of the retaining wall. It's just saying that we would allow retaining walls in this the building structure setback. The height piece comes in the building code which we don't have perview over. So the building code is what talks about the 4T height, not our local regulations. Um, so I don't know if that's helpful, but the the proposal tonight is just to whether or not to allow retaining walls to be close to a property line.

I think I think we may have confused things by talking about the height is not [laughter] the height is. Yeah, we don't we don't look at the height when it comes to zoning. It's just whether or not it's a structure. Um, the height comes into play uh when it comes to the building code and whether or not a building permit is required. So, that won't be changing. We don't actually have authority over the building code. Um, but the what we're proposing is to allow them closer to a property line than they're allowed today. And the building code were somebody wishing to put something in greater than 4T. Where would that be? That's in uh Mr. Chair. Yeah.

That's dictated by the building code that's adopted by the state of New Hampshire. So, I can send you the specific section reference that says retaining walls are exempt unless there's a 4 foot height from the bottom of the retaining wall to the top of the retaining wall or it's going to be subject to those uh vertical and horizontal forces. Again, as Mary just pointed out, this is only relative to where in the setback this is correct allowed.

Yep. The reason for bringing up the building code is really just almost as assurance that there is a process in place that someone would had would have to go to if they met either of those requirements. If it was going to be holding back some sort of force and subject to it or if it was going to go above that height, they would have to go through the building process. This is to really just exempt them from having to go through a zoning process as well potentially if they can't maintain whatever the required setback is in the underlying zoning district.

Mr. Cost just kind of council house was saying any retaining wall is holding back a force. That's what a retaining wall is. So, all retaining walls hold back some kind of force. But I was the mayor was talking about the um traffic analysis, traffic study. I wasn't at the last planning board meeting, but I actually listened to part of it. And um there was a whole discussion about um cumulative impacts. I think there was another word someone used, but cumulative impacts. And so when you do one project at a time um and I think you were having a I was listening to your discussion about okay but across the street's a whole another one with 36 units and that one's doesn't m that's separate and doesn't add to this one but eventually on one road all these different projects are going to have a cumulative impact of traffic each one maybe isn't an impact and and I wasn't quite sure you don't have to answer it now it's not part of this discussion but for the future how how that how we do deal with that where if it's just a letter saying oh there won't be a traffic impact on my project all's good but eventually there's going to be one. So just something that we if we are working on it that's great and if there's a process in place that's great but it just sounded like it was a little up in the air from the last discussion. So thank you

Miss Forson.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, so yeah, you're correct that when someone has to submit a traffic analysis for a new project like the cottage court that was conditionally approved at last month's planning board meeting, it only takes into consideration that proposed use. It does not take into consideration any of the surrounding uses that are existing. Um, you know, that particular development is right at the bottom of Timberlane Drive. So, we have 36 new units that could potentially be going in at the top of that hill. Um, so it's a good point. I guess I really just say this to let you know that we are thinking about it. We are aware of it and we're not exactly sure what the solution is if there is one. Um but yeah, it's definitely something that's been been on our radar because we agree.

Just to add to I'm sorry, Mer. [laughter]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. Um so just to add to that um because everything that Miss Bson said was correct um but a full traffic study looks at the existing traffic that can be observed. It doesn't take into account other proposed developments unless city staff is aware of it and asks them to consider that. Um, this is a a long-standing problem where basically what we're asking them to look at with a traffic study is their impact on the level of service. And the level of service is um it's a it's a grading scale where basically a level of service A is where you have free flowing traffic, which you actually do not want on a city street. It's a very dangerous condition. And it goes down to I think like a level F or something. Um, and you can add, you know, you can have a development added and it's still a level of service, you know, C, let's say, and then you have three or four or five more developments come in and then all of a sudden that sixth development hits the tipping point where it goes from a level of service C to a level of service D, and they're the ones that have to pay for all the off-site improvements to mitigate that. Um, it's a problem that other states have addressed through something called impact fees. Um, and New Hampshire does allow them in a very limited way. Um, and because of the limitations, it's a it's an option where you can collect impact fees, but then you have to spend them within three years. And I don't know if any of you are familiar with the pace of traffic projects. Um but three years is very uh

short. That's a very short term. Yeah, I guess is what I would call it. So um it's just not a realistic option. But I would say that uh impact fees ideally would be the way to handle that more fairly because right now the way it works is whoever is the unlucky person that causes the level of service to tip from one level to another, they're the developer that gets hit with the costs of um accounting for for all of that. Um so it's a bigger problem than just uh accounting for the cumulative impacts. It's also how we uh equitably and fairly distribute the costs of that.

Thank you. I was just particularly positive to it because one of the neighbors um actually use it wasn't cumulative some other term and and you know it resonated that okay it was exactly the point we're talking about that they knew this is going to happen but no one there's nothing to do about it. It seemed very frustrating to hear. Okay. Thank you. Councelor Jones, thank you. Um, Megan, I don't know if I heard you right, but if it's the setbacks, you were talking about walls on the setbacks.

Uh, if it's and if I heard you right, if it's just a wall, there's no setback requirements, but if it's a retaining wall, it has to go through the process, the planning board process. If it's for the purpose of retaining, uh, Mr. Chair, if I may. Um, yeah, please. Yeah. regardless of whether it is I'll call it an aesthetic wall, so say a stone wall, or if it is a an wall that's serving an actual structural purpose, both are located either on the ground or in the ground and therefore are considered structures based on our definition in the land development code. So both categories of walls would be subject to setback requirements.

Can I follow? [snorts] Yes, please. Because if it's an actual returning retaining wall, it has exits [clears throat] to relieve the pressure. I don't know what you call them. Drain tubes, whatever they are. I don't Ken Cost would know the name of them. But uh we Okay. Um and uh you wouldn't want them right on the right on the property line. You would want it drained to the side or something like that, right? Uh, so would that go through the is that included in here or would that go through the planning board process?

So that could be subject to a building permit process and as part of that review process when the plans examiner uh takes a look at the plans and the proposal. Um Mary, correct me if I'm wrong in saying this, but I think he would also be reviewing to make sure that there's not going to be runoff diverted onto an adjacent property owners. That's my concern right there. Land. Yeah. because that would be in violation of chapter 18 of the land development code, which is our anti-nuisance standards. And one of our standards is related to not creating a condition where you're diverting runoff onto someone else's property. So, yeah, we would look at that if it was an actual wall that was in the ground that needed a building permit because it was um because it's actually retaining. Because it's actually retaining. Yes. Because Thank you very much. Good answer. Yep.

Councelor House. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Um yeah, I I apologize. I probably read the staff report harder and deeper than maybe I should. I should read the ordinance that you're proposing. And all you're saying is retaining walls can go uh not be subject [clears throat] to a setback requirements. However, any retaining wall is going to require a building permit. A 4 foot high wall that is not a retaining wall would not require a building permit. I think that summarizes it. Do I have it? I think so. That was very good. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. My apologies, [snorts] Mayor Khan.

Yeah. Uh I just wanted to comment on the parking and the three-year impact fee and uh the legislature has been pretty generous on the building owner side for uh extending the permit period. So that they've now gone from 5 years to seven years. uh you can't revoke a permit uh that's been issued for building uh uh if it up until 7 years of that approval having been given. Um my guess is that no one's ever gone back to take a look at the impact fee to change that. just happens that there's a legislator in the room. Uh and whether uh you're interested in picking that one up, Representative uh that I mean we we ought to be pursuing that change. It it

Thank you, Representative Jones. Uh I have a question which is totally unfair but I would like to hear staff's opinion about it and that is with respect to the ADU no longer being required to be on [snorts] uh the utility uh grid if you will. Do you guys have a feel for if there's a pent up demand for that in Keen?

Uh yeah. So the reason for that change there were two changes to the ADU portion. One is to comply with state law and that was the so state law used to require that there be an interior door and then last year they changed it so that you can't require that there be an interior door. So we're actually very pleased with that change because it's going to save people money and it was kind of an annoying requirement. Anyways, the second change that you're talking about is the that's a local requirement to have all ADUs be on city water and sewer. It then goes on to say if you don't have city sewer, you shall provide a septic blah blah blah. And so, um, we just the requirement for city water and sewer is already covered under the base zoning districts. And so we just wanted to strike that out and then just say that if you're providing a septic system that it um meets the state requirements and just keep it a little bit more simple because it we had a couple of folks who inquired um and that language was confusing them and so they thought they couldn't do an ADU and then they talked to us and then realized that they could but it you know it just was confusing to them. So, we figured it would be simpler to just remove it um because it's already covered elsewhere. If you're in a zone where city water and sewer is provided, then you have to hook up to it. But if you're like in the rural district, you could have an ADU that's not hooked up to water and sewer.

And could you just remind me what the uh if there are any limits on by right number of ADUs? Yeah. So, um you can have up to one ADU on a single family property. Okay, thank you. Other questions? Had a lot more questions on uh Oh, [clears throat] council has

I had a slow arm responding there, chair. Sorry. Um I just a curious question and this isn't part of what you're proposing as changes is the uh remote parking spaces shall be within a 1,000 ft walking distance. Um why not 1500 ft?

That is a great question that I would defer to Miss Brunner because 1,00 square feet is the radius that's currently specified in our remote parking regulations. I don't know what the thought process was behind choosing that number. So take it away, Mary. Yeah. So, the history there, um, it's actually a 1,00 square foot walking distance. So, it has to be the, um, if you're a GIS spatial analysis person, it's the network distance, not a radius, but, um, it's, uh, and it's to the primary entrance. Um, but it used to be 300 ft and with the land development code, we increased it to 1,000. And I think the the thinking there was that um, the 300 ft was too restrictive. Um so the 10,00t is to make it a little bit less restrictive um but also to be within a reasonable distance so that people would actually use the remote parking spaces.

So so a negotiated number which we might change in the future. Thank you. Okay. I I'm not sure I heard anything uh that was a specific amendment change to uh uh just correct me if uh if someone felt that they had offered something specific in terms of a change. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to ask for one more point of clarification around the parking if that's okay. Yeah, of course.

Okay. Um so I I see in the in the um administrative reduction section in the staff report regarding the next the next not like number to go to was 50% by the way the rules work right now. So the basis for 25% is that something that's a little more normal for other municipalities or cities or was that based on something we calculated? I guess. Yeah. Go ahead, Mary.

So, um I came up with that number based on um the inquiries that we've received recently where the I don't I can't actually think of an instance where we've issued a 10% reduction because it's never actually been enough. They either um have to go another route like find remote parking or something like that or they would go for the 50% reduction. But paying for a full study is thousands of dollars. So, especially for these smaller uses, that killed the project. So, this is a way to give them a little bit more flexibility with parking without having to um spring for a really expensive full-blown study. Um yeah, so it was based on our experience in the past few years. Thank you. Okay. Um there's no one here. So I will open and close the uh public portion and uh move on to our deliberation. Um and again where I was uh just mentioning I did not hear any specific amendments. So we are um essentially going with what was given to us in the packet. So I will entertain a motion uh at this time. We're going to approve it and then we'll uh order we have to do the two votes on this.

Um so Mr. Chair, I think uh you could maybe take a straw poll to see if everyone's okay with the ordinance as is, and if so, you can just go to the separate committee votes. If you want to make an A version, you could do it full. All right. So, um, so are there Why don't we say that just as a I'm sorry. Did you want to do a straw poll?

Yeah. Yeah. I was going to do a straw poll. If uh all those in favor of the current wording, just give me an indication. And uh, no one opposed. Okay, great. So, now we can proceed. So, I will entertain a motion. uh for the planning board uh to um to see if this is um in line with the 2025 master plan. So, Miss Master Giovanni, [clears throat] um I would like to move to find the ordinance 0-2025-40 to be consistent with the 2025 comprehensive master plan. And a second. I'll second that,

Mr. Hayer. Thank you. So we'll uh we'll call the vote on that or unless there any discussion I should say. Okay. So we'll call the vote. So for the planning board uh members, all those in favor of uh uh saying that this is consistent with the 2025 master plan, please indicate. Any opposed? Okay. Consistent with that, then you have to do one now. Just ask your all your guys for a uh setting a meeting. Um, those on the PLD committee, all in favor as written. No, we need to go for a motion to have the mayor set a public hearing. Oh, sorry about that. Yeah, I'm new here also. Yeah, we'll ask the mayor to set a public hearing.

Page 20. [clears throat] My motion is to have the mayor set a public hearing. We need a second. Second. Motion's been made in a second. Any any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? So moved.

Great. Okay, [clears throat] thank you ladies. Uh, next is a discussion item proposed followup on HB457 from the 2025 legislature session relating to zoning restrictions on dwelling units. Miss Berner, if you'd like to uh lead us through this discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Please bear with me for a second while I switch out the PowerPoint. Um, but yeah, we get to talk about families today. Um, so see there we go. Um, so this item is really just informational tonight, but we wanted to kind of start the discussion um because this is something that also came out of the 2025 legislative session that we need to address. Um, so there's a couple actually before I go on, um, there was a a a bill that passed in the last year's legislative session, um, that says that you cannot restrict occupancy of a dwelling unit to less than two people per bedroom. And you also cannot regulate based on familial um, relationships. So you can't uh for example define a family as people who are related to each other. Um and so our current definition of family does not comply any longer as of September 13th I think is the effective date of that bill. Um, so this presentation is really just giving some background information on the issue in general and then um a sort of proposal from staff that we would be bringing forward at the next month's meeting. Um, so I'll just jump in. Um, there's a couple of relevant laws for you to keep in mind throughout this discussion. The first one is the Fair Housing Act um which basically prohibits discrimination on the basis of um a bunch of different factors. One um factor that's really important for you all to keep in mind is that um you can't uh discriminate based on disability and that includes um people who are

recovering from addiction and alcoholism. Um, so, uh, local government that utilizes a definition of family that would otherwise restrict groups of people with disabilities or others who are protected by the Fair Housing Act have to be um, prepared to grant what's called a a reasonable accommodation where necessary um, in order to mi maintain compliance with the Fair Housing Act. And so you're going to hear more about this from the city attorney who's going to be much better equipped to talk about this, but I just wanted to give you that background um because that does play into this discussion. Um and then the state law that recently passed was HB457. Um so this again it restricts the number of you cannot restrict the number of occupants to less than two per bedroom and you cannot have a regulation or a zoning ordinance that is based on the familial or non-familiar familial relationships or marital status, occupation, employment status or educational status of the occupants of the dwelling unit. Um and that went into effect on September 13th. Any questions about that so far? Oh,

Mr. Cost, Ju just so I understand, you can't restrict occupants to less than two per bedroom. So, you could have 10 per bedroom. Am I [snorts] getting it right? Or is it the other way? Um, I think what they're saying is that you could restrict it to two per bedroom, but you can't restrict it to be less than that. You can't say, "Oh, you can only have one occupant per bedroom." That would not be allowed. So, you could say two.

You could say two or more per bedroom if you wanted to. You could say two per bedroom. Um, most municipalities don't uh uh deal with occupancy on a bedroom basis. Um, and Keen doesn't do that. So, that portion of the law I'm not sure really affects us. Okay. Um, but it is in there. Any other questions? Mr. Madison, thank you. Bit of a loaded question. Um, let's say I have a three-bedroom house. I put it up on Airbnb. I say it's Can you turn on your microphone, please?

That never happened to me in council. Um, let's say I have a three-bedroom house. I put it up on Airbnb. I advertise it as having an occupancy of 12 people. Does this law apply to that or no? Um, so it does in that you can't restrict the number of occupants to less than two per bedroom. So, we wouldn't be able to come to you and say, "Oh, you can only you have you can only rent to five people." But that assumes that we allow Airbnbs, which Keem does. some communities don't. So, it kind of depends on the community and how they treat short-term rentals.

Yeah.

And I followup question to that. I mean, does this really impact that that area or are we talking about people building things or making changes to a structure? Um so this law affects how we regulate occupancy of dwellings. So if uh right now actually I'll just go on to the next slide because um we currently have a definition in Keen of family um that I'll read you the whole definition. It says family shall mean one of the following. Two or more natural persons related by blood, marriage, civil union, adoption, or foster care, living together as a single housekeeping unit with or without customary household helpers in a dwelling unit, or a group of four or fewer natural persons who are not related by blood, marriage, civil union, adoption, or foster care, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. Um, this term shall not preclude one natural person from being the sole occupant of any dwelling unit. So obviously our definition includes familial or non-familial status. So we're no longer allowed to have that portion of our definition. Um and we have other definitions that rely on the definition of family. So for example, our definition of single family is a freestanding building with one dwelling unit on a single lot which is designed, occupied or intended for occupancy by one family. Um, so to get back to your original question, this impacts how many people can live in a dwelling unit or who can live in a dwelling unit.

But in short-term rentals, not people not living there really technically or is it technically they are living there? It depends on the local community and how they define single family. Councelor Hos.

Thank you, Chair. So, removing the definition of family is what's happening here and essentially everything becomes a rooming house. And we can define the number of people that can go into a bedroom as two or more, but we can't define who they are as I'm understanding it. So, we have um if I go through the rest of the slides, I have some examples of how other communities have addressed this and what staff is recommending. Um but you could go that route. You could just do a pure numbers game and say, "Okay, for every square footage of space, you get one person." And then it could just be a calculation that way. Um, I don't recommend that for a couple of reasons, but I'll get to that. Um, okay.

Council Jones, can I just say I think we have a better definition. If you look at our city council rules of order under the conflict section, we did a good I think we did a better definition of who can who lives in a house than than this shows. uh things like you know civil unions is a is a term from the 80s you know uh I think we did I think if we take a look at that definition that we used I think we we redid it last year uh that would help here.

Cool. Yeah. So, um I think I know what you're talking about and I I can certainly check with the city attorney um to get that definition from her, but we aren't we are no longer allowed to regulate based on how people are related to each other. So, I just want you to keep that in mind. I don't know what your definition is that you're referring to, but um yeah. Okay. [laughter] Mayor Khan, it's household members.

Okay, great. Thank you. So, um I wanted to give you some examples of how other uh communities have approached this um through something called a functional family definition where you're basically instead of looking at trying to define what a family is by who the people are, it looks at trying to define a family based on their characteristics and how they behave together as a unit. Um, and so a lot of these functional family definitions include the phrase single housekeeping unit, um, stable rather than transient living arrangements. Generally, they'll live and cook together. There's some sort of shared budget. Um, and so there's a bunch of examples out there of communities that have moved away from a more traditional definition of family and have chosen to define it through this method. So, for example, in NSHA, they define it as a group of non- relatives living together in a non-traditional group can be the functional equivalent of a more traditional family unit. The factors that must be considered by the authority having jurisdiction are whether the group shares the entire house other than individual bedrooms, lives, cooks, and functions together as a single housekeeping unit and is primarily non-transient. [clears throat] Um, a couple of other definitions, uh, Weathersfield, Connecticut. They define it as any number of individuals living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, whether related to each other legally or not, and shall [clears throat] be deemed to include domestic help, but not to include paying guests. Um, so I'm not going to keep reading through all of these. There's another um Mansfield, Connecticut. I included the link on this page. Has a very very long and involved definition. What's on the screen here is just a partial definition, but it includes a lot of the same things. So, a functional family. Um they share the entire

dwelling unit, live and cook together as a single housekeeping um unit. Uh they share expenses, they're permanent and stable. um they go into a lot more detail that's probably I don't think we necessarily need. Um but I just wanted to show that as another example and Oh, go ahead. Spanish. I thought the Golden Girls example was perfect. Yeah, thank you. I was very excited to find a non-copyrighted photo that I could include. Um, [laughter] so I do.

So yeah, the Golden Girls are a great example of a functional family. Um, so our recommendation is to keep it short and sweet and just say a group of individuals living and cooking together is a single housekeeping unit that is primarily non-transient. um just it provides a definition that we can then rely on if needed, but um is pretty in keeping with what some other communities have. We thought it would be better to stay away from a longer, more involved definition. We also thought it would be better to stay away from um trying to regulate just based on square footage because especially with the trend right now towards like tiny houses and smaller like micro apartments and things trying to assign a certain square foot area to each person. Um I don't know. It it it didn't seem like the best way to approach this. Um, but we're definitely open to any comments or suggestions. We're our goal is to try and submit something next month um to get the process started because again our this uh state bill went into effect on September 13th and so currently we don't have a definition that really works with our code that's legal.

Mr. Cost, thank you Mr. chair. I'm trying to just think of what's here in Keen. So, someone like um I'm thinking maybe Chris Freeman and Bell Tower where he has houses where he rents out rooms. People pay per room bedroom, but they they live in the whole house and they share the kitchen and they share who knows other things. And so, it's it's kind of that situation. It's not transient. people, you know, might come, you know, traveling nurses, someone might come here for a year or other people would do that. Would that be a would that be this? Yes. Okay.

Yeah. And I think that um another thing just to keep in mind is that we are not going to be proactively going out to see if every dwelling unit meets this definition. This this just gives us something to fall back on if there is a situation where like like if there's an eight bedroomedroom house that's being rented out to a bunch of people on a daily basis and they're having big parties and annoying the neighbors, we would have something to fall back on to say like, hey, that's not allowed in a single family neighborhood. Um, but we really this is just to have in our code so that everything else kind of lines up and makes sense and then we have something to fall back on if it's needed.

Miss R Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Does the and cooking together serve a legal purpose? I'm just I I understand it's something to fall back on, but it's just it seems like it's such a broad definition anyway that like reading it as a group of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit that is primaril primarily non-transient essentially almost does the same thing in my mind, but I'm just curious if the cooking piece because I did see it in your other examples, too.

Yeah. So, I I pretty much put that in there because of those other examples because um if you have separate cooking facilities for each person, then it then you start to get into a situation where they're operating less like a family. But if we don't care, then I I mostly put it in there because it's like a phrase of art that I've seen other places. So if there's no formal ordinance yet submitted, so we can definitely change that. Miss Ellis, I'm sorry, Councelor Ellis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So is is the point that there's one shared kitchen, not that they're actually all like chopping carrots together like [laughter] that. We don't even do that at all. We can take the cooking together out if it if that's I don't think it's a deal breakaker. I was just I think I was just following up trying to understand like does it literally mean cooking together just that there's a shared but thank thank you for clarifying that. Yeah, Mr. Hayer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. um just the impacts of this changing whatever definition we come up to, how does it other than complying with state law, how I guess how is it going to be used in the day-to-day in your day-to-day that might help us figure out how much we need to worry about whether cooking is included or not. I agree it's seems oddly specific, but [snorts]

just like just what's the impact of this? How does it change your lives uh as our planning professionals? It doesn't really change much in our daytoday. Again, it really is going to just be when we have those complaints. I think that the history of our current definition of family um goes back to when Keem State College was a lot bigger than it is now and there were a lot more students living in housing in neighborhoods and there was more conflict between like, you know, party houses and the neighbor living next door complaining to the city about it. And so, um, that issue really has gone away, um, with, uh, Keen State College contracting and then building more student housing on campus. Um, so honestly, I don't think it's going to have a huge impact on our day-to-day. What it will impact though is our other definitions in the code. Um, so the definition of family is kind of foundational to the whole land development code for all of the residential uses. all of them are either explicitly or um kind of indirectly relating back to that definition of family. So, there are going to be ripple effects to other things. Um I know that the city attorney is planning to talk to the city council about the congregate living and social services ordinance. Um and so that's one area. Um, another area could be short-term rentals, which again currently aren't regulated by the city in any way, but this could have a ripple impact on that as well. If we're saying non-transient, we now need to talk about what that means. Um, so there are potential impacts um that we might need to react to, but in the meantime, right now, we don't have a definition of family that we can legally enforce. So, I think it's important to get something in there and then uh deal with the impacts if that makes sense.

Mr. Madison,

thank you. Um just to my my thoughts on the living and cooking. Um we could change that to group of individuals residing together because residence is a legal term. Um you know there's a legal definition for what's a residence. It's the place where your the address which you use to receive mail, to register to vote, to register your car. Um it it implies that's your legal address. So by saying it's a group of individuals residing together as a single housekeeping unit, we can take out the primarily non-transient and then we're talking about people who are staying at this property as their primary doicile. Councelor Jones,

thank you. I just want to add that I think we should encourage the common kitchen uh like the Golden Girls had. Um we don't want to encourage people putting hot plates in their own bedrooms [clears throat] for safety reasons. And that's just my thought. Mr. cost. Thank you.

Is there with all of this in a in a sorry in a traditional family this eventually a limitation to how many people will live in that house? I mean how many kids you want or you adopt or whatever? But so, but is there an occupancy concern here that that this residents could be lots and lots of people that then tax the neighborhood?

Yeah. So, that that is a concern. That's why a lot of communities have the um definition the way that Keen had it or has it, I guess. um where it's either a natural natural family, however you want to define it, or a group uh they put an occupancy limit, but that's no longer allowed. So, um I think the only way to regulate occupancy if we were to go with this route would be through the building and life safety code. Um, otherwise it's just are they truly residing or living together as a single housekeeping unit or are they just saying that and renting out rooms and they're living actually separately and not operating together as a housekeeping unit? That that's where we would have to make that judgment call. But if they truly are operating together as a single housekeeping unit, I don't think this definition puts any cap on the number of people.

Miss Master Giovani, [clears throat] I know there was some discussion about a lot of these larger homes being divided up into, you know, more dwelling units, more apartments to add to our housing crisis. But um in doing so, we did put a lot of regulations in place for those homes. As soon as they get over five units, they have to install sprinklers, etc., etc. So, I just don't know um how that would affect a unit that would encourage a large amount of people if those kind of regulations would be imposed on that same type of thing.

Yeah. So, we're preempted um by the state on that specific issue. So, uh, single family and two family, we cannot require sprinkler sprinklers. Um, and then if [snorts] it's an existing building and it's four units or less, I think there's um you don't necessarily have to provide a sprinkler as long as you meet some other fire code requirements. Um, but that's all dictated by the state. Uh, we it's not a local regulation. Um, so to your point, if we had a single dwelling unit where there was a large number of people, would a sprinkler be required? No.

Yeah. But what I would think it would it still poses the same threat. But [clears throat] in the on the opposite end of things, while we consider, you know, expanding our options for housing, are we really doing the owners of these very large homes justice by [clears throat] making them put all these sprinklers and everything else in um because that's cost prohibitive for a lot of those types of situations where if they just made it into a rooming house, they probably wouldn't that wouldn't get be regulated in that way.

Um so a rooming house where you have trans so it depends on if the guests are transient or not but under the building code where any type of use where you have transient guests it's um it bumps it up to like another level of review where they have to provide more um stringent like life safety code requirements. Um, so I'm not sure what you meant by rooming house, but if you mean like where the rooms are let out by the week or something like that,

I'm not sure exactly where that would fall in the building code, but my guess would be that they would at that point have to provide more um fire protection than just a single family home. That would make sense. I I just feel like it would be useful to have those types of regulations be um you know similar across those types of buildings. Just allow more opportunity to get more housing into those types of structures. It's pretty difficult to expand a structure like that into five or six units now based on the state's regulations and the city's regulations, too. Councelor Williams.

Do we have a definition of transient? Um, nope. That's something that would have to be worked out in the ordinance. Um, so we've had some conversations. Um, for example, it could be less than 30 days would be considered um transient, but that's something that uh would have to be defined if we were to use it in the definition. Mr. Cost, you're next.

I'm sorry. So, if I own that beautiful house, um, and I had a lot of friends and, you know, buddies and people I did stuff with and we all wanted to be together because we really liked each other and there were like 30 of them. And I said, you know, we could all fit in that house pretty nicely and there's lots of rooms and you can have that corner and that corner. And so now I have 30 people living there. They all chip in. They pay the costs. We're all doing that. We have a kitchen. We share um we don't chop vegetables together, but we share the space. I could have like 30 people in there. I don't have to do anything to it in terms of any life safety upgrades or anything with building permit. I just have people living in there and they're all sharing it and that's my that's my family or my we're all residents and we're all permanent. Right.

I So that's a that's a kind of an way out there extent, but that's a conclusion that it could go. So, what I would say to that is that that could potentially meet the definition of family under what's on the screen right now. Whether or not they would have to upgrade or you would have to upgrade the house in that instance, that would fall back on our fire and building code. And I don't know what the threshold is for in terms of occupancy of a dwelling unit when it cooks you into the next level. So they have a um various different thresholds that will So there may be something in the code that says if if you have over 10 people

well we also you know discussed you can't restrict uh less than two per bedroom but you could restrict it to three or to two. So that would mean you'd have to have 15 bedrooms in that house.

Yes. So that is actually um something that if this committee is interested in having a restriction or a limit per bedroom um that would be good to know now so that we could start thinking about that. Um we didn't propose that uh partially because there's no definition of bedroom. Um [laughter] so it's uh yeah. So yeah, I think Mr. Hay for you are next.

Oh, uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. Um, on the Golden Girls slide, was did you were using a functional family term on that? Was there an example there of Yeah. function? I I for what it's worth, I like that functional family. You know, I think it does it sort of creates that feeling of the share the shared experience, sharing expenses, sharing household responsibilities. Um, you know, I I like functional family as a potential inclusion in your definition of family for what it's worth. Can I clarify? Would allow cooking as a functional family?

Can I clarify? So you are you are looking at the Nasha example or the um the characteristics

your characteristics of the functional family. I think that's an I think the term functional family might be an interesting one to include because it sort of I think it speaks to the goals of what what we're trying to uh talk about here doesn't doesn't say you have to be related by blood or or or marriage or or anything like that. It just sort of says you are you are acting as a family. So my um you know down in Florida my my uh cousin and her sister live together in one home. They're a functional family. they they they are not no longer married. Um but they live together in one home. Uh mother-in-law might move in with a friend. You know, they they golden girls. Um you know, that's the sort of uh the what we're trying to achieve talk about here is what what is a family essentially in in terms that do not violate uh uh current uh current laws. And I like just the the concept of a functional family to do that for what it's worth. Miss Rutle Miller.

And I just want to confirm because my what the vibe I'm getting here is that the reason why we probably want to potentially stay away from the number per room occupancy would be if if people were to have many children, could that potentially get sticky with that situation? if we put a specific number on it and they only had two bedrooms in their house or something like that regardless of what that family structure looked like. Yes. So I I think if if there is going to be any sort of occupancy limit, we would just want to know that now so that we could start thinking about it and prepare adequately um rather than like trying to do it on the fly. So, right now we haven't submitted an ordinance yet and we could we're working on a draft to bring to you next month. Um, but yeah, I think if we start looking at numbers, there's a lot more um considerations to think about like you just raised one with the kids. So, would we then want to say like adults or you know it so there's ways to address it but we would want to probably modify the definition um if if that's the direction this body wants to go in.

Councelor Hos.

Yeah. Thank you, chair. Um, yeah, we're trying to define something that's such a slippery thing to do here that we really don't want to define, but we have to because we use the word all over the the development code and the ordinances. Um, frankly, I like the uh suggestions that Mr. Madison offered uh referring to residents and giving some uh finite connection to that that it's where you get your mail, it's where you register your car, etc. Um, and uh, to go with something simple like that. Um, I'd also observe that, you know, as as sticky as this is, it's [snorts] probably something that we should have more public input to um, rather than us uh, talking about it. We won't get anywhere as much further because everybody will have a different opinion as to what a family is and what we're trying to avoid or what we're trying to promote. But, um, we certainly need to kick this around. But meanwhile, I like uh Mr. Madison's uh offering.

Mr. Cost, thank you again. If we do a limitation, not saying we should, but if we did, my sense is it should be based on something having to do with um kind of common practices in in life safety things. So at some point a building is overcrowded and so that then gets to building code stuff, but I I don't think you want to limit it by having too many people in a house who are unrelated or whatever reason. That gets really crazy. But if there's a reason, you just I mean there are occupancy limits in rooms. So there's some there must be some math that tells people what that is and calculations to do that. No, they make it up. So [laughter] well then we'll make it up. But I mean there there has to be some way some algorithm something that then says okay that that beautiful house there you know if there's 50 people in there it's there's an issue. So I would think [clears throat] if we do a limit it's got to be based on life safety kind of things I think. Thank you

Miss Pastor Giovani. Well [clears throat] in Keen we have so many apartments rented to students. I mean, some extremely small apartments have as many as, you know, eight people in them in two in like two small bedrooms, you know, two or four people sharing. So, how does it impact that in terms of that type of rental for the student rental?

Yeah. So that was one of the main um driving forces behind the bill that passed was to prevent um municipalities from like developing regulations geared towards students essentially. Um so the way it would impact them is that if they're operating as a single housekeeping unit and they meet our definition of family, they would be allowed to do that. We do have our building and fire code that they would have to meet. So, I just don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I know that there are that that issue is addressed in the building and fire code. I just can't tell you what the numbers are. Um so before that situation that you described would have been not allowed in Keen um because we had no more than four or fewer unrelated people could be in one dwelling unit. Now with that change to state law they could be um right now we don't have any definition of family that we can enforce. So that that would be allowed right now by right. If we do this definition and can make the case that they aren't operating as a functional family or however we choose to word it then we could potentially regulate that. But it's it'll be a case by case and and we wouldn't really even know about the situation unless somebody complained about it and then we went and investigated. So

I mean I think there's a lot of properties in Keen that that could conflict you know what I mean that they already have large amount of you know people that students pay by the their tuition includes you know that type of thing that people specifically don't either do or don't want to rent to students for either well one reason they can get a lot more money obviously from those rentals but if [clears throat] we change the rules and we change the life safety that a lot of the owners of those properties would have to change and invest in their properties to make changes.

Thank you. Well, we're getting close to 8. Um, and we're sort of we could probably freewheel on this all night, but uh I just [clears throat] uh why don't we uh ask Miss Brunner if there's anything specific you want from from this group tonight on this? Um, I guess I would be interested if the if you're amendable to this doing another straw poll to see how interested this body is in pursuing something more like what's um what staff recommended or what uh Mr. Madison recommended something along those lines or if you're looking if you think that we should be going in a different direction entirely just to give us some guidance on what to bring back to you. [clears throat] Is that okay?

Well, I think Mr. Madison really only changed uh one word, maybe two if he took out cooking, but he changed living to residing. Yeah. A group of individuals residing together as a single housekeeping unit. So, that's a merger of the the two ideas. So folks that are in favor of kind of that line of thinking or want to go in a different direction, I'll say I'm in favor of it. One more time. Sure. A group of individuals residing

as a together as a single housekeeping unit that is uh well as a single housekeeping unit. Yeah. I would take out the last part because when you use the word uh when can you turn on your microphone please? Um when you take out that last part the primarily non-transient you're you're saying they're residing together. Residing is a legal term. You're saying this is your residence. You know it's where you're registered to vote where you're receiving mail. You know where your car is registered. So, so there's kind of a um there there's a legal definition for you meaning. Yep.

Councelor Jones, before you take that poll, I'm sorry. Before you take that poll, can I just ask Mary what you meant by going another direction? I mean, what what what are we thinking of here? Sure. So, I I can't give you like a specific answer right now, but um basically what I'm asking words or concepts. Yeah. I'm asking if you hate what's on the screen [laughter] or if you think that's totally wrong for Keen or if you think that's the right direction to go in. Um so that we know kind of to get a sense for next month if um if we're kind of going in the right direction. Can I follow?

Yeah. I I mean, I like what's on the screen with with the uh Andrew's wording. Uh but I just didn't know what else is out there that you were possibly thinking of. Yeah. So, we could do it based on purely um occupancy numbers um which is already like Okay.

Or um that I think I showed an example from Yeah. from Mansfield, Connecticut. That's a little bit more involved and it's much more proactive. So like this uh the way this community does it is when somebody wants to get an occupancy permit, they basically have to prove that they meet all of these criteria. Four meetings to agree on. So [laughter] [snorts]

So yeah, this seemed very involved um and it didn't seem right for Keen, but it's that's another option that's out there. Okay, I'm going to Andrews then. Mayor Khan, uh, I'd adjust Andrews to be uh, residing together as opposed to residents. Uh, resident as you, we were trying to define it has all sorts of legal flaws to it. post office boxes, uh, parental address, uh, residing together as opposed to residents, I think, is a stronger term for the kind of flexibility that we're looking for.

I I think that's where we were residing together, wasn't it? Yeah, that was Yeah. Okay. I I heard I heard residents, a group of residents. No, it was a group of individuals residing together. Yep. As a single housekeeper. Yeah. Okay, good. Because let's not try to define resident.

Uh it it's very difficult to do. You start to have to parse between resident and doiciled and it uh it gets tough. agree with um Mayor Khan and what Madison came up with because no matter what we decide here, we all know it has to cross the city attorney's desk and I can tell you in many years we thought we were going to do the right thing and it never made it across the city attorney's desk and we went back to square one. So I think we've pretty much covered all the bases here and I think it'll actually make it across the city attorney's desk and come back with a positive review. We don't want to start this from square one again. So, I think we've done a good uh combination of ideas here and kudos to planning for coming up with this. I think this will pass the test across the city attorney's desk.

Great, [clears throat] Mr. Cost. Thank you. So, so once there's a definition, this is the definition for family or the word family goes away. So, so will when we still if will we still use in the future words like single family house definition of family is this is that the way it'll work or the word family like disappears eventually we we can do it either way so I would and and do we have to do we have to do this right it's not like we have a choice position of a family yeah we we have to do something because right now our code is okay

uh doesn't function um but the we could have we could still use the term single family home to family dwelling. Um but then in the definition we could say occupied by one household or one we could use a different term if we wanted to in those definitions. Um or we could keep the term family but then it's the definition for family is the broader definition. Uh, so it's really we could if we don't want to use the word family, we could use a household for example.

Yeah. I I don't I I'm just looking ahead that when if we did decide that f the word family goes away, I could imagine there'll be a lot of people who say, "What do you mean there's no families?" So, so I don't know. I just Yeah. [laughter] All right, you're good. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Okay, next uh on our agenda is new business. Are there any items of new business that members would like to see added to a future meeting agenda? Uh if you look to the bottom, there's other things that we're including is more time items. Um, so those are already captured if that's your what you're thinking about for new business. Yeah. Thank um I would just uh want to accelerate the short-term rental properties that we've been talking about for several years. That's that's a real

issue in the neighborhoods as far as Airbnbs and uh temporary rentals and such. So I'd ask that we accelerate that on this schedule. Thank you. Okay. Uh, next joint, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Mayor,

without a state state definition on uh B&Bs, you're with a short-term rental of 30 days. Uh, that's statute. Um, so I understand there's sensitivity about that question locally, but I think the expectation of accelerating it just has its difficulties. Understand what you said. Also understand the reason for staff push back that if there was something simple about this, the statutes would have reflected it by now. It's a very good point. Yeah. And I would just say um this is not an acute problem in Keen really as it is in many other communities and unfortunate

would be like would be interesting to see what other communities try and whether it's effective or not. But that's just my opinion. Mr. Madison,

we we do have um there is a definition um at the state end. Uh basically any property that is available for rent for a term of six months or less is considered a short-term rental. That's that's the definition used by the rooms and meals tax. Um and that's what other communities like Conway have been using as their legal basis to to regulate and it already made it through the New Hampshire Supreme Court. And even though Conway lost their case, the Supreme Court upheld their right to regulate short-term rentals. They just ruled against Conway and some minutia on how they were enforcing it. But um it it is in the um in the state statutes that we we do have the legal authority to regulate um properties that are rented for a term of lease of six months or less.

Yeah, thank you for that. Yeah, it's really to my point. I don't think Keen wants to be running up to the uh New Hampshire Supreme Court on this. Miss Rutle Miller, thank you. Yeah, I um I was just reminded because I went to a housing conference in the fall and somebody did let me know that there is legal precedence in New Hampshire for using zon zoning ordinances to help um with cases like this. Um there is a case that was in Portsouth where uh New Hampshire ruled in favor. Um I don't know the full background of it. I just wanted to mention it because apparently there are is some wiggle room in relation to how that is defined and where things can go versus where where they cannot.

Thank you. Okay. Um moving on. The next uh joint planning board and planning license and development meeting is scheduled for February 9th at 6:30 in these chambers. And without further ado, I will now adjourn this meeting at 8:05. Thank you very much. Appreciate everyone being here.