Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening everyone The hour of 630 p.m. Having arrived I will call to order this regular meeting of the Planning Board This meeting is being broadcast live on the city of Keene YouTube channel The video will also be available for streaming on the city's website and is posted on the website by the end of the next business day, barring any technical difficulties. Anyone wishing to view a copy of the agenda and supporting materials will find it on the city website. To receive electronic copies of future agenda packets, please go to the homepage and subscribe to the city meeting's 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. Will staff please conduct the roll?

Harold Farrington.

Here.

Roberta Mastrogiovanni. Mayor Jay Kahn.

Here.

Councilor Molly Ellis. Here. David Bergeron.

Here.

Mike Hafer.

Here.

Kenneth Cost.

Here.

Andrew Madison. And for the alternate, Stefan Mayhew.

Present.

Tammy Adams and Joey Cosivera. And Mr. Chair, there is a spot available if you'd like to invite the alternate to vote this evening.

Thank you, Ms. Brenner. Yes, I would like to invite Mr. Mayhew to participate as a voting member in tonight's meeting. So noted. Okay. Who's doing my motions tonight? You, Mr. Cost?

Sounds like I am.

Thank you for volunteering. So our first item on the agenda is minutes from the May 26, 2026 meeting. So I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. So move. I move.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Second. All right, great.

Thank you. Any corrections, comments, questions? I actually noticed a couple Scrivener's corrections. Line 518. There's the T left off of the word taxes. It's not axes collected. And on line 674, there's a phrase that says he sadded. It should be she added. So that was 675? 674 yes okay i think now we can proceed to the vote unless there are any other comments so all those in favor of approving the minutes as men amended Any opposed? Unanimously passed. May I ask staff if there are any extension requests on the docket this evening?

No, there are not.

Thank you, Miss Burner. May I ask if there are any conditional approvals ready for final approval tonight?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are three applications that are ready for final approval this evening. The first is for PB-26-9, which is a major site plan for rolling energy for the properties at 20 and 37 Manchester Street. There were three conditions precedent to final approval, including that the owner's signature appears on the plans, submittal of the paper and digital copies of the final plan set, and submittal of a security to cover the cost of landscaping, erosion, sedimentation control in a form and amount acceptable, and all three of those conditions have been met.

Thank you. I will entertain a motion for final approval on PB 26-9. So moving. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Second.

Second.

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron. Any discussion or questions? All right. We'll call the vote. So all those in favor of the motion to issue final approval for PB-26-9 indicate. Any opposed? Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just, I can't remember that project. Is it a multifamily?

No, this is the Frolling Energy, which is the redoing of parking lots and putting an additional curb cut.

Okay.

Yep.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the next project is PB- I'm sorry.

I just wanted the vote. The vote was unanimous for approval, final approval.

Thank you. So the next project that's ready for final approval is PB-26-11. This is for 30 to 42 production ,, and it was a major site plan application as well as a surface water protection conditional use permit. There were a number of conditions, so I'm just going to read through them. The first was owner's signature appears on the plans. The submittal of the five full-size paper copies in a PDF digital version of the final plans. Submittal of a security, again, for erosion and sediment control measures as built plans, landscaping, and a conservation seed mix. Submittal of a revised site plan that shows the installation of one three-inch caliper American linden tree and one three-inch caliper swamp white oak in place of the two proposed red maple trees. Addition of a note to the plan stating that best management practices for invasive and noxious plant species shall be utilized. Submittal of a new design for the rain garden that preserves the three mature trees. And then submittal of a salt reduction plan.

i believe that was all the conditions precedent and they have all been met thank you if i could if i could ask again uh the petitioner on that request is who

So this the applicant is fieldstone land consultants and the application was on behalf of GMS Realty this is the the building is on production Avenue and They have like one row of diagonal parking in front of the building that's needed for customers and so they're hoping to expand their parking lot and back to provide 24 parking spaces for employees But because they're adjacent to a city tax ditch, which has a wetland adjacent to it, their stormwater management system was built within the surface water protection buffer. And so that's why it came up to the planning board. So I don't know if you were here at the planning board meeting when we were discussing the really long, skinny rain garden. That's this project.

They needed some space for loading and unloading big semis, basically, in the back.

Thank you.

Sure. Okay, I will ask to entertain a motion for final approval for PB26-11.

Move to issue final approval for PB26-11.

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron. Second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Cost. Any questions or discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. All those in favor of issuing... sorry no I'm gonna say yes jump the gun on me all right all those in favor of final approval for PB 26-11 indicate any opposed PB 26-11 is unanimously approved for final approval and you have a third miss Moran

Yes, Mr. Chair. The final application ready for final approval is PB-2025-21. This is a two lot subdivision at 315 Old Walpole Road. This was also a surface water conditional use permit. and the conditions of approval include that the owner signatures appear on the plans, the wetland scientist stamp appears on the plans, submittal of the four required paper copies, two mylar copies, and a PDF version of the final plan set, submittal of the recording fees, inspection of the lot monuments by the public works director, Submittal of documentation demonstrating that subdivision approval has been granted by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and a revised stormwater management report to be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. I believe. Yeah. And so all of those conditions, except for the subdivision approval by the New Hampshire department of environmental services has have been met. And so staff are recommending that you issue final approval tonight, but with the addition of a condition subsequent, um, stating that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the subdivision approval from, um, New Hampshire department of environmental services will be obtained. In talking with the applicants, the subdivision approval is being held up by the wetland permit, which they're expecting to hear back on that in early July. And so instead of having them wait to July, we thought tying that condition to the building permit would be sufficient. So if you agree with that, then this project is ready for final approval.

Okay, do we need to read that condition into the motion at this time?

Yes, please do. It would be... Move to issue final approval for PB-2025-2021 with the addition of a condition subsequent to final approval that prior to the issuance of a building permit, approval shall be obtained from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.

All right, great. Someone want to move that as read?

I would move as read approval of application 25-21 pending all conditions pending a positive with building permit not to be issued prior to Department of Environmental Services approval of their application.

Great. Second? Councillor Ellis, thank you. Any discussion? This was the one where the... I don't remember. You do? Okay, good. All right. Great. All right. Any discussion or comments? Let's proceed to the vote then. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. Unanimously approved for final approval, PB 2025-21. Okay. Thank you. Boundary line adjustment. That's a placeholder on our agenda.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe we have any tonight.

Okay, so let's move into our first continued public hearing, which is a PB26-12, Major Site Plan and Cottage Court Conditional Use Permit. Applicant Fieldstone Land Consultants, on behalf of owner Nuevo Transfers LLC, proposes to construct four townhouses, townhouse buildings, with a total of 14 units on the parcels at 0 Carroll Street, 0 Elm Street, and 225 Elm Street. Tax map plat numbers 536-049-000. 536-050-000. 536-055-000. And finally, 536-056-000. The partials are approximately .75 acres in total and are located in the medium density district. Okay. So at this point, we will move to... An update from the applicant.

Good evening. John Noonan from Fieldstone Land Consultants here on behalf of Christopher Massiello and Nuevo Transfers, LLC. So the continued hearing was based on a few items. We were looking at the orientation of the building. So currently, we have the gable ends of the building, the smallest, narrowest end of the building facing the street frontage. The architectural elements of that gable end was to try to mimic more of a residential style on the end of the building. So the architect has revised the ends of the buildings so that each gable end facing the road frontage would have, the windows are now aligned with each floor and the doors have been, there's a doorway that was added with a small roof overhead. So each gable end will have this doorway and then the windows aligned top to bottom on each floor similar to the homes in the neighborhood where almost the majority of the homes in the neighborhood have the gable end facing the roadway including one of the larger apartment buildings that's nearby is also oriented that same way there was questions on if we had looked at other options of orientation on the building we had done other concepts in the past Tim Sampson architects had also done prior to us coming on board with the project had also looked at different orientations but I can share some of those I'll look at the plants can everyone hear me on the mic So we had concepts where the buildings were oriented in parallel to the streets. So we have Elm Street on this side, Carroll Street on this side. So the frontage is along Carroll and Elm. We had looked at options of buildings oriented this way. We also had them closer together at one point. And The reason this one did not go forward, we ended up having pavement for a 22-foot wide aisle, building setbacks, holding the buildings at the setbacks, basically no green space around the building. And this ended up with much more pavement than the orientation we have now. So orientation in this manner added pavement volumes it made our stormwater would have to be for stormwater practices versus two so substantial cost there we'd also looked at options of rotating some of the buildings with the gable end short end towards the street and some and additional buildings with the long ways in a similar fashion we had to have narrower drive aisle added a lot more pavement really restricted access for stormwater management here so it really limited the site that much more so we ended up back with the orientation we have now where the gable end faces the street on both sides uh... this would maximize our room for stormwater management and minimize impervious areas for uh... so we have less pavement And then it allows for a central drive aisle connecting both ways. So traffic leaving or entering could go to either street. And allowing, you know, the orientation to be similar to buildings and homes that are in the neighborhood already. So we found that this was the most efficient layout. In the sidewalk, I think it was apparent of all the buildings around and homes in the area have a similar layout where the gable end faces. So we did look at that.

Excuse me, just one second, Mr. Noonan. I just have a process question. Can the people in the audience see the plans?

Mr. Chair, if I may. Yeah, I just spoke to our AV tech, and he was just able to turn the screens on so that they can now see what John is presenting. Okay, great.

Thank you.

Yep.

I'm glad they flipped back through sheets if anyone needs to see them on the monitor. Yeah. So we're looking at the current plan right now. That's this gray plan. That's been submitted. We have plantings along the frontage. And as I was mentioning, the 32 foot wide section of the building, that's what faces the street on both Carroll and Elm. These other options that were shown here and highlighted was looking at options if we had the buildings running with the long face towards each frontage of Elm and Carroll and parking in the rear with a central driveway. And as mentioned, because of the building setbacks at the north and south, we only end up with a 22 foot wide drive aisle, whereas we have on our current plan is a 24 foot drive aisle. And this actually ends up with more pavement than than previously in the other option. The other options where we had the buildings closer together and having a driveway on one here and one here, we ended up with an even smaller driveway that would not meet the 22 foot minimum for Keene's driveway width. So that's where we ended up back at the, how we ended up at this orientation was ultimately trying to keep the gable ends facing the narrowest to the street, We had trimmed back our fence line along the frontage to meet the back corner of the building so that it kept the rear lawn areas or exits from the building as somewhat of a backyard, and with the six-foot fence providing somewhat of a private backyard. And then we replaced, when we trimmed back that fence, was to add trees and ornamental trees along the frontage to break that up. One of the other items discussed was also the cost of the soils amendment and geotech with deep foundations. So our client had provided, when they priced out with the geotech, they were looking at about $400,000 additional cost just for foundations. They are yet to decide exactly what type of deep foundation that is. We have submitted the geotech report that was provided that shows between 40 and 42 feet is where they hit refusal, likely bedrock. So they'd either be looking at steel piles down to that 40 or 42 foot depth or doing a geopier, which is an aggregate foundation, or doing helicoils. But they're looking at different options on that for that deep foundation. but overall the geotech told them you're looking at about a four hundred thousand dollars additional that four hundred thousand dollars additional really um put them to where they want to maximize density and hold to 14 units so that it spreads out that cost across those extra two units help spread that cost so that was ultimately where we they told us to you know we have to hold as many units as we can so we're trying to get 14 units because of the extreme cost for the geotech work that'll be done so that was submitted and then we had as our last item with engineering was the sewer capacity it was brought up at the last meeting by an abutter about sewer water potential capacity and then drainage was discussed We had submitted or initially was our drainage report for stormwater management and Brian Ruoff the city engineer has reviewed that again He said we meet the everything for the standards for the city for meeting for drainage and then water capacity We had tied through so there's a water line which we had revised a little while ago prior to the previous meeting and was having the water line run between the streets. That ultimately provides a loop and doesn't drop pressure in the city. Brian said that alleviates any question on not having capacity. He said it absolutely has capacity by looping the water lines between the two streets. So water is not an issue. And then sewer, we're working with the city of DPW on potentially upgrading sewer line so our client has agreed to upgrading the sewer if deemed necessary from the manhole that we tie into up to Spruce Street so Spruce Street was was upgraded when they did Elm Street sewer so it is plastic pipe Brian Ruoff also confirmed that the piping in Elm and Carroll is plastic pipe. They haven't had any complaints. No one's filed complaints with the city saying that they've had issues in the neighborhood with sewer backups. So ultimately, we got a price from VHB that would be modeling the neighborhood to see what capacity it is. There's potential that the six-inch capacity might be fine with these additional units. If it's not, our clients already agreed, and we've sent that to Brian, is they would upgrade to an eight-inch line along Carroll Street to Spruce Street. And that is listed as a condition of approval already. that we address that with engineering. And those are the last comments that were open.

Thank you. Board members have questions for Mr. Noonan? Mr. Cost? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just curious on the...

delta of the pavement where the where they go parallel with the streets you said it's more pavement than this is it sick because looking at it i can't tell is it significant yeah it's probably about 20 more pavement because we still had to hold the width between the buildings to have enough turning radius so we had a 24 inch drive aisle with the driveways in front so we still had the garages in between So we added about 20% additional pavement. Plus, we had to do four stormwater management areas separate, which would have more structures than doing two. So ultimately, we have two on this plan where stormwater management is done on the north and south boundary. And then we're just utilizing that straight aisle, saves having the aisle plus additional pavement.

OK. Thank you.

Mr. Hafer, did you have your?

We're still in the questions for the applicant stage, not deliberations. That is correct. Yep, yep. Thanks.

Ms. Barnum.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just got a question from the mayor, so I figured it would be helpful perhaps for the whole board. The question was related to if you weren't present at the last public hearing, or when the public hearing was opened, or at the site visit, are you able to participate in and vote on this application? And the answer is yes. That's why we sent out the materials ahead of time. So hopefully everyone has had a chance to review the materials in the packet, the minutes from the last meeting. There's also recordings online. So I just wanted to share that so everyone is in the loop.

Thank you. Other questions? Yes.

seeing as i wasn't at the site review the uh the seven units are in each building correct there's there's seven in each um so the orientation is four units there's a five foot gap between a three unit and then same mirrored on the other so three units and four units separated by five feet in between

Between two separate buildings, five feet apart, but connected by foundation structure and roofline.

roofline matching foundations would be separate however if they do piers for the deep foundation they would likely share a row of piers with a grade beam on it so you'd have these deep piers that are going 40 feet deep with a beam on top of it and then the foundation sitting on top so you'd have a separate foundation for this building but likely sharing a grade beam for foundation for deep foundation below intended for storage and mechanical

No, this was, I mean, the below grade.

So we're coming in at grade with a garage and mechanicals on that grade level. And then living space on the second and third floor.

Second and?

Third.

There's no storage to the gabled area.

There is between the buildings, are you asking?

No, no, above. You said gabled roof.

No, there is no storage in the gabled roof.

No storage, no mechanical, no.

No.

The foundation decision seems to be pretty important to the overall structure.

Right. So they're looking at three options on the deep foundation and looking at different costs for those. Yeah. So the foundations, they're looking at various options for the deep foundation. But ultimately, they're going likely to 40 feet, 42 feet to hit bedrock.

And have they done the geotech study? Yes. So that would... To determine...

So the foundation design...

I saw the note. I guess I'm... You're seeking final... You're seeking approval tonight conditional on...

The foundation what yeah the foundation design will be part of the building permit They know they have to put in a deep foundation to support the buildings They have a geotech report that supports that and was provided to the city Is there some validation of the

The peers, when they construct this, is there a commitment to having verification of resistance and testing?

There'll be a structural engineer that does that design and signs off on that. And then city inspector would review those reports, similar to any other construction of the foundation, if it was just a shallow foundation. It would be a stamp plan on build it this way, stamp by it. licensed engineer and then Design and that firm likely would do inspections along with the city doing inspections during construction during so during the drilling and Correct.

Yeah But there's no no condition relative to that inspection My familiarity with with with piles is I that there's some analysis in the field. And if we're going to go forward with an approval this evening, even with the condition, that there be some kind of report verification of the site condition having been achieved in the field. I could expect, I assume that this is wet, that it's soft. There's clay or something like that. Yeah, I mean, they may miss, lose a pile, who knows what can happen. And that needs to be checked in the field.

Certainly. And that inspection would likely be required by the building permit process, not the planning board's purview of reviewing that inspection.

Mr. Chair, may I interject here? So that will be covered as part of the building permit process. It doesn't hurt if you want to put a condition that the structural engineer's reports will be reviewed and inspected by city staff. We're totally fine with that. That's already going to be happening as part of the building permit. But if it gives you peace of mind to make it a condition, then there's no harm.

Thank you. That would be a condition subsequent, though, I would think, right?

That's correct. It would be during construction that that would occur.

Yeah, they're not going to go ahead and drive in the piles if they don't have approval, I wouldn't think.

Say that again.

So it would be a condition subsequent, so they would have their approval. And that would be a condition of the next phase, which is a building permit.

And we would write that in?

Yeah, we can write that in and make that a 2G, I guess.

Okay.

Mr. Bergeron.

I'm reading the report that you submitted from M&W Soils. They're talking about the helical piers. Is that the preferred method that you're looking at now as opposed to driving piles to doing the drills?

Yeah, so they're looking at multiple options. They haven't locked in on that per M&W's report. I guess what they've given as for pricing and working with the helical coils. So that would be a different one. It's a big helical that's driven in the ground multiples, and they put a grade beam on it. So the grade beam is a big concrete beam supported by the helical coils, or you could just do I-beam driven in, or you can do geopier, which is aggregate. It's gravel, and it compacts horizontally. Okay. It doesn't go as deep. It tends to be less expensive. So there's potential they look at steel I-beam or they look at an aggregate GOP hairstyle. The $400,000 was based on the helical coil with a grade beam. What's their estimated cost for that?

OK, thank you Mr Noonan. Is there an updated staff report?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Megan Fortson, planner. So there was an amended staff report that was included in the agenda packet, which just basically went through the items that were brought up during the previous public hearing for the application. I think Mr. Noonan did a good job of addressing all of those items. As he stated, the city engineer expressed no concerns about the potential for drainage to run off onto adjacent properties. So that's not really an item of concern. He is assured that there's sufficient water capacity on the site due to the fact that there's the closed loop design that was described by Mr. Noonan. And obviously, we included the updated elevations showing the few extra windows that were added, the entryways that are proposed to be added on the street-facing facades, as well as the more regular window alignment of those ends. units and really the only additional thing that I have to add is related to the sewer capacity and that's really that without a hundred percent being able to say that there is sufficient sewer capacity what the city engineer is requesting at this time or recommending rather is that a sewer flow study be completed this is something that staff feel can be included as a precedent condition of approval just to show that there is adequate capacity and Again, we would recommend including that as a precedent condition, and then if you would like, you could also include a subsequent condition of approval that just sort of says if the sewer flow study shows that there is not sufficient capacity in the existing sewer infrastructure in that area, then the applicant could submit the funds to cover the cost of improving the infrastructure in a form and amount acceptable, I would say to the community development director and public works director.

Thank you, Ms. Fortson. Any questions for staff? Mayor Powell?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would your last comment about sewer line capacity be then added to 1G?

So 1G is the condition related to the sewer flow study. That's going to show us the sewer capacity and whether or not there's sufficient volume available in the sewer pipes that are existing. I would recommend adding, I guess it would be 2H, because it sounds like you might potentially be adding 2G, which would be the submittal of a stamp report showing the foundation design. And then you could add on another condition subsequent related to the applicant covering the cost of upgrading the infrastructure if it's deemed necessary based on the results of the sewer flow study. And that way, if you don't end up needing to fall back on that condition, we can make a note of that in the project folder.

Thank you.

Other questions for staff? Okay. so um at this time i will open the public portion and i just see a show of hands of folks that would like to comment just one two Okay. Three? All right, great. So you guys can start at the right-hand side and move that way, or if any one of you wants to come forward first, that's fine.

Hi. Paige Taylor again, 125 Carroll Street. So I'm directly across from these. I'm happy that they didn't change the orientation. Boy, there's a lot. Maybe some people aren't thinking of things, so maybe I can say something that hasn't been thought of. When we're putting in more rooftops and asphalt, we're heating up the city. We need our trees. grass, dirt, all of these things to keep the city cool. And when across the street was bulldozed and all the vegetation taken out, I noticed it was hotter, plus the animals lost their habitats. And in my life, I've only seen one baby buck. with the little tiny antlers that are felt. And it was in that field after they bulldozed, but I think he probably lost his home. But anyways, I just want people to think of, you know, when we take out these little wooded lots, it really does have an impact on the animals and the heat in Keene. And the charm, I've said this before, and so I'm just saying it again. that I know people say, oh, there's a housing crisis. But there was no other, what, six apartment buildings built in the last two years that brought in, I don't know, maybe 200 new apartment buildings. But what I'm getting at is if there's a housing crisis, it means you're doing something right because people want to live here. If you go around and you change everything and you make 25 new places to live with big town houses, you're changing Keene. And you're changing the quaint city that it is. Now there's too many people. There's too much traffic. Is it the place everybody wants to live in still when you're making such big changes? Because this is one of 25 that they want to do in Keene. It's not just across the street. It's behind my house. It's all over the place. So it's really going to change. And for me, I would say that I don't want to see it approved. because of how many people are being brought into the place, so many more people living on the street, on Carroll Street. That's a lot more traffic, a lot more people. I don't know. There was a few things I wanted to say, but I think that was basically... Oh, right. So he addressed a lot of things, but one thing I didn't hear being addressed was... The impact, structurally, structural damage to the houses around it because it had an impact, a negative impact on my home, which I had groundworks come in. They're a nationwide foundation specialist company, so they had engineers figure out where to put I-beams and jacks throughout my whole basement because that bulldozing work had a negative impact on my house. So I would like to hear basically what is going to be done to monitor that for my home. I would hope everybody else around, the neighbors. So I'd be interested in that. And yeah, so I just wanted to say I wouldn't like it approved for the number of people. I can see they're going to build. The last time I was here, so many people were here and asked for it to not be approved, but then the board went to motion for approval, not denial. So I can see it's going to be approved, but I'm just worried about the number of people and that if someone buys land, doesn't do their due diligence in testing the soil before they buy it, and spend $88,000 buying that lot, well, now it's become all of the people of Carroll Street and Elm Street's problem and that he has to make more money to pay for building this place. That's just not fair to the rest of us on the street that don't wanna have this many more people housing on that street. So I just, yeah, that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm Brian Miller.

I own a house next to Page and across the street from where they're planning to build this project. And I was here before, a month ago, and I'm still caught in the whole size, the volume, how we can put 14 units in there. When this met three years ago, the same property, same property owner, He had three years to do all the research. Then, medium density, you could build three dwellings on those properties merged together. Three years ago, the board agreed and the neighborhood agreed after looking at some rough drawings that five dwelling units would be acceptable. Nuevo got granted five dwelling units February of 23. He waits three years. Somehow we've now deemed that we can put 14 units where once only three could be. I don't know why we have zoning if they can be that much of a variance. I get the whole idea, concept of Cottage Court. I see it working beautifully on Pearl Street. I've seen it on River, and I think it's Portland. I see some of these developments. I see it where the property's marginal. So you have the acreage to build six houses. but it's not flat enough to build six houses. So you can cluster the six houses on it and get that and make it affordable and develop some property. But how we get that we can do on three quarters of an acre, 14. That's like any one of you guys. Your neighbor's house burns down. Ask your spouse, hey, what do you think of 14 houses being built next door? Because they can do it now. They can call it a cottage court and build the footprint in a certain way, and we get 14 houses next door. And the neighborhood doesn't have a say in it. That blows my mind that we have no say in that. That's unbelievable. I mean, when you were there and you looked at this place and you see the raised ranches on each side of it, and you look up at the tree and realize that the buildings are going to be where the branches of those trees are, and looking two and three houses down and not one dwelling unit, but all the rows of houses will be looking into the backyards of not just the house abutting them, but two back. And that these houses and the cottage court concept was to bring a wide demographic. There won't be a senior citizen moving into these houses. They're going up two and three stories. Coming out of the basement, going up two stories to go to bed. So that means there'll be young people. Young people will have kids. They'll have social gatherings. There'll be 14 people there. And that will play out much like the development on the corner of Gilson Street and North Street. I watched Gina Pate try to sell a house there one time, and she had to be very careful when she showed it, because you get there a Friday or Saturday, there's some sort of domestic going on, because when you have people that close together, they don't get along. Somebody's parked where they shouldn't be. Somebody's kid's getting dropped off. And you're stuffing that right in our neighborhood. And that doesn't seem like that's what this board is about. I think that you were here to protect us, to prevent development like that happening. And if this does happen here, there's already been a proposal, again, directly behind these Jean's, Paige's house, 160 feet away for 16 more units. So you set this precedent in the neighborhood. And now if it was a bad plan to start with, you've made it really bad. And I don't know how we've got here where we have no voice. I get that when you draw something up, this cottage court plan, that you couldn't have a number of units because then it would state how big the property was. But each one should be reviewed and see if it fits in the neighborhood. The design of the house fits in the neighborhood. The pure number surely doesn't. I don't know if you could have that. I can't think of a place that's got that kind of density even down here. across the street wouldn't have that kind of density and I just hope in the board you guys take that into consideration that this is the same people knowing the same expenses had three years to do something about it and if they wanted to unload it move on do something but they've waited to come to this and they're asking for the sky They're not asking for another little bump. They asked for that other little bump to make it affordable. They already knew the expense then. They knew it was gonna be 100,000 if they did individual dwellings back in 2023. It was gonna add 100,000 to each unit and they couldn't do that to make the houses affordable in that neighborhood. It would be past the price point. So they proposed doing the rental unit. And at that time they knew that those numbers worked. Now we're adding nine more units to that. So we were going from actually three originally is what that would, dwellings that would be permitted there to 14. And you guys got the power to say that that's too many by a lot. I mean, I see that when you guys, I thank you for going to do the due diligence and walk around there. I meet with the engineer, but I didn't see any stakes in the ground, so you guys could really get a good idea of how it was and where they'd be sitting. So you can walk and point, but when you see it staked out, you go, wow. Then you look up at the trees and go, well, we're looking at it on these pictures here, but when you stand there, you see it's quite different than the neighborhood. And I've said my piece and I appreciate your time and consideration, but I don't know how we've got to this with, I mean, yeah, I don't know. You'd have to go home and ask your spouse, say, what do you think? Because that could happen to any one of you guys. This could be your investment across the street. And they do it. And then, yeah. And we're trying to solve the New Hampshire's housing crisis. Have some other towns do stuff. We've grown tremendously. We've done tons of apartment complexes in the past 15 years. And the college is down 2,000. And we're a town of, what, 24,000. And Antioch's down. So there's thousands of students. So I don't know how much we need to grow continuously, but towns around us grow, too, because this is the hub. This is where the jobs are at. And I don't want this to be we keep driving it so we become Claremont. And that's where we're headed. So thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Greg Taylor, and I reside at 125 Carroll Street. I'm the husband of Paige. I'd just like to thank her and Brian for all the aforementioned points. One concern that I had that I have not heard mentioned yet was how everything is going to pan out as far as tax assessed values. And it's my understanding that there would be a tax abatement on this project, being basically a condominium project. It would fall under the category of, I believe it's E19, if I'm not mistaken. And what would the impact, along with all the other aforementioned things, the impact of traffic in the area, which we have seen considerably grow over the past few years, as people have moved to the area, which I would just state for the record that I I'm not completely opposed to There being housing there. I just think that as was mentioned 14 units is a bit excessive For that community and for that neighborhood. We have a pretty Well managed community currently where everybody knows each other and And even so, we still have issues with traffic, people parking on the street, to the extent of it even creating at times what would be considered a problem with emergency vehicles accessing the site if need be. If you were to put 14 units in there, I can certainly see there becoming an issue. I know during the last meeting also, and I understand I'm rambling a bit here, just kind of going over some of the points from the last meeting so that they're once again heard. Sewer, water, that would be one consideration, of course, which it sounds like is being assessed and addressed, but what about snow removal, things like parking, et cetera? If there's 14 units there, And people have guests concerned with noise pollution, light pollution, things of that sort. But the major question, as I go back to it, would be has anybody assessed what the impact to property values, both the tax assessed value and also the resale value of the homes, if you happen to be located adjacent to or budding a development like this what would the impact of that be thanks for your time thank you i just have a clarification question yeah just come on up

I'm Duncan Hilchey. I reside at 45 School Street, new to Keene. But I was wondering, I have a question for staff and also for the developer representative. Is there a requirement that a certain proportion of the space in the cottage development that is to be green space or shared open space And for the developer, I'd like to know if you could point out what that space is, which is shared green space.

Yeah, Ms. Fortin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Ms. Prunner might be able to tack on some additional information, but basically with the Cottage Court ordinance, it's supposed to allow some additional density. You could get even additional density bonuses if you're doing workforce housing, senior housing, something like that. But in this case, as long as you meet the maximum impervious surface requirements for the underlying zoning district, That's all that you need to do. You're not required to have a certain percentage of green space like you would if you did something like a conservation residential development subdivision. That's where you'd have to have a designated green space with this. It's really just the impervious surface requirement from the structures and any surfaces like asphalt.

Okay.

Mr. Chair, may I add just one thing? Yeah, please. For the medium density district, the minimum amount of green space or open space is 40%. So that's one of the things that the applicant had to demonstrate with the plan. And it looks like the applicant is asking if you'd like him to come up.

Yeah, please. If you can address that, Mr. Noonan.

Yes, so John Noonan, Field Zone Land Consultants. We have a table, so it still has to meet zoning and the requirements of the Cottage Court overlay. So we have a table on our site plan where we have green space. There's 40%. Minimum is the requirement. We have 49.6%. Impervious coverage can be 60% maximum. We have 50.4% impervious coverage, which is building end coverage. Paid with paved areas. And then building coverage. So just the building could be 45% max of your lot. And we have 26.5%. So those items are just broken out on our site plan sheet. And the impervious is building coverage plus our paved areas on the lot size. Thank you. And the green space would be the remainder. That's the landscaped areas.

OK. Thank you. Anyone else from the public?

Thank you. Laura Tobin, Center Street. Sorry. I was just reviewing on the city website what cottage courts are and how they're described because this just kind of wasn't what I had in mind when we were talking about cottage courts. So cottage courts, this is from the city website. Cottage courts are groupings of small houses around a shared public space considered a type of missing middle housing. Go on a little bit further. Oriented around shared green space and have parking screened from the street There's also something in here about it being pedestrian oriented So I I can't really speak I don't think very clearly I haven't followed this project as much And I'll do some more research on that But I just wanted to say it wasn't what my understanding was when we were discussing cottage courts Thank you

Anyone else? I can't see everybody behind the easel, but I don't see anyone, so I am going to close the public portion of the meeting. Thank you. Okay. so next step is to proceed to board deliberation uh which we do require a typically require a motion to get that that going so do you have the mr chair yes yes thank you um i did just want to um bring

to front of mind one item that we meant to include in the recommended motion and it just got lost due to the number of moving parts with the project is a potential condition subsequent related to vibration monitoring during the driving of the pilings um so if you think that something adding something like that would be appropriate um please feel free so i just wanted to bring that up thank you i can you have a handle on everything

Yeah, when we get to G, H, and I, I might want a little help, but I think I have it. But just for point of order, after this, then we deliberate and chat about it. Okay. I move to approve PB26-12 as shown on the plan set identified as multifamily residential development, tax map 536, lots 49, 50, 55, and 56, Elm City Commons prepared by Fieldstone Land Consultants PLLC at variance scales on April 17, 2026, and last revised on May 19, 2026. and in the elevations identified as Elm City Commons, Elm and Carroll Streets, Keene, New Hampshire, 03431, prepared by Sampson Architects at varying scales on April 14th, 2026, and last revised on June 12th, 2026, with the following conditions. One, prior to the final approval and signature of the plans by the Planning Board Chair, the following conditions precedent shall be met. Owner's signature appears on the title page and proposed condition plans. B, submittal of five full-size paper copies and a flattened PDF version of final plan set and elevations. C, submittal of a recorded voluntary merger for the four subject parcels. D, submittal of security to cover the cost of sediment and erosion control measures, landscaping, and as-built plans in the form and amount acceptable to the community development director. Submittal of draft written documentation of any easements or other necessary legal instruments required for this application, which shall be subject to review by the city attorney. F, submittal of an updated plan set showing a native replacement for the Cal repair, Calgary repair. Trees. G, completion of a sewer flow study to demonstrate there is adequate capacity in the city sewer line subject to the review and approval of the city engineer. And then two, subject to final approval and signature of the plans by the planning board chair, the following conditions shall be met. A, prior to the commencement of site work, a pre-construction meeting will be scheduled with community development staff. B, prior to the commencement of site work, the erosion and sediment control measures shall be inspected by the community development department to ensure compliance with this application and all city of Keene regulations. C, prior to the installation of building foundations, the building corner shall be pinned by our surveyor and inspected by community development staff to ensure compliance with the road required setbacks. D, submittal of recorded easements and or any legal instruments necessary for this application by the Community Development Department. E, following the installation of landscaping, the Community Development Department shall be contacted to perform initial inspection. And then F, one year following the installation of all landscaping, the Community Development Department shall be contacted to perform final landscaping inspection. And then we added G, Foundation construction will be approved by the building permitting department? Yeah. And then H, if it turns out that the sewer line is not adequate, the applicant will pay for what I heard is an 8-inch line.

I would just say to upgrade.

For an upgrade. And then I don't have wording for this, but there will be vibration monitoring during construction for houses close by that could be affected by pilings.

Yeah, I think we'd want to say applicant will provide a plan for monitoring vibrations during the, particularly the driving of the piles.

I think that, is that it?

So I think that's the motion. I think that hits it. Ms. Brenner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for not bringing this up earlier. But as you were reading the motion, it reminded me that one thing that staff noticed is that the Callery pear trees that were some of the ornamental trees that got added, while they are not invasive, they are on the state of New Hampshire invasive species watch list. um so we reached out to the applicant to see if they would be okay with switching it out for a native tree and they were fine with that so that is why that condition of approval was added i apologize for not bringing that up earlier all right so okay well it says a native replacement for the pear trees so that's that's what it should say Yes, the motion was read as staff recommended. We just neglected to explain that. OK. Yeah, thank you.

OK, I need a second.

OK.

Thank you Mr Bergeron. OK. Questions. Opinions. Discussion.

Mr. Coste. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we do need housing in Keene. And I think we've been talking about that for years and years. And so this is a development that will provide that. One of the speakers talked about the idea of cottage court. And when you read the description of cottage court, I think I've said this before at the last meeting and even the field visit. I have some of the same concerns. I've been thinking about this more as motor court than cottage court because it's basically front doors of housing facing almost 70 feet wide of paving with some grass planting areas, but a lot of paving. The orientation of the development, we did see plans where it was oriented north and south, seven on each of the streets, Carroll and Elm. And which then I understand that there was some interest because A lot of the houses have their gabled roofs facing the street, but those gabled roofs are also the front of the houses. The front of the houses are oriented that way. That just didn't seem like a hook to me to orient the houses for that reason. Because when you walk up these streets, you're basically a nice walkable community. There are people, there are neighbors, and to have the sides of the houses basically facing the street of only four of the houses. And then it's kind of an enclave otherwise, that motor court. And it really doesn't reflect the character of the neighborhood. And I know there's some other things. There aren't townhouses in the neighborhood. But the idea of being street facing and having front doors off the street to me is fairly important because that's part of walkable idea to try to get people out to walk downtown. Where here, they're basically encouraged to, you know, they're going to pop in the cars because the front door leads right to the cars. It did seem like there is a solution to do it, north and south, seven on each street. I did hear that it adds some pavement and some other things and some cost. But, you know, I guess I'm just asking, we have very talented architects, very talented designers and land planners. And if we were going to develop in Keene, We really want to pay attention to the context. We want to pay attention to what's going on in the neighborhood, what's going on on the streets and try to reflect that and try to add to that and strengthen it. Whereas here, I think this development is sort of imposed in a whole different way. And so I just have heartburn with that. And, you know, I think as we set sites for maybe future developments, to try to use some of the great talented designers we have to really reinforce what the city is trying to do. And I don't think this development reflects that really in any way. So that's my thoughts about it. I think having housing is important. But I think this one, from a neighborhood community planning, urban design planning, widely, widely misses the mark and could have been done much, much better. Thank you.

Councillor Ellis.

Thank you. I take Mr. Costa's point about the front doors facing the street. But I notice I live at the end of Carroll Street, crossing Carroll Street. And we go out our side door, the door that goes to the driveway, most of the time we don't go out the front door as often. I feel that it's pretty standard or pretty common at least to go out the side door instead of out the front door. So if the Gable End is facing the street, I mean, I and many others, I think, still go out the side. So I don't really have... an issue with that. I just want to say that I did receive an email from someone in support of this project. Also, I'd like to say that I read a lot, kind of in trying to understand this, about density and um piles and all these types of things and i really compared to many other condos including where my in-laws live i don't feel the density is really that extreme um also i want to note that um mr noonan did did explain at the uh the site visit that um because the ground is so soft it it's I mean, I know that you were there and you heard this, but just for the benefit of anybody else. Because the ground is so soft, it probably won't be causing as much vibration as it would if the ground were very hard. So I definitely support our inclusion of the condition that there's monitoring, but I also think that it seems reasonable. It seems like it won't be too much of a problem. And I had one other thought. Oh, also, you know, We may or may not like this project or have different qualms about it, but also if the applicant is meeting all the conditions in the permit, I don't think we can restrict them because we don't like it if we don't like it. I feel that the applicant has met their conditions, so I don't see any reason to bar them from this project.

Thank you. Mayor Cohn.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My concern is the density on the site. I'm thinking of 18 units on 2.3 acres in a previous cottage court that was approved. I'm thinking of another that was 31 units, I think, on 9 acres. I'm thinking of 14 units on three-quarters of an acre, and thinking that the density to that adds a lot of density on that site, and that's of concern for me.

Mr. Hayford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, let's see. Um, I think, you know, I think I've appreciated the discussion around orientation, uh, to the street. Um, you know, from what I see, the code is a little, um, you know, 21, 14, three a principal building shall be, uh, oriented toward the public right away. If due to site constraints, the primary facade of new buildings cannot face the street, then the secondary elevation facing the street shall be designed with form composition details consistent and appropriate to the primary facade. So I think this project meets that standard. in terms of the purpose of a cottage core overlay district to promote infill development and redevelopment within established neighborhoods that's built at scale and character. That's a judgment call amongst members here within existing development patterns. Encourage efficient use of land and cost-effective way to deliver community services. Expand the range of housing choices available to meet the needs of the city's changing demographic trends, including smaller households, young professionals, older adults, and empty nesters. Provide developers and property owners with flexibility to achieve high-quality design and develop projects that strengthen existing neighborhoods. Encourage compact development that is pedestrian-scaled, healthy, safe, and affordable. And I think, to me, this project meets the spirit of those purposes. I would probably feel different if it was, maybe if it was going to be a landlord situation, a renter situation, but we're talking about units that are going to be owned by the people that live there. has the potential to be accredited to the city and the neighborhood, to have more homeowners in that area. And so, based on those things, I find myself in favor, and the conditions that we've mentioned, I find myself in favor of approving the proposal before us tonight.

Mr. Pergeron?

I think I would kind of echo those sentiments in that, you know, when I look at the streetscape with this, as opposed to all the units facing out into the street, I think this is a better use of the property or a better view of the property as opposed to having all of the units facing out to the street. It gives it more green space around the buildings as well as having less of a mass of buildings facing the street, making it look more like it's other houses in the neighborhood. Again, it's an intense use for the property, but it seems to fit the regulation. And I think that's where I'm at with it.

Mr. Mayhew.

while this project in my opinion does meet the the minimums that we need to pardon me to approve it i do think it is distastefully done that is very very bland it does not match the character of the neighborhood this is a area of the neighborhood that i walk all the time and i do always look at this lot and wonder what's going to happen with it but It does provide missing middle housing, and we do very much so lack this. I don't see whole families living here just because it's two bedrooms, 1,100 square feet. It's very limiting. But while it serves a purpose, it does it poorly.

Okay, unless someone else has something, I think we need to call the vote. So we have a motion and seconded. All those in favor of approval? All opposed? Okay. Application is approved. You guys noted the vote? All right, great. Okay, thank you. Next up, we have a public hearing, PB-26-15, Major Site Plan and Surface Water Conditional Use Permit, Eversource L-163 Transmission Line. Applicant Norman Doe Associates, Inc., on behalf of owner, Public Service Company of New Hampshire. doing business as Eversource Energy, proposes to replace five existing utility structures along the L163 transmission line. The proposed work area is located approximately one mile north of the entrance to Old Gilson Road from Timberlane Drive. A surface water protection CUP is requested for approximately 1,930 square feet of impact within the 75 foot surface water buffer to allow for the installation of timber matting and a temporary gravel access road. Does staff have a recommendation for completeness?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Megan Fortson, planner again. The applicant has requested exemptions from submitting a grading plan, a landscaping plan, lighting plan, elevations and renderings, a drainage report, traffic report, soil analysis, historic evaluation, screening analysis, and architectural analysis. Planning staff have made the preliminary determination that granting the requested exemptions would have no bearing on the merits of the application and recommend that the board accept the application as complete.

Thank you, Ms. Fortson. Can I get a motion for completeness of the application?

So moved.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Second?

Second.

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron. Any discussion about completeness? Okay. I just note that Mr. Mayor is out of the room at the moment, but let's proceed with the vote for completeness. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion is deemed complete. So I'll now turn it over to the applicant.

Yeah, my name's Jeremy Finnell, Eversource Energy.

Elizabeth Oliver, Normando Associates. And yes, we are here presenting on behalf of Eversource Energy in the application to complete the one-to-one replacement of these five existing utility structures in the city of Keene. The work would require access along Old Gilson Road, which is not proposed to be improved by the project. And it will involve an impacts to the 75-foot buffer of one wetland. As part of building a temporary gravel access road, the gravel access road will be restored to vegetative cover following completion of the project. Any questions?

Questions for applicant? I guess not.

Oh, sorry. Mr. Hafer. Before I gave up mountain biking, I used to ride that road sometime. From the culvert crossings, our challenge for water drainage, is any of that, could any of that be improved as part of this, or what, is there any responsibility to improve that along the right of way, or are you just... Along Old Gilson Road, I guess, is not your jurisdiction. I was thinking out loud, I guess, in my question. If there's challenges with drainage or culvert crossings on that Old Gilson Road that causes some flooding or anything like that, it's probably not relevant. So I'll withdraw my question. Thank you, Megan.

Would you like me to talk about what we are going to do on Old Gilson Road? Okay. So it's an existing Class 6 road. So the Parks and Rec Department, DPW, has asked us not really to improve it. We're going to get the pre-existing conditions of the road. and use the road, maybe add some gravel if needed, if we had heavy rainfalls, but we're not really expecting that. And then we'll restore it to pre-existing conditions. So that was what we discussed with the Conservation Commission and Parks and Rec was there. Andy Bohannon?

Other questions? OK, thank you. So we're going to just ask you guys to step back for just a second and give the mic to staff for the staff report. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Megan Fortson, planner. So this is a pretty typical annual request that we get from Eversource. Usually they're making improvements to one of their transmission lines in terms of replacing existing wooden poles with updated weathered steel poles, which is what's proposed as part of this project. This time, as was mentioned, it's the replacement of five poles in Keene. They're going along... quite a bit of the length of the L163 line, so it'll be Keene. I think it's also like Stoddard, Antrim. There's a few different municipalities that they'll have to go through an approval process with. But yes, access for the project is going to be from Old Gilson Road. And if you look at Figure 1 in the staff report, it sort of shows you that they're going to have to travel quite a ways up Old Gilson Road. It's, I think, about a mile or so. before they hit the Eversource right-of-way and then just one section of That right-of-way is going to cross through the wetlands buffer And so that's why they need to get the surface water CUP is for the creation of that temporary gravel road within the 75 foot wetlands buffer because this project does run through the conservation and the rural zoning districts which require that 75 foot buffer to be maintained Um, so I'll quickly take you through the surface water CUP standards, um, as well as the site development standards, um, in terms of regional impact staff did not feel that there was the potential for regional impact. Um, we did get some comments from the city engineer. There is one section of the, um, gravel road that's proposed to cross over a stone wall. And so we have addressed that through a condition of approval that I'll mention at the end, it's basically. that if they have to remove the stone wall, that it be reset by a surveyor and then verified by the city engineer's office just to make sure that everything is in the appropriate spot because that is assumed to be a property boundary. I think the plan is for them to use timber matting on top of it and not affect it at all, but just in case they find that they do need to. Um, the other comments from the city engineer were just a few notes, letting the applicant know that they're going to need to obtain an encumbrance and or excavation permit if necessary. And that they also are going to coordinate access along old Gilson road with the parks and recreation department, since it is a trail. Um, going into article 11.6.2, those are where the surface water CUP standards live. Um, the first one is related to the relocation of the proposed use or activity. Basically, given the fact that this is an existing 150-foot wide right-of-way, it's not something that could be easily relocated on the site. It's established. Vegetation is already trimmed and maintained in this area by Eversource. So it would be creating more impact to try to relocate something like this versus maintain it in its existing condition. The next standard is related to buffer encroachment. The proposed temporary access road is going to impact about 2,000 square feet within the buffer, and to minimize impacts to the buffer and the wetland, the applicant notes that the access road is the shortest feasible route. and will utilize an existing wetland crossing rather than creating a new crossing. So that standard appears to be met. The next standard is related to adverse impacts. And again, it's the proposed replacement of one structure on the easternmost side that's going Require that wetland buffer and so the applicant is proposing to maintain and stabilize the access road as necessary during construction Utilizing timber matting for the wetland crossings and then appropriate perimeter Controls like straw wattles or silt fencing are proposed to be used during construction to protect adjacent surface water resources They're also going to have an environmental monitor on site just to make sure that environment all of the erosion control measures silt fencing, anything like that is maintained properly throughout the course of construction and that restoration is done properly. So that standard appears to be met. For the preservation of the buffer, the applicant is proposing to restore impacted areas of the site to their pre-construction conditions through site stabilization, seeding, and mulching at the end of construction. All other areas within the buffer that will be used during the project, such as Old Gilson Road, are already disturbed. So that standard appears to be met. Um, and then there is under section 11.6.2.E, there is an entire very long list of other things that you can consider during your deliberations, such as the quality of the wetlands and, um, things like that. Um, the surface water resources in the project area consists of a scrub shrub wetland and one vernal pool. Um, the state wildlife action plan characterizes this area as a tier three habitat, which is considered supporting landscapes. with a hemlock hardwood pine habitat. The applicant notes that the existing vegetation will be restored following construction and that the project will result in no permanent changes that are going to alter or eliminate any of the functions and values currently provided by the surface water resources. As part of our normal CUP process, the Conservation Commission did weigh in with some recommendations, which Ms. Brenner will share.

Thank you. Mary Brenner, senior planner. So the Conservation Commission met on Monday, June 15th, so last week, Monday, and made the following recommendations. The first one is documentation of the existing conditions on Old Gilson Road in the project area. And then addition of a note on the plan as well as a condition of approval Stating that Old Gilson Road shall be returned to pre-construction conditions They also requested invasive species management throughout the course of the projects to Ensure that no invasive plants are introduced into the project area and then they also requested use of a pollinator friendly seed mix and I will note the as the applicant noted the deputy city manager was present at this conservation Commission meeting and And asked a number of questions about the road and communication with the public So it might just be worth noting that the Parks and Recreation director Kara Fisk-Kennessey has been in contact and Has asked for coordination and messaging to the public for the users of the road Thank you, Mary

My understanding is that they've already been in contact, yeah, with Carey and with Brian, who is the city engineer. I'm not going to really go through the site development standards too much because really the bottom line is that they're not proposing really any permanent changes other than the replacement of the structures as well as potentially some gravel to be placed around the structures for future maintenance access. They are going to require a few different federal permits, one of them federal and state permits. They're gonna need an alteration of terrain permit from New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, a US Army Corps of Engineers permit, and an EPA 2022 general construction permit. So staff would recommend that the submittal of those items be included as conditions of approval. In terms of snow storage and removal, snow is really only going to be removed as it needs to be. If there's not work happening, snow is not going to be removed. No landscaping proposed other than the seed mix. Screening, lighting, sewer, and water are not applicable. And then traffic and access management is obviously going to be either from the Eversource right of way or from Old Gelsom Road. And then there is going to be a total of about 43,565 square feet of land disturbance outside of the surface water buffer. And that would be to prepare the work pads at the five structures to be replaced. And the proposed work area is not located within the 100-year floodplain, and there are no proposed placement of fill within the wetlands. So that standard appears to be met. They have an entire stormwater pollution prevention plan that will be created to handle any potential sources of hazardous or toxic materials. So staff recommends that the submittal of that plan be included as a condition of approval. And then noise will just be limited to typical noise generated by construction activities and won't change after the completion of construction. So that is all I have.

Questions for staff. I have a question. The Conservation Commission's recommendations that you read, I don't, unless I missed them, I don't see them reflected in any conditions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We forgot to add them in, but staff are supportive of those conditions. If you'd like, I can read them off again if that's helpful.

When we get to that point, that would be helpful. Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I agree entirely with you. I think I comment for the staff's concern. I think I heard four different recommendations from them about documentation of current conditions on Old Gilson Road, invasive species management plan, pollinator plants be used in any resurfacing or replanting, and coordination on road restriction communications with Parks and Rec.

So the coordination with Parks and Rec wasn't a recommendation from Conservation Commission, although that is something that staff has asked for but the other Recommendation from the Conservation Commission was both the addition of a note on the plan as well as a condition of approval Stating that Old Gilson Road shall be returned to pre-construction conditions So the idea there is they're not proposing to improve the road, but if they were to create deep ruts in the road or something like that, they will restore it to its pre-construction condition since it is so heavily used by mountain bikers and hikers.

Thank you. Are there other questions for staff?

Maybe somewhat of a rhetorical question, but what if pre-construction conditions are poor? The supposition sort of means that the conditions to start with are good and we want them to return to good.

Not necessarily. So the idea here, this being a class six road, what that means is that it's a public right-of-way. at one point in time was a normal public right-of-way like any other road and then it was discontinued subject to gates and bars I believe in this instance and so the city no longer maintains this road so conditions are what they become Yes, exactly. And so the city wants to be very careful with a classics road that it doesn't get improved to the point where it becomes now a road that would need to be maintained in a condition that they don't want it to be maintained at. So that was deliberate. The pre-construction condition was a deliberate choice of wording. Thank you.

Mr. Bergeron.

My only question would be, I guess I suppose, based on the condition of the road, the age of the road, and if they're using heavy equipment over that road, and say an old metal culvert collapses under the weight of the trucks, it's their responsibility to replace that culvert.

Yes, and I should mention that the, so this is the latest in a series of applications that we've seen over the course of the past however many years. And so Old Gilson Road was actually improved, I want to say like five years ago, four or five years ago maybe. I'm getting the thumbs up from the applicant. So Eversource had to improve the road for a previous project, so it is suitable for the heavy trucks.

Good.

Yeah.

Seeing no further questions, I will open the public portion. Is there anyone here from the public who wishes to comment on this project? Just raise your hand if you are. Going once. All right, so I'm seeing no one. I'm going to close the public portion and move to our deliberation phase. So I will entertain a motion.

Are we adding anything from the others?

We are, yes.

OK, I'll try and you can help as well.

Yeah, Mary can help out with that.

OK, I move to approve PB 2615. As shown on the plan set, identified as L163 Line ACR Project Keene, Nelson, Stoddard, and Antrim, New Hampshire, prepared by Normandou Associates at varying scales on April 22nd, 2026, and last revised on June 3rd, 2026, with the following conditions. One, prior to final approval and signature of the plans by the planning board chair, the following conditions shall be met. A, owner signature appears on the plans. B, submittal of five color copies of the final plan set. C, submittal of documentation of all necessary permits and approvals, including but not limited to NHDES statutory permit by notification for utility maintenance activities. Two, NHDES alteration of terrain permit. three U.S. Corps of Engineers permit self-verification, and four EPA 2022 general construction permit.

Two, subsequent- Hold on just for one sec. Your conditions will be precedent or subsequent?

So I would recommend if you're willing to add a condition precedent, so 1D, to require the addition of a note on the plan stating that Old Gilson Road shall be returned to pre-construction conditions.

So that would be room numeral 5?

uh no it would be a new one a new item under number one so one d one d um can you say that again the area will be uh addition of a note on the plan stating that old gilson road shall be returned to pre-construction conditions okay the others you believe are subsequent they could be the documentation of the existing conditions could be a condition precedent or subsequent I think really the note is the one that would need to be before final approval and then the invasive species management and the use of a pollinator friendly seed mix again they could be either or but I think making them a condition subsequent makes sense

I think that works. I think that the documentation of old Gilson Road conditions is subsequent to approval, but the comment on the plan that it will be returned is a precedent.

Okay. So we're going to put the others. I see heads nodding in approval of that. So we'll put the others. We'll put the others in the subsequent.

Subsequent to approval and signature of the plans by the planning board chair, the following conditions shall be met. A, prior to the commencement of site works, submittal of the stormwater pollution prevention plan to the community development department, and B, following the completion of construction, any portion of stone walls that were impacted shall be reset in the same location. verified by a survey or license in the state of New Hampshire, and confirmed by the city engineer. So then we would have a C, documentation of existing conditions will be provided.

For Old Gilson Road and the project area, because it's only a certain section of the road that they'll be impacting.

Where required. And then we have a two, and are we asking for invasive species to be removed or not to be added?

We're asking them to monitor for invasive species.

During construction.

In a management plan, right? That's what I thought I heard you say.

So currently, it's my understanding and the understanding of the applicant as well as the Conservation Commission members that there are no invasive species in that area. So this is more about monitoring to make sure, even though the risk is low, that any material will be brought in. It could happen where one of the mats that they bring in has some seeds attached to it or something like that. In that case, that they would monitor so that as soon as it shows up, they could remove it and reduce the risk of it spreading. That's my understanding of the intent from the Conservation Commission meeting.

and the words are to monitor for invasive species throughout the course of the project throughout construction yes yeah okay so monitor for so two would be a monitor for invasive invasive species throughout the course of construction And then three is about pollinator plants. We want to, where planting is required or for replacement, that we would use, they would use pollinator plants.

Yes, so they requested use of a pollinator-friendly seed mix for any restoration.

Okay, so pollinator-friendly seed mix for any replanting or ground covers or such. There was one more, though, that was about coordination. Is that, Mayor, you had mentioned that one? The one with Parks and Rec.

Yes, so that wasn't a request of the Conservation Commission. You could certainly make it a condition if you would like. But I think everything has been addressed that the Conservation Commission recommended.

Go ahead, Mr. Mayor. That roadway restrictions during construction be communicated by the contractor to... Parks and Recreation. And the public.

OK. That's it. That capture all the. Conservation Commission's recommendations good OK. I have a second second. Thank you Mr Mayor. Everyone feel like they understand the motion? Okay, good. Now, discussion, questions, comments?

Mr. Mayor? I think that the impact is regional, but the The contractors and petitioner are seeking the approval of abutting communities, so I think that they're covering the regional impacts adequately. I also am pleased to see that the replacement is with steel pole, something that is more durable, and I think that that's a good improvement proposal.

Yeah, may ask a clarifying question. Miss burner. If we declare this to have regional impact that requires us to notify the other towns.

yes that's correct if the entire board were to vote to find this to be a development of regional impact we would put this on hold and send out a notification to the regional planning commission and neighboring towns when we were looking at this application as staff we were really only considering the portion of the project in Keene And looking at those five structures, it's a limited project area and doesn't come anywhere near the boundaries with other towns.

I would also point out to the board that last year we approved the one that goes along Keene State. and goes into Swansea and Troy, and I don't believe we made that a development of regional impact for the same reason that the construction is very discreetly contained to the poles that are in Keene. Yeah. So that would be my recommendation in this case as well. That's good.

mr. cost just to clarify then each town will hold their own meeting about the sections going into as they go through other towns they will yes so so we're just gonna worry about Keene and we can we could ask the applicant but you have applications with the other towns as well yes so our alteration of terrain permit we

Notified the town clerk and I believe the Conservation Commission to reach town As well as for the standard ridge and fill wetland permit copies of both of those applications go out to every municipality that have impacts related to those permits

I just want to correct you we only got statutory permit oh that's right I'm sorry that's okay statutory permit it's okay so only in Keenan Nelson so okay but but regardless every single town for alteration of terrain they were and we also have community outreach to the individual landowners and to the town administrators so everybody's very aware because as you know we have large equipment so noticeable okay thank you thank you for that more questions comments

I think we're ready to vote. So all those in favor of approving PB-26-15, the motion that's on the table, indicate. Any opposed? All right. Application is approved. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman?

Yes.

Just to check back with you. There could be no harm in the city or the chairman notifying the other towns that we have acted affirmatively on that portion that impacts Keene.

Okay. That's a good suggestion. I can work with Mary and we can figure out the best way to do that. Thank you, folks. Okay. Moving right along Other business, I don't think we have any other business on the agenda today Could ask miss burner if there's any staff updates I

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The only update is that, and I believe I emailed this out to the board earlier today, but there is a trading opportunity on June 26th. Normally, it would come at a cost, but because Keene is a housing champion community, Any of you could sign up for free, so I did send out the information about that, but it's, I forget the exact title, but I've gone to a different version of this training in the past, and I found it to be very helpful for understanding all of the different factors that go into making a development project work. That training that I went to, I think, was about development in general, not just housing, but the examples that they used happened to be housing examples and it was very illuminating to see the different um all the many factors that go into making a project actually pencil out so i would encourage anyone who's interested to sign up thank you yeah i would too except it's eight o'clock in portsmouth right mr mayhew um i do highly recommend the course i took it when ivy was doing it here in keene

She's a genius. I have to say that. I love the course, and I've seen some of her earlier work with ordinances.

Thank you for that. Any board members have new business they would like to bring up? Mr. Coste?

I guess I'm not sure if this is where you do this, but I'd like, this last project that we talked about, well, for me, it just agitated me, the college court project. It seems like the Cottage Court CUP and some of our architectural standards allow stuff to happen that maybe we don't want to happen. Maybe some people do want them to happen, so I don't know. But from a good planning, urban designing, keeping in context with Keene, it seems like stuff can get by and we don't have anything anything to really say no because it isn't there. And I'm just wondering if there's a way to, not in this venue, but somehow with the community development, to talk about that and see if some things could be tightened up. Because as we get more and more development, and we're all, most of us are pro, well, we're all pretty much, well, I'm pro-housing. I want to see housing built. But I'm concern that they're going to be built in really bad ways that are going to start to diminish the city. And rather than, you know, when you have a developer willing to build 14 units, that's an opportunity to improve things and reinforce things and kind of feed into what we talk about on our master plan and everything. And I think we have too many little loopholes and things that people you know that we can point to and then also the people who do the designs if they had better guidance up front they would be guided to do better things and uh... so that's new business if there's any way to talk about that and i don't know what it would be but just putting that out there is something i think is important because i think we're going to see a lot of stuff happen that we're going to let happen and maybe wouldn't always be for the best other than providing housing

Yeah, just from my perspective, I think the joint PLD and planning board meetings are an appropriate place for basically fine-tuning the land development code and other ordinances. That's where we get the input to that. so does that happen as new business in those meetings or should be able to or you can you could draft a a proposal you know and ask staff to to look at it we'll chat thank you okay other new business all right so upcoming dates of interest uh Speaking of the devil, Joint Planning Board and PLD Committee, July 13th, 2026, 6.30 p.m. Planning Board Steering Committee, July 14, 2026, 12 noon. Planning Board Site Visit, July 22, 2026, 8 a.m. to be confirmed, depending on applications. And then finally, the next meeting of this board, July 27, 2026, at 6.30 p.m. uh we have no more no more time issues but we do have we do need to do something that we rarely do we need to go into a non-public session so do you uh do you have that motion ken can you

Okay, recommended motion. Okay, move to go into non-public session to discuss pending litigation pursuant to RSA 91-A, colon, 3, comma, 2E.

Thank you. Second. Second. All right, thank you. Okay. We're going to take a roll call vote.

Harold Farrington.

Yes.

Roberta Master Giovanni. Mayor Jay Kahn.

Yes.

Counselor Molly Ellis. Yes. David Bergeron.

Yes.

Mike Hafer. Yes. Ken Kost. Yes. And Stefan Mayu.

Yes.

Sorry, Mr. Chair. Who was the second on that motion? I did. Jay. Okay. Jay was the second. Okay. Thank you.

And I'd suggest we turn off our mics.

Yep. They're going to come and collect them, right?

Yeah. If you want to call a recess, we can.

Yeah. Well, I'm going to call a, we don't need a lot of time, like a three-minute recess.