Planning Board - Regular Meeting

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

I went to dinner on Saturday night at Del Rossi's.

All right. Good evening, everyone. It's the hour of 6.30 p.m. having arrived. I have a 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 by the chair, all remarks are to be made through the chair. And there are packets with the agendas in them on that plastic shelf on the wall there. So will staff please conduct the roll? Charlie Lewis was wacko anyway.

Harold Harrington.

Here.

Roberta Massagiovanni.

Mayor Jay Kahn. I was reading a little blurb about the program.

Believe he's online, although I don't see him in the screen. I'm actually blindfolded. Counselor Molly Ellis. Here. David Virgil. Michael Hafer.

Here.

Kenneth Kost.

Here.

Andrew Madison. And for the alternates, Stefan Mayu, Tammy Adams, and Joey Kosivera.

Here.

And in order to have an in-person quorum, Joey would need to participate as a voting member this evening.

So yes, I would like to invite Mr. Kosivera to participate as voting member tonight.

Great. And it looks like the mayor is here.

Mr. Mayor, good evening.

Okay. Good evening.

So first order on the agenda is minutes from the previous meeting of June 22nd. I'll entertain a motion to have the minutes approved.

I make a motion to approve these minutes.

Thank you. Second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Cosavera. Any comments or corrections for the meeting minutes? I have three. So if you would just jot these down. Line 160, the word peer, P-E-E-R, I think is intended to be P-I-E-R. And then lines 572 and 574, the conditions subsequent, I think should be, instead of three and four, should be two E and two F. You see that? 572 and 574.

I think you're correct. What's that? I think that's correct. Those should be. All right.

That's a relief. okay thank you um all right so let's uh let's call the vote on this all those in favor of yes correct thank you um so we will uh uh proceed with a roll roll call vote uh to approve the motion of the approving the minutes as amended all right harold farrington yes

Mayor Jay Kahn?

Yes.

Councilor Malayalis? Yes. Michael Hafer?

Yes.

Kenneth Kost?

Yes.

Joey Kosivera?

Yes. Great. Thank you. All right. Next on the agenda are extension requests. I don't believe we have any. And so we'll move on to Final vote on conditional approvals. Any applications come for final approval since the packet went out?

Nope. We do have a couple of applications that are on the agenda later on that could potentially be ready for final approval, but nothing for this agenda item.

Okay. Thank you. All right. First discussion is PB as a boundary line adjustment. PB-26-18, boundary line adjustment. Applicant Ashley Fachero on behalf of owners Ashley and John Fachero and Charles Henry proposes to transfer approximately 0.09 acres of land from the approximately 0.58 acre parcel at 35 Kendall Road to the approximately 0.45 acre parcel at 39 Kendall Road. Tax map numbers 540-013-000 and 540-012-000, both properties are in the low density district. So first up is the staff have recommendation for the completeness of the application?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Megan Fortson Planner. The applicant has requested exemptions from submitting separate existing and proposed conditions plans and all technical reports. After reviewing each request, 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. I will entertain a motion.

I make a motion to accept the application as complete.

Thank you, Mr. Koss. Second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Cosevera. All right. Any discussion about completeness of the application? Seeing none, let's move to roll call vote for completeness of application PB-26-18.

Harold Farrington?

Yes.

Mayor Jay Kahn? No. Yes. Councillor Molly Ellis? Yes. Michael Hafer? Yes. Kenneth Koss?

Yes.

And Joey Cosivera?

Yes. Okay, great. So the motion, the application is accepted as complete. At this time, I will invite the applicant to present.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, board members, planning staff, and those present in the audience. My name is John LaFave with Fieldstone Land Consultants here tonight on behalf of the applicants, the Pacheros and the Henrys. What we're looking to do is to adjust the common lot line between the two properties. This application was here last year, and we missed the deadline for submitting a MILR. The applicant had considered adjusting the lot line, but by the time we got around to it, she decided just to keep it the same. So what you're seeing tonight is the exact same application you saw last time we were here before the board. Adjusting this lot line will actually bring the lots into more conformity. The lot line is right at the driveway, so we're going to meet the 10-foot setback. It allows more yard room for the two properties. We moved the lot line to where they're occupying to rather than to where they thought it was. This initially started with the client calling us up and asking us to stake out the property lines. After we staked out the property lines, they were like, oh, goodness, I didn't know the property line was there. So then they talked to each other, and they agreed that it would be good to adjust the common lot line to where they're both occupying to. So this is an identical application. They're both going to swap a piece of property, and both lots are going to stay into conformance. We're not bringing them into any further conformance. We're actually making them better. Thank you.

Do board members have questions for Mr. Le Fay? No. No questions, I guess.

Okay. Thank you. One thing I will mention is that we did go out and set the lock corners in between the last time we were here and the submission. So identical plan, lock corners are set. And I did bring my lines with me this evening if the board could entertain signing them, just throwing that out there.

All right. Thank you. Yeah, if it's available, we will do that. Yep. Thank you. Yep. Thanks. I will invite staff to provide a report on this.

Okay. Jump down.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Megan Fortson-Planner again. So Mr. Lefebvre gave a pretty good review of this proposal. This came before you in October of last year, and with our conditional approvals, they have 180 days to meet their precedent conditions of approval, which are the conditions that have to be met before you as a group issue final approval. And so those conditions were the submittal of MILRs, recording fees, having the owner's signature on the plans, and then having the lot monument inspection completed. The conditional approval expired on April 26 of this year. And the only condition that had been met was the inspection of the new lot monuments that were just referenced by Mr. LaFave. So the applicant has come back to the board with the exact same application, which involves the transfer of, let's see, it's like less than a tenth of an acre from one parcel to another. Both properties are located in the low density district and are the site of single family homes and associated site modifications like driveways, accessory structures, things like that. Staff have made the preliminary determination that this does not have the potential to be a development of regional impact. And I'm just gonna run very quickly through our subdivision and boundary line adjustment standards As Mr. Lefebvre mentioned, both parcels are going to be in compliance with all required zoning dimensional requirements. There's no development proposed as part of the application that would affect the character or anything like that of the land for the subdivision. No scattered or premature development. No existing features that need to be preserved. The monumentation has been satisfied with the setting and inspection of the new lot monuments. And Although a portion of the southwestern corner of both parcels is located within the 100-year floodplain, there's no development proposed, so that's not of concern. No concerns related to fire protection and water supply, and no concerns related to utilities. So the motion that's before you this evening is to approve the application with three conditions, precedent. We have received the MILRs, the plans, and the check. So my recommendation would be to conditionally approve the application subject to just having the owner sign the plans. That's the last thing that we need before we can issue conditional approval, or excuse me, final approval for the application.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Fortson. Board members have questions for Ms. Fortson? Thank you. Deja vu.

Yes.

OK. I would note that boundary line adjustment is not a public hearing. However, if anyone in the audience is here who would like to comment on this application or ask a question, just raise your hand.

Okay.

Seeing none, we'll move on. And we will... We're all set. Yeah, we're just going to deliberate at this time.

I'll get my stuff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, board members. Sure.

So I will entertain a motion now. Mr. Cost.

OK. Move to approve PB 26-18 as shown on the plan identified as lot line adjustment plan. prepared by Fieldstone Land Consultants, PLLC, at a scale of 1 inch equals 20 feet on August 25, 2025, and last revised on February 2, 2026, with the following conditions prior to final approval and signature of the plans by the planning board chair. One, owner signature appear on the proposed plan. Two, submittal of two MILR copies of the plan. And three, submittal of a check in the amount of $51 made out to the city of Keene to cover recording fees.

Thank you. Second? I'll second that. Mr. Hafer, thank you. All right. Any deliberation at this time? Comments, questions? From my perspective, we thought this was a perfectly good idea when it happened last summer. Nothing has really changed to change my opinion of that. If no one else has a comment, I will ask staff to start the roll call vote.

Harold Farrington?

Yes.

Mayor Jay Kahn? Yes.

mayor yes thank you sorry councillor molly ellis yes michael hafer yes kenneth cost yes and joey cosi barrett yes okay great thank you the uh boundary line adjustment is approved thank you you all have a good evening i appreciate your time so do we have the owner's signature um Okay, that's fine.

Okay, thank you. Good night.

Good night, yep. All right. Next on our agenda are two public hearings. The first one is PB-26-16, a cottage court conditional use permit. Applicant Zach Leroy, on behalf of owner Michael Evan, proposes to convert a two-family home into a triplex by adding a dwelling unit to the second story of the attached barn. The approximately .21 acre parcel at 128-130 School Street, TMP number 555-001-000, is in the low density district. At this time, I'll ask staff if you have a recommendation for completeness of the application.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Megan Fortson, planner. The applicant has requested exemptions from submitting separate existing and proposed conditions plans, a grading plan, a lighting plan, a landscaping plan, and all technical reports. Staff recommends that the board grant these exemptions and accept the application as complete.

All right, thank you. I'll entertain a motion to find the application complete.

I move to find this application complete.

Thank you. And a second?

Second.

Councillor Ellis, thank you. All right. Any discussion of completeness? We're ready for the roll call vote then.

Harold Farrington.

Yes.

Mayor Jay Kahn.

Yes.

Councillor Molly Ellis. Yes. Michael Hafer. Yes. Kenneth Kost. Yes. And Joey Kosibera.

Yes. Okay. The motion is accepted by the board as complete. At this time I will invite the applicant to present.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, board. Thank you to everyone who's here. I just feel it's like a pretty straightforward application for a third.

If you wouldn't mind just stating your name and address. Oh, sorry.

I'm Zach Leroy. I live at 30 Hanover Street. Again, I'm representing the owner. I own a company called Reconstruct Realty. It's a fairly straightforward application asking for the addition of a third unit on this existing property. It's a two-family building with an attached barn that the applicant purchased last year. There's a large living space already in the barn area. We just plan to convert it into an actual living space by adding a bathroom and a kitchen, one bedroom. There's plenty of parking and I feel like it's pretty straightforward, so if there's any questions I can try to answer.

Sure, okay. Board members have a question for Mr. LeRoy?

Mr. cost is thank you um I heard you say something about parking yes really quick so so are there the parking that's there is adequate for what's going on or is there going to be additional parking

we have space to reconstruct the driveway as is to add spaces but there's as it currently stands there's adequate parking yes so there's pavement but you're going to stripe it or organize it somehow um yes it's already organ it's already somewhat organized as is now

So there's no more on the plan.

I'm sorry. On the plan there, it shows the parking plan. You should have that on your packet.

Just thumbing through it here. Takes a minute to get to that.

It looks like page 41, perhaps.

OK. So it just says existing force. parking spots yes those the existing four and then there's the fifth one potential if needed Could I have a?

Mr. Cost, another question?

So it says existing four spots to remain, and then the fifth one goes where? I don't see it labeled on what I'm looking at.

It's not specifically labeled, but you could see in the drawings there's five spots. One, two.

The one at the end of the drawing. I guess by that. OK. Thank you.

Maybe.

Mayor Kahn?

Yeah. I keep losing my page reference. I think parking was the question that I think was posed to us by neighbors. I guess there are quite a few bedrooms. The bedroom to parking ratio, I guess, is the question. So I guess how many tenants are in the current residence?

The current residence has two adults in each unit and one child.

Are they owner-occupied?

Yes. Yes.

And there's one owner for the duplex, or there's two? One owner.

I'm sorry. There's one owner? Yes, it's one building. And to address the issue of parking spots, Mary can answer this better than I assume, but under Cottage Court, we're looking at less parking spots per unit anyway. As it currently exists, that there's seven existing bedrooms, and there's only four current parking spots. They're not being all occupied. The owner has the ability to add, as it stands now, a sixth bedroom, being that this is a living room in itself that already exists without going through this whole process, with neutral to zero effect or impact on parking.

So I guess just a question for me is, does this necessitate a cottage court? Approval, I guess understanding that why cottage court as opposed to just Within the current Sony I Would defer to staff Okay, I can wait for staff report You guys will address that in the staff report, yes, we'll address it as part of the staff report yet Other questions

Okay. Thank you, Mr. LaRoy. Thank you. At this time, I'll invite staff to provide their report.

Thank You mr. chair this is Megan Fortson planner again so I'm gonna go through just a little bit about the proposal but basically to give you some background the property is located in the low density district and the only way for you to have a triplex I don't know if we would necessarily strictly consider this a triplex under our cottage court standards but to have a multifamily or three unit building in low density is through the cottage court process so I somebody whether they had three separate single family homes on a single lot or if they had a multi-family property which is anything three units or above under our zoning code they would need to go through the cottage court process because that's not an allowed use in the low density district as it stands alone so that's why this is coming before you this evening To give you a little bit of information about the actual parcel, it's an existing .21 acre residential lot located on the western side of School Street, approximately 130 feet south of the intersection with Leverett Street. The property contains an existing duplex that was built in 1880 with approximately 2,800 square feet of living area. Attached to the rear of the duplex is an approximately 600 square foot barn. and the barn is connected to the duplex by an above-ground breezeway. The property also contains a driveway with a four-space parking lot. So the purpose, as already stated, is to convert the second floor of the barn into another dwelling unit that's gonna be about 600 square feet. Sorry, words are hard tonight. And the unit is only going to have one bedroom. The exterior of the barn is proposed to be changed with the installation of a door to provide access. But there's no other changes proposed to the building exterior or the site itself. In terms of regional impact, staff did not feel that the proposal had the potential for regional impact. And then in regards to departmental comments, we did hear back from the city engineer that if it's required as part of the code process, or I should say building permit process. And if it's required by the state building code, a meter pit and a backflow preventer shall be installed at the property line. That's just related to electricity and utilities. Because this is fewer than five units, this is not subject to major site plan review, so I'm just gonna go through Article 17 of the Land Development Code, which are the cottage court standards. So as mentioned earlier, the application proposes to convert an existing duplex into a triplex by converting the loft via attached barn. The new unit is attached horizontally to the existing duplex, thereby meeting the triplex definition, so that standard has been met. In terms of development types that are allowed, the project is going to be developed on a single parcel of land with a property management entity to manage the rental units. So that standard has been met. Under section 5.3 of Article 17 are your conditional use permit standards. And so the first one is related to dwelling unit size. The proposed 600 square foot unit is well below the 1,250 square foot gross floor area that's required for cottage courts. and below the 900 square foot building footprint that's required. So that standard is met. For parking, you can have a maximum of one parking space per bedroom or a minimum of one space per unit. So the minimum number of parking spaces required would be three and the maximum that could be provided would be seven for the proposal. Building separation is not applicable to the proposal because the barn is already attached. For driveways, the existing driveway is gonna continue to be utilized in its current configuration, so that standard is met. Screening is also not really applicable in this situation, given the fact that it's an existing barn that's proposing to be converted. It's not being enlarged or increased in height. Mr. Clements is the one who did do this planning review, so I'm just kind of trying to do the best that I can here, but he said under the screening standard that The intensity of the built form on the property will not be changed as there are no additional structures or exterior building additions that may alter the existing form. However, the board will need to determine if additional screening may be needed. So that's really up to you. Architectural guidelines are not applicable because, again, it's an existing building that's being converted. This application, in terms of recommended motion, is ready for final approval. In the staff report, we had included two precedent conditions of approval. One of them was the submittal of five plans, and the other one was the submittal of revised plans showing the correct number of proposed dwelling units. The applicant has met both of those conditions, and the property owner has signed the plans. So we would recommend that you actually issue final approval at this evening if you feel that it's appropriate versus conditional approval.

thank you for going going along with me as I trip over my words thank you board members have questions for staff councillor Ellis yes thank you I read one of the letters that we were given from members of the public and it referred to the historic district but I was looking at the map this property is not in the historic district is it

I believe that the parcel, I think it's located like right outside. I think it's right across the street from properties that are within the historic district.

That's what my understanding was too as I was looking at the map, but I just wanted to make sure I was looking at this correctly.

As far as I'm aware, yeah, I had turned on that layer during the review and I'm pretty sure it's like right across the street from parcels that are in the HDC. Thank you. Yep.

Mr. Hafer Thank you Mr. Chair Megan Miss Fortson yes Brunner Fortson make sure I didn't mess it up in the picture in the packet it looks like there's some sort of a connector between the grey house and the barn there's a window anyway is there any I mean I know this would be part of the building permit process but any concerns about fire the connection fire fire safety wise between the two buildings there I guess if there's a hallway or something between the two already it's not a detached unit it looks like there's some sort of connection between the two if I may mr. chair so yeah that that's what really makes this a triplex is that strange little floating hallway right there I haven't heard any necessarily like life safety concerns or anything like that

looking at the plans i don't know if the hallway is going to be accessible from the new unit or not to be honest um but certainly it is yeah so the the actually the space and the breeze when i'm sure the applicant could speak to this as well i believe is going to be utilized as a laundry facility seeing some nodding heads okay so glad my memory is correct um the separation between the units is subject to the building and fire code and this application was reviewed by building and fire department staff and I don't believe we received any comments I don't think so no but that will be reviewed as part of the building permit process Mr. Kost Thank you Mr.

Chair I read the letters that the neighbors sent there are two of them And I guess my question, there's a lot here and a lot of concern, but my question is, under Cottage Court, is there anything under that conditional use permit approach that is not being met here that we would need to address? And I didn't see any, but I'd rather get it from professionals.

um yes so uh this is sort of a difficult application in that when you read through all of the standards in the land development code everything for the cottage court has been met which is why we're recommending final approval tonight um however we have heard from members of the public namely in the form of the two letters that you've received this evening that there's concern related to having an additional unit and that is something that can be difficult to contend with just because my understanding based off of what I've heard from people is that there's concern over the individuals that have lived in these units previously and behaviors and you know things issues that have resulted as have been created as a result of that basically not because of how the units were run or anything like that but because of the individuals who live there that's not really something that's under the purview of the planning board if it's You know verbal altercations or anything like that happening That's something that really has to be reported to the police department and is not addressed under the cottage court standards Similarly if there were to be issues with say property maintenance Like if there was garbage left out or mattresses on the side of the road or something like that That's something that would be handled through our office by our code enforcement officer Ryan lawless and that's not really something that's either addressed underneath the cottage court, so I Yes, you're really just reviewing the changes that are proposed. And as currently proposed, it meets all of the necessary standards under your jurisdiction.

Mr. Chair may I add something to that I would say there's two areas in the cottage court that I'm aware of where there is some discretion on your part one is the screening standard which I think you know between Evan and Megan you've gotten a good overview of that there's also your architectural guidelines the applicant isn't really proposing to change much to the exterior of the barn But yeah, those are the two areas where there is some level of discretion for you.

Councillor Ellis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Another question about one of the letters that referred to the owner, the owner has the potential to vacate the main residence and rent it out, which he can do after living in the residence for one year. Is living in the residence one year some part of a condition for something?

I'm not aware of anything. If somebody, you could technically have two units on any property where there's a single family home in Keene, so say there was an accessory dwelling unit, in order for it to be considered a true accessory dwelling unit and for it not to be considered a second unit, just like a two unit property, one of the units has to be owner occupied. And I don't think that that's subject to any sort of timeframe or anything like that. I don't think it doesn't become grandfathered into two units after a year as far as I'm aware.

Yeah that's correct so in a single-family zoning district you can have a single-family home by right without having to go through the Planning Board and an accessory dwelling unit is considered to be accessory but only if one of those two units is owner-occupied but that has to be in perpetuity you can't lose owner occupancy and still keep the status of an ADU which is accessory dwelling unit

Thank you. So that standard is not applicable here because this is not an ADU. This would be the cottage court specifically. So that standard is moot at this point. Thank you.

I have a question about the parking. So page 33 is the Google map, Google streets, and then page 41. Is there enough room there at the end of the driveway if a car is parked in that spot for the other people to make the turn and go into the other spots?

I think that's kind of nebulous. I don't know that somebody would really have room for a fifth parking spot, because typically we say that for a parking space, it has to be eight feet wide by 18 feet long. So that spot on the southernmost area near the property boundary is probably not really eight feet wide. so they could use it as a parking space. Whether or not it would actually function as a proper parking space, I don't know. Because I don't really know that that person would have a lot of room to be able to properly back out. But I think the other parking spaces people could probably back out of and exit the property just fine.

Yeah, perhaps I should have addressed the question to Mr. Leroy with regard to that fifth parking space. Yeah, come on up. Do you understand what I'm asking?

Yes, I do.

Unfortunately, the plans don't...

I'll talk to my architect about this, but accurately depict what the space we really do have. There's more space closer. This void that's next to the barn is actually space for parking as well. That's where he meant to kind of slide that in, but he didn't. Currently, five cars have parked in there and moved in and out. can be tight if you have big trucks like mine or something. But again, under cottage court, we're only required for three spots. And we're just trying to add additional to alleviate any concerns that the public might have.

And I guess I have the same question. I think you answered it, Ms. Brenner, but cottage court does not require owner occupancy. Any other questions? Mr. Hafer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Based on the condition of the 17.5.3 parking, minimum one space per unit is required. Am I reading that right, that essentially this would only require three spaces for this property? That's correct. A minimum of three.

And then you can have a maximum equal to the number of bedrooms, which I think will be seven if the new unit is constructed.

So bottom line, four parking spaces meets the usage for a cottage court standards. Yes. Thanks.

Thank you, Ms. Fortson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. This is a public hearing, so I will invite the public to speak. Could I just see a show of hands of anyone who wants to comment on this application? One, two, three, four. Okay, great. Let's start over here with you, ma'am, in the black shirt. I'm going to have her start.

Okay, okay.

Good evening. My name is Mary Ida Kendall, and I live at 127 School Street, which is directly across the street from the proposed triplex. I have real concerns about how this devalues the neighborhood. This is a low density neighborhood. It's been a low density neighborhood with one or two discreet duplexes here and there. But this is now going to be a three unit. And sooner or later, it's going to be three renters. That's not low density, and that's an issue next to a school. It's an issue to the values of the other residents. I purchased a home in this area because I wanted a low density situation. I paid half a million dollars for a home in a low density situation, which is now going to be not low density, with a triplex across the street from me. And I understand that it doesn't have to be owner-occupied, but the minute you have not owner-occupied, things can go south. And they have in that property before. Things will go south. And I think all of the residents, or the majority of the residents, are really concerned about that. I mean... How will you take care of us? You're looking at this as a purely what they're allowed. But if what they're allowed negates the values of the other residents, what will you do for us? How will you take care of us? There's an idea that you have to balance the developer's gain against our loss. This person gains profit in their property. But we the public and the school children, we lose value. We lose safety, privacy, peace of mind, and potential home value too. I wouldn't buy a house, a really nice house, across the street from a triplex. So what does that do to my property in the future? You know? That's a question for any of you. How will you take care of us?

Thank you.

Thank you. Please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, councillors, staff. My name is Ruth Venezia. I am a retired city councillor. I have lived at 138 School Street for 44 years. 43 years ago, we came before this board and asked to turn RL into apartment and it was denied because of the low density even with the 128 130 next door we heard earlier that that property's been there since 1880 or about during my tenure paying rent next door When I had owner-operators, owner... people living in there the house was fine when I had landlords that were not there I did have to call the police in reaction to what this young lady said about poor behavior on the the tenants behalf and it has been unpleasant now with the new owners I have met them I like them they're nice people I don't want to see a separate dwelling in there because of what was mentioned in the letter that Ms. Kendall beautifully wrote to you. I can see exactly what she's talking about. It's the broken window type affair where you have a broken window and the rest of the neighborhood starts to fall apart. People don't take care of their places. So again, I'm going to go after what Ms. Kendall said and ask what you're going to do for us to protect us, to protect the value of School Street, which is very important to the perception of people from Keene. And I've heard it time and time again in the 44 years I've been here as a resident, as a city councilor, as a mother. I've heard it. We need to protect school street and I don't think putting cottage court in as an overlay and thereby spot zoning that one particular house on school street is fair and I would like you to consider that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Laura Tobin Center Street I live just around the corner from this and I can't speak directly to the concerns about parking or former tenants or the owners anything like that just a slightly different perspective I've rented around the corner for five, six years and that is my home. It feels like home. That area is, I love this neighborhood and this area is very walkable which is something that I need because I don't have a vehicle. I also know other people in that neighborhood who don't drive. So I think that it's conceivable that While there may be concerns about the number of units and the number of people living in that one place based on you know, what is often a two-family household. This area really is very walkable, and I do see people transitioning to that. I think I hear the concerns about safety and turnover, things related to that. I also think that, you know, when there is an underutilized building, having that building be occupied in some way can really help to keep a neighborhood safe so i you know when i when i saw the sign for this i was a little concerned but honestly looking at the plans i feel positive that this building will be used in this way so thank you thank you

Good evening, chair, board, staff.

You just have to push the button there until the green. Oh, sorry. Yeah.

OK, is it going now? Good evening, board, chair, staff. And I want to thank the residents for coming out. My name is Linda Bovere. I live on Castle Court directly behind the abutted property. I'm here to oppose. the cottage court development, because it's right over my backyard. As a neighboring property owner, I am concerned about the proposal to the additional resident unit to the property that already has history of maintenance and upkeep issues. Over the years, I have experienced ongoing problems with debris from trees, the trees itself falling on my house, the branches in the yard taking down my fence, landscaping on the property ending up in my yard, creating additional cleanup and maintenance on my side of the property line. These issues have made me question whether a property can adequately support more intensive resident use. I am also concerned about the impact that adding more residents will have on the neighboring properties. The properties have generated noise that can be heard from my home during both day and evenings. vehicles headlights entering and exiting the driveway at night also affect my property they leave their lights on to warm up their cars it could be an hour it's directly in my kitchen maybe the fencing would help although you're saying we don't need fencing but maybe that would help it would help with the noise it would help with the trash all the trash that comes down all the leaves that come down because that's where they blow everything that's where the No removal goes. It all goes onto my property, onto my fence, which is a burden to me. Adding more units and more residents will increase activity, traffic, and noise and light pollution for those of us who live directly next door. The lights, if they leave an outside light on, again, it just shines right down into the house. I don't need lights on in my house at nighttime. Thank goodness, because they light it up well enough. We see fine in the house. It wakes us up, as a matter of fact. While I am under the desire to create additional housing, I do not believe this particular property is an appropriate location for a cottage court. Based on my experience as an abutter, I am concerned with the increasing of the density of the site will will further affect mine and my neighbor's quality of life. For those reasons, I'm asking the board to deny the application with the purpose. Thank you. Thank you for your time. And I know they said some of this stuff, like the trash and all that, isn't part of this, but the noise and what others have said about we've had to call the police many times. I've talked to Ryan, I've done everything I can in the past. So that's why I'm asking you not to approve it. Thank you.

Hold that just for one minute. Anyone else like to provide comments for the first time?

Good day, Mr. President, officer, members of the board. My name is Orwin Harvey. I live at 108 School Street, just down the block from this proposed cottage court. I must object to it also. I have all the concerns that the other speakers against it have said, and I think that it would not add to the low density perspective of the neighborhood. It is going to change the neighborhood. That's it. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you for a second time to speak.

If you wouldn't mind just repeating your name. Ruth Venezia. Because the note taker is offsite.

I'm sorry. Ruth Venezia, 138 School Street. I am an abutter. I would like to address two things that were brought forward. One about the barn. We have never had a problem with the barn as an unoccupied building. It can be used for storage. I don't have any problem with that. And I would like to address the geography or the topography of the lot. It's flat, it goes down, it's flat, and it goes directly down into our neighbor's property. It is a very steep grade, and that's part of what you look at when you look at a tax map. You see it just looks like a flat piece of property. It is not usable. I think that should be taken into consideration, not just the flat outline of a tax map.

Thank you. Anyone else? OK, seeing no one I will. Close the public portion of the meeting. And we will proceed to our deliberations phase. So this we always start with a. With emotion. So I'll entertain a motion at this time. So we start with the motion and then we, we deliberate and debate. Okay. Mr. Cost.

Yeah. I moved to issue final approval for PB 26 dash 16 as shown on the plan set identified as Evan Michael barn renovation prepared at varying scales on July 20th, 2026 with no conditions. Second.

Councillor Ellis?

Second.

Thank you. Okay. Interested in your opinions? Councillor Ellis?

thank you I think all the people from the neighborhood who came out tonight I'm grateful that they weighed in that said having reviewed the application it seems to meet all the standards and I don't think that we have any basis for denying it if it meets all the standards and further I think that this type of infill making use of an empty barn or carriage house is exactly the type of development that we're looking for so I'm in favor of

Mr. Cost? Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, these are very heartfelt and important concerns I think everyone raised here. And I don't live on that street, but I could get a sense of why people might be concerned about this but I think my first question earlier was what we the Planning Board looks at is the land use development code the cottage court and I just can't see anything heard anything that I could pin denying this on because it meets all of the requirements of Keene's current zoning so you know maybe at some point someone wants to look at that again but but as of today that this meets that also I mean I grew up my whole life as a renter, and my family always rented. And I know so many people who rent, and I understand a little bit that there are some really bad people who rent, but so many people, that's their life, that's what they have, and that's their home. And so I just... Anyway, I just have a little trouble. I feel like I was insulted a little bit because I'm a renter or was a renter. I do own a house now, but growing up I rented. My family rented. So anyway, as much as I hear this and I do think I understand some of the concerns, I personally just can't find any reason not to approve it when we come to vote.

Thank you. Would anyone care to comment on the development of regional impact for this project?

Mr. Hafer? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll certainly comment that the addition of one unit to a two-unit property does not meet the standards for regional impact, and so we do not need to notify surrounding communities about this application. On to my general comments, I find myself of similar feelings as other members of this board have mentioned already. I feel it seems as if the boxes are ticked in terms of meeting the standards for the conditional use permit. It is a new standard for keying. as we are living through is, we're going through the growing pains of adding this new capability to the zoning and permitting process. I do find myself a little, the items that are in our purview, architectural standards, screening standards, frankly the photo of the current conditions of the barn leave some to be desired in terms of feeling like this is going to be additive to the property. So I do find myself wishing the application included an elevation of the plans for that piece. Frankly, it looks like there's some sort of state of disrepair of a shed, maybe a shed roof that's been taken down. I could... I think the application would be more complete with a sort of an elevation and plan for what this thing will look like when it's approached from the driveway. And since the screening standards are in our purview and hearing the comments of the neighbor to Castle Court, it seems like we would be in our jurisdiction to suggest some fencing along that back property line. if we so choose to consider that. I will let others comment before I make that proposal.

Yeah, I don't have anything additive to that. I think that was well put with respect to the growing pains. The Cottage Court is a result of the City Council prioritizing filling in additional housing units to meet what's been studied and understood to be an acute shortage in the city of Keene. And is every one of these things gonna be perfect? No, but we will learn from these and if we need to fine tune the statute, the code, I think that's certainly in play. As everything is written today, it's difficult for me to find any reason to deny this application.

Mr. Brenner?

Actually, I just wanted to let you know that it looks like the mayor has his hand raised.

Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Mayor?

Yeah. Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I can see that there is not a clear basis on which to find objection to the request. Given that, I do think that there is a historic character to the street. I'm using historic with a small h. It's the feel of the street as opposed to the actual designation. So I get concerned, as the neighbors have suggested, that The kind of density in bedrooms is tough to imagine how the site were to be truly a cottage court where there isn't owner occupancy. It makes it questionable as to whether there's sufficient parking on the site. So I guess that's a concern that I don't think we've addressed, and maybe we don't have a basis on which to address it, but it's a concern for me, and I don't know that I'm prepared to address it. vote in favor of this. I would vote in favor though of adding an amendment to add additional screening to the property. I think that that's a valuable suggestion.

At this point I've heard two potential items that could be added as conditions so if you wanted to do that you would just need to make a motion to amend the motion and vote on that and then vote on the original motion if that's what the board wants to do What's the appetite for that?

Just give me a nod if you think additional screening makes a lot of sense.

Okay. And the second one was the potential of an elevation, architectural elevation of the facade. So what would be the motion process to amend the first motion to?

Good. Well, I guess I have a question on the facade and maybe the applicant.

Hold on a second. Is there a change? Mr. Hitcher made a motion to amend the original motion. So we either table that or we second it.

I'd like to table it and clarify.

Okay. All right. So we'll table the amendment to the motion. So if you wanted to come up, Mr. Leroy, I think we'll have another question for you.

Sure.

Thank you. I mean, my question is, is there a change to the exterior facade at all?

We do plan to match it to the existing house. It wasn't part of this plan for budgetary purposes. We didn't want to commit to something and overextend ourselves for the construction purposes of that. But long term, yes, the plan is to make it match so it's more static.

Okay.

In this quick reference, the part that you see that's taken down, that was a dilapidated chicken coop. It's going to be based on what we have for budget once we get to that point. But we do plan to make it look much more aesthetic.

Can I follow up? Yes, please. So the plan is to do the interior and get it ready for occupancy, and then at a later date, after it's occupied, do the facade changes? Or do the facade changes and the whole thing before someone moves in?

Again, that's going to be based on where we are on budget. We didn't get too far ahead of ourselves based on getting approvals first. So we hope to be able to do it all at once. That'd be far more cost effective and efficient. But as of now, it's not in the plan. overall the plan is to make it more aesthetically pleasing okay thank you that's one question on the screening aspect would the screening strictly be to shield the um the back abutter because you can't see the property from that side at least the driveway side from the street or anywhere else

I don't think we've, we haven't talked through that yet. Thank you so much. Okay, so Mr. Hafer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. What would be the proper way to make an amendment to our existing, how should I word? Just say it. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to amend the motion on the floor. of the approval of this cottage court conditional use permit to include to include a architectural rendering drawing of the facade of the unit to make sure it fits in with the character and nature of school street and to include screening along the western side of the property to block, to shield the neighbor at 23 Castle Court from the additional traffic coming into the building, into the unit.

Second. Second. Mr. Cosavera, thank you. Discussion? Mr. Coste.

There's a lot here because if we're, maybe we don't have to solve it, but before it's approved, how high is the fence? I heard that lights on the building bleed over into the other property, so is the fence high enough to block that? I don't know what we're asking for exactly. And then on the facade? change would that be if we're asking to see what it looks like but it doesn't it sounds like it may not be done before the building is occupied and we approve it it seems like if we're going to approve it we have that has to be part of the project otherwise it may never get done so it seems like it has to be what we're asking for then is before you do anything not only provide a plan but do it as part of the construction

That'd be part of the building.

And also understand what the fence is. So we're adding quite a bit just to this.

Councillor Ellis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Adding to what Mr. Cost said, my next door neighbor has a fence and their leaves blow into our yard all the time. I'm not sure how much we can solve when you have neighbors that have trees.

Thank You mr. chair I just wanted to note that I'm looking at the online contour map and it does look like the parking area for this property is about 10 feet higher than the Western property line so it is a bit higher so I don't know that a fence would necessarily block the lighting if that's your intent with the screening just to add another thing in here.

Well, I'll defer to the motioner. Is that your intent?

I was thinking a stockade fence, particularly 10 feet high. If the property is higher than the stockade fence, an eight-foot stockade fence along the western front would block all the headlights coming in and out of that driveway. I'm willing to remove that i do feel a bit more strongly about wanting to see a better and i think some of the other uh applications we've seen we've had a front elevation of of the barns as they were going to be revised and brought up to standard it does i mean the staff doesn't think the architectural standards apply here i'm just looking for things that are in our purview to make sure we're doing the most we can to protect the values of the the neighborhood and to me feeling really good about what this thing is going to look like it would be part of that well i would remind the board that uh screening can also be vegetation yeah so that's our desire yeah mr cost

I'm still not clear on the facade.

It sounds like the petitioner... Would you mind just holding that? Why don't we deal with one of these at a time? Okay. All right. So do we have a firm motion for what type of screening we are asking the applicant to install?

I would say, I mean, if the screening was part of the original requirement, the applicant would come in with a proposal to meet the standard. If my fellow board members aren't as strong about that recommendation, sounds like it may not be strong on either recommendation, but I would be willing to withdraw that portion of my amendment.

If that would be the... Let me ask staff, is there a screening provision in the Cottage Court?

Yes, so the way it's worded is that when the development intensity, not necessarily density, but when the type of development is more intense than the surrounding uses. So this property, I believe, is surrounded on all sides by single family homes. So a triplex would count as a more intense building form. However, this one is a little bit of a gray area, which is why the staff report was kind of wishy-washy, because the built form isn't actually changing. There's an existing semi-attached barn that's being converted, so the actual buildings on the site aren't changing, but the the intensity is higher than the surrounding uses. So you do have the ability to require landscaping in the form of a stockade fence or vegetation if that's what you would like to do. Is that helpful?

Thank you. Mr. Coast Fair.

I just wanted to just agree with the reason I think screening would be helpful. It was mentioned the lighting issue, illuminating someone's house, and then also maybe noise prevention. I'm not sure. I don't know the topology of how it looks, but I was thinking that might be beneficial.

Mr. Cost.

have a little understanding about noise and noise abatement and noise walls, and a stockade fence does not prevent noise. You could ask an expert, but I believe that's true.

I think we just did.

The mayor's hand is raised again.

Mayor Kahn?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mary. So I think that then the suggestion is for a vegetative screening. But I think in both of these ideas, these are places where the proposal ought to address these couple of things. I don't know that doing this on the fly without the intent of the property owner, the people bringing forward the proposal, to act on the proposal tonight without their input on these couple of questions. I wonder if that's Should should we be considering a? More time on this.

Yeah, I think that's a very good point. I think we've sort of coalesced around a vegetative screening. I don't think we've coalesced around. Architectural. Mr cost.

So I heard one of the issues with the neighbor is that the leaves and everything blow into the yard. And so we're just going to add more leaves to blow into the yard. I'm not sure that solves the problem. I think we're just kind of playing ad hoc here a little bit. And I don't know. I don't know that that's the right answer either, because that might make it worse. And if it's not maintained by the property owner or someone, then it's even going to get worse. So I don't have the answer, but that may not be the answer either.

Mr. Hafer?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the mayor's point, I think where I'm feeling more comfortable is that finding this, the application as is, lacking in meeting desires to approve it under the cottage court you know potentially I would say because of a lack of screening that may be needed and a lack of rendering of the property to be developed it's not our job to design that or decide what sort of screening should be there it's the job of the applicant to meet the needs meet the requirements of the conditional use permit and so perhaps it's not an amendment but an amendment to the motion but maybe the process is to deny the motion for now or continue to continue the I don't know what the right words would be to continue the application.

Yeah, we'll take that. But we have some logistics to take care of first. So we have a motion and we have a motion to amend. We have to deal with both of those before we can decide on something, a different board decision. Okay. Councillor Ellis? Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with Mr. Koss that I'm not sure that the proposed screening options are going to actually solve the issue. So I don't think I'm in favor of requiring that at this point. But I do think either they are not changing the exterior of the house, which is what the applicant has said in the proposal, in which case you know in which case I don't know that we need an elevation but if they are saying they may change it later then that needs to be part of the proposal and we do need an elevation so I feel like maybe the applicant needs to provide clarity on that and if they do plan to make exterior changes and I think we should continue this for later if they're not changing exterior then I'm fine for today

Okay. So what I'd like to do is kind of get us back to square one here of deliberation. Can I withdraw my motion as the motioner? Withdraw your motion? Yes. Your motion to amend? Yes.

I'd like to withdraw the motion to amend.

Well, so... would ask Mr. Costa to withdraw his motion as well.

The one I read?

Right, the motion to approve.

Do we have a, we're gonna come up with a new motion that we're replacing it with?

Yeah, that's what we're gonna do, yep.

Okay, I'll withdraw it.

Okay. So at this time, I will entertain a motion to continue to the next meeting.

So moved.

Thank you, Councillor Ellis. Second?

I second that.

All right. Roll call vote. Or any discussion? I'm sorry. I have a question on that.

Excuse me? I have a question on that. Of course. If we don't approve this new motion, what happens? Are we then going back to the original motion?

Yeah, we'll need to do that. We need to reach a decision of some kind this evening.

Can I address it all? May I address the board at all?

Okay.

Because I can solve, I feel like.

You can solve? I can just follow some of this discussion.

I just feel between Evan and myself we spent a lot of time with the city we've done a lot of work on this these people taking their time to come here tonight to ask us to come back next month I don't feel it's fair to any of them we are more than willing to work with the the rare butter and work on that light pollution we want to remove that problem that's something we weren't aware of we would definitely fix that adding a fence or vegetation, that's not something we're opposed to. And if it takes committing to painting it in the barn as is, the same color, and making it better, that is.

If these were any- What is your opinion about how tall a fence has to be?

How tall a fence needs to be?

Yeah. If the driveway is 10 feet above the level of the abutter's home.

Right. yes like like we said that you know vegetation and things like that that's gonna blow around there's not much we can control or do with that obviously there's no intent to have trash there no anything like that the best we can really control is the light pollution so we will move lights and make sure that they're directed where they need to be and not pointing out into people's properties as it should be anyway far as the proposal I keep on here referring back that we should have we did everything the city asked us to do we didn't you know so we answered those questions and we would have provided an elevation and or a screening if it was asked of us prior to this this wasn't a concern from the city or anybody else who reviewed this prior to this so So I just feel delaying this isn't necessary because like I said, we committed to painting it as is repairing whatever damages to the siding and painting it the same color and keeping it as is it's an existing building as You know, it's gonna look better than it does now And we would love to work with the neighbors to make sure that there's no light pollution

Okay, thank you.

Our concern is to be a better citizen, not to inhibit anybody.

Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you. Are we confident that we know, because I think we're talking now about conditions subsequent. Are we confident that we can specify those? Mr. Cost?

So what I heard is that No screening and no landscaping, but adjust lights so they don't bleed over to the neighbor's property. That's what I heard.

He's talking about headlights, right?

No, he's talking about... I don't know that you... Maybe you should ask. I thought we were talking about building lights. I mean, headlights, there's cars coming in now that might be an additional car. I don't know what was just suggested, Sol's headlights. I didn't hear that. But I would like to get back to the barn when I can. In this proposal there was no recommendation to change the exterior and then the discussion I heard was that later at some point The owner would like to do something to fit it in but it's not part of this So if it's not part of this It doesn't seem to me that we can ask to change the facade. They weren't planning to change the facade of the barn. It sounds like we were kind of asking that. I'm still confused on that. If they were to change it, I don't know if that comes back to some committee for approval, but right now it doesn't seem part of the project. And it wasn't suggested in this package. Right. And it's not going to happen. They're not going to do anything to the garage.

It is within our purview as architectural, visual and architectural appearance to make a condition specific to that.

Can we ask a homeowner, say they're doing something under cottage court, but they're not planning under it to change the facade. Can we ask them to change the facade because we don't think it looks good?

So you ask your question again.

Do we have the purview to ask a petitioner to improve a facade of a building that they were not planning to change and they're not coming to us with architectural drawings because they're not planning to change it? And then can we ask them, no, you have to bring architectural drawings and you have to change the facade. Do we have that?

Yes, I would say so. Wouldn't you say, Mary?

under cottage court if you believe it's necessary to meet the intent of the ordinance then yes so if you believe that in order to make this development fit in with the neighborhood and the character that some changes need to be made um that is within your purview i would say it's a little bit trickier when it's the an interior conversion to an existing building um it would be a lot easier if this were new construction um so yep i get that

Because Mr. Cost was arguing on the other side of that last month. Mr. Hafer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I would say we did ask a recent petitioner, new construction, but we did ask a recent petitioner applicant to change the facade, new construction. I'm trying to do the best here. I think it seemed like a great project. It seemed like a sweet little studio unit that would be good for our community writ large. I'm also trying to make sure that... project fits in with the neighborhood as best it can and I would feel you know based on having architectural guidelines somewhat vague as they are and open to our interpretation as they are to me it feels like it's within our purview to I guess I'll say deny this this existing application based on a failure to comply with 17.5.4. Should we choose to do that as a board?

Mr. Cost.

I do want to clarify. I think when I was arguing on the other side, it was new construction, brand new construction. This is not new construction. There's nothing needed to be done to the outside to accommodate the interior apartment. And so the barn is the existing condition. It's been there. It's there. It doesn't need to be changed, in my opinion. And then for us to insist that it does get changed in some architectural way, I don't even know what that would be. Would it still be a barn or would it then become a house? It just seems like we're getting, I don't know, I'm getting ahead of my skis thinking about all of this. I think the project came to us. to put a 600 square foot apartment inside of a building, not to touch the outside, not to grade, not to change anything, not to do anything. And now we're asking for all these other things that just don't seem relevant to me. So, yeah.

Okay. Oh, Councillor Ellis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think my confusion was stemming from the fact that the applicant had talked about like they would like to make changes, but now they're not. It's not in the plan. If the applicant is saying that at this time they're not changing the exterior, then I do agree with Mr. Cross. I don't know that that's up to us right now. So I don't know if I should withdraw my motion or...

Sorry. We can always redo everything. All right. So why don't we just kind of cap the discussion here unless the mayor's hands up.

He's not.

Okay. So why don't we go back to the original motion and see where we are. So if you wouldn't mind, Mr. Coste.

Move to issue final approval for PB 2616 as shown on the plan set identified as Evan Michael Barn renovation prepared at varying scales on July 20th, 2026 with no conditions.

Second.

Councilor Ellis. Second. Great. Okay. Any further discussion? Otherwise, I'm going to call the roll. All right. Ms. Brenner, would you please call the roll?

Harold Farrington?

Yes.

Mayor Jaquan?

No.

Councillor Molly Ellis? Yes. Michael Hafer?

No.

Kenneth Kost?

Yes.

And Joey Cosivera?

Yes. Motion's approved.

Okay.

Thanks for your patience. Mary put you on last. I didn't know there was an option to being patient. So our final public hearing for this evening is a change of governmental use in accordance with New Hampshire RSA 674, colon 54, the parcels at 0 Gilbo Ave and 0 School Street. TMP numbers 575-016-000 and 575-017-000 are proposed to be used for temporary construction storage on behalf of the city of Keene during the downtown infrastructure project. The parcels are approximately 2.86 acres in size and are on the downtown growth district.

um i don't do we need we don't need completeness there's not really an application here right that's correct so this is simply a public hearing to give the public an opportunity to learn about this project and then also one person here and also give you an opportunity to make non-binding recommendations

So I would remind everyone on the board that recommendations we make are welcomed but non-binding for the city. Mr. Lucier.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Don Lucier, Public Works Director. So the notification that's in front of you tonight is a requirement of state law when the government asserts its authority to use property that's, you know, may not comply with all of the planning board standards and typically done. And specifically, we're talking about the vacant lot on Gilbo, the corner of Gilbo and School Street. It is owned by Main Street America or National Grange Mutual Insurance, depending on when you moved here, I suppose. They have generously agreed to allow us to use that vacant parcel as our construction staging area for the downtown project so for the next three years or so our contractor will be using that property for the storage of sand gravel stone that sort of thing as well as the all of the the pipe the concrete structures for storm drains and and whatnot They will have shipping containers stored on the property for use, storage of materials, tools, equipment, that sort of thing. Their subcontractors, the landscaper and the signal installer, they will all have their own containers and storage within the property. Luckily, it's a nice big parcel and it's really great that we have that available to us to facilitate the downtown. The paved portion of the property will actually be used for parking for their employees during the workday, so we're not taking up parking stalls within the project footprint that would be used by customers and whatnot, visitors to the downtown. They also have a job trailer, just a normal construction job trailer that they'll have there for the duration for their project manager and superintendent to work out of. Happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Board members have questions? Any feel for how many employees are going to be there in kind of peak days?

I think they spat out a number during a recent meeting of up to 30 or 40 employees. That would include their own crews. So they plan to have two crews working on different aspects of the project at once. So, for example, one crew might be installing a sewer main on one side of Central Square while another crew is installing water mains on the other side of Central Square, that sort of thing. Each crew is going to be five or six guys, typically equipment operators, laborers, truck drivers. They'll also have the on-site superintendents, the foreman that manages and oversees all of that work. Plus, they'll have subcontractors at any given time, and that'll just depend on what work is happening. So as many as I would say 30 to 40 at one time.

Well, tell them to leave their lunchboxes at home and take advantage of all the choices on Main Street.

I will make that suggestion and personally recommend the deep-fried Brussels sprouts at the stage.

Any other questions? Mayor Kahn?

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we did Island Street, and I guess I can't tell from the property layout here, we were concerned about security fencing, and I'm wondering if there are plans for security fencing around the site.

They will be installing temporary chain link fence, the typical construction fencing around the entire perimeter of the property. There'll be one point of access into the lot where the existing driveway is in now. There'll be a double leaf gate at that location, but the entire perimeter will be fenced.

If I could, Ken, just a quick follow-up. Please do, Mr. Mayor. Is that a six- or eight-inch fence, eight-foot?

I don't believe they've specified, but those are typically eight-foot. Yeah, it doesn't specify in their graphic, but those are typically the ones that they rent out are typically eight-foot tall. Based on the non-planning board site visit that was conducted last week, we have expressed the discussion that that fence be located inside the vegetative buffer that already exists on the site. So that will be happening as well.

Thank you.

Mr. Coste. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is really great that you have this site. And I mentioned these before, but just to get it here on a record, one of my concerns was the bike trail and trucks coming out. And I walk that every day with dogs. And there are kids and other people Don't know where they're coming from exactly, but they're on high-speed Electric bikes and they're not paying attention to much of anything And so I just want to make sure there's some safety there because trucks will be coming out of that And then kind of just said only an answer but but yeah, but and then the other concern I had was just typical petroleum oil lubricant and all the other possible hazardous materials but it sounds like that's part of the contractors contract and they will be responsible for that and and then the only other thing I had was in the original write-up I think it mentioned resident was residents there was one house pretty far away but when we looked at the site it looked like there were maybe three houses rental houses possibly but not sure about that but right right hard against or just a street away so have they I guess they've been notified and they have no input and so yes we sent a letter to abutting property owners within 200 feet of the subject parcels

Yes but that would have gone to the property owner so if they're rental properties the renters may or may not have found out about it through this process I'm sure the city could reach out to them separately

We did what we could do and so that's that. So really the main thing in the operations would be the bike trail and then to make sure that it's kept clean, you know, if rocks and pebbles and stuff, people might slip and fall on their bikes and get hurt and a lot of people use that. So I think that's an important intersection to worry about.

OK. So this is a public hearing. So Ms. Tobin, would you care to comment? Any questions? OK. All right. So I'm going to close the public portion. And we'll move to see if the board has any appetite for recommendations. nonbinding recommendations If there is some way to reinforce that intersection of the bike

of the rail trail and the intersection. And I don't know what that would look like or what that would be, but something that would alert bikers, people riding bikes, that beware of turning trucks or something would be helpful. I would hate to see someone get hurt there.

consider perhaps expanding on that, just a recommendation to consider additional signage to warn pedestrians and bikers of incoming traffic. It is a driveway that people are probably not used to. Trucks come in and out of it, so they're used to sitting right through it. I mean, it just looks like it's marked as a crosswalk and stuff. And on my recommendation, we can certainly recommend some signage to

Yeah, I'm good with that. I don't know if you are, Don, but I think it makes sense to have a, you know, trucks entering and leaving caution trucks entering and leaving.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I would point out that the bike path already has a stop sign on each side of that driveway. What the compliance rate for people at that stop sign is, I wouldn't venture a guess, but there is a sign there that at least draws the attention to the fact that it is a driveway. I think people will very quickly come to realize that there's stuff happening on this vacant lot now. But if the board would like to recommend trucks entering a head sign, we can certainly accommodate that.

Yeah, I think. You're in favor of that? Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, otherwise it sounds like survival of the fittest. You know, the ones who read will make it. And people are not used to not many things come out of there, but they will be. It's a change of condition.

It'll overtly look much different once they start moving stuff in there. So that's one non-binding recommendation. Do we have another? Okay. Why don't we... Were you able to capture that? Okay. So why don't we take a vote of all those in favor? Roll call.

Do we... Are you making the motion, Mr. Chair?

Yeah, sorry. I make the motion that we... that we provide a non-binding recommendation to the city of keene to increase public awareness that there will be trucks and vehicles entering and leaving from a place that's not normally seen that before From this property, yeah, okay.

That was really wordy, wasn't it?

Okay, so that's my motion. Second. Mr. Hafer?

Second the motion.

Thank you. Let's call the roll, please.

All right, Harold Farrington?

Yes.

Mayor Jay Kahn?

Yes.

Councilor Molly Ellis? Yes. Michael Hafer? Yes. Kenneth Kost?

Yes.

And Joey Cosivera?

Yes. Okay.

Thanks.

Thanks, Tom. Appreciate it. Appreciate you staying up late with us.

Okay.

Okay. So we do have one other piece of business that we'd like to get to. And that is a staff item staff under the staff updates. It is a an overview of the administrative and minor site plan approvals for the first half of 2026.

Thank you Mr. Chair so this is Mary Brenner senior planner we did include it's on pages 50 and 51 of your packet a list of the items that have been approved over the past six months there were no minor site plans that were approved during this time period and only for administrative applications so it definitely was a slower time period for for review activity happy to answer any questions if you have questions about any of the specific projects I do also want to just put it out there that all of these projects when we issue an administrative approval those letters get posted on the community development website so at Keenan H gov Go to Community Development Department and right there on the community development landing page.

We post all of those approval letters So if anybody in the public is wanting to follow along You can read more about the projects there But they are deleted on a quarterly basis so January 1st April 1st July 1st September 1st We get rid of anything that's over 30 days old. So if it looks blank, it's just because we just cleaned it up for the month of July

Thank you. Questions regarding this report? No new housing units. But hey, that's what I tell people. We can't approve them if we don't get them.

Very true.

Oh, one other thing, Mr. Chair. I do want to note that under the upcoming dates of interest section, you'll notice the joint committee meeting for August is not listed, and that's because that has already been canceled because we found out we wouldn't be able to get a quorum from the PLD committee. So just wanted to note that for you.

Thank you for clarifying. So any new business? All right. Upcoming dates of interest? Mr. Hafer?

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure how we would action this, but I just would like to acknowledge that we are seeing the Cottage Court, we've talked about this a couple times, Cottage Court overlay is being used in ways perhaps that we did not originally intend, you know, conversions of small units versus, you know, the larger development that's happening now by the hospital. I don't know what, if staff or this group would want to consider changes to avoid some of these more perhaps awkward changes. applications and maybe something that warrants discussion or thinking if after 12 months or so of this being in place, we're finding it's not quite meeting what we expected, it might be worth revisiting.

Yep, I appreciate your opinion on that. But we've had issues with large ones and small ones. I mean, the overarching goal is increasing density and infilling in all areas of the city, all districts, and it's turning out to do that. These things, as you guys know, if you've been around a while, you know these things go in cycles, encouraging housing and then discouraging housing. Right now we're definitely riding the wave.