Planning Board - Regular Meeting

you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I tell you, don't.

Good evening. The hour of 6.30 PM having arrived, I'll call to order this regular meeting of the Joint Planning Board and Planning Licenses and Development Committee. Anyone wishing to view a copy of the agenda and supporting materials to find it on the city website in the audience tonight may find access to the agenda from any mobile device. Copies of the printed agenda are available in the wall pocket just as you enter the room, which is right there beside the door. To receive electronic copies of future agenda packets, please go to the home page and subscribe to the city meetings email list. The public and other board members will be recognized to ask questions and make comments on the agenda under discussion. After being recognized, all remarks will be made through the chair, which tonight is myself. Anyone who wishes to address the committee is asked to go into the microphones in the room and identify themselves by name and address prior to speaking. And with that said, will staff please conduct a roll call?

For the PLD committee, Randy Filio.

Here.

phil jones here bobby williams here ed haas here and laura ruddle miller here for the planning board harold farrington here roberta mastro giovanni here mayor jay khan counselor molly ellis here david bergeron here michael hafer here kenneth cost here andrew madison And I don't believe I see any of the alternates present. OK. Unless I'm missing someone.

Thank you. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of March 9, 2026? So moved. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Any comments on the minutes? All those in favor?

No, no. You have a comment. OK. Go ahead. Quick comment. Line 218. the word ROLES should be R-O-L-L-S and on line 641 The mayor wasn't trying to get away from anyone. He was referring to something. So E-L-U-D-E-D should be A-L-L-U-D-E-D.

Were you an English teacher at one point?

I'm an engineer.

Okay. We'll mark those down as Scribner's errors and we'll correct those. Considering those Scribner's errors, all those in favor of the minutes? Opposed? It's unanimous. Okay, with that said, the scrutinizer is being corrected. We have a public workshop on a couple items tonight. The first one is Ordinance O2026-13 relating to a zone change and who would like to address this. Mr. Chairman, . Go ahead. Thank you, sir. I haven't done this for a while.

You need to come up to the microphone.

You need to come up to the microphone before we get started, sir. Well, if you can. Okay. Just address the point of order, sir. We're not going to get into the agenda. I just want to know, are you saying that something is out of order? Okay.

I'll have the...

If people think this is at the end of Howard Street, there are only four houses there. There's no room for anything for conservation. Yeah, I can clarify that for you, sir. I'm just wondering whether you want to proceed or whether you have to do something.

Let me let the planning board chairman direct.

Yeah, I can clarify that for you. Any address is designated as zero if there's no building there and it's something that's under consideration.

That's pretty standard. Say at the rear of. Some street number. We've adopted zero as a location.

I'll give you an example. I live at 33 Ash Willett Street, and we had a building across the street. There was nothing there. It was considered zero Ash Willett Street. So that's standard procedure.

Excuse me, my mistake.

Not a problem, Doug. We're always glad to have you aboard. Nope, just like gold times. That's all I'm going to address right now on that particular one. We're going to get to the agenda. Who from the city is addressing ordinance O2026-13?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Typically, the petitioner goes first, but staff can address it first if you'd like.

No, I just wanted to, if there was any comments on that before the petitioner addressed.

On the addressing? Yeah, that's part of the E911 addressing standards. They don't like to issue a numbered address for a parcel that doesn't have a structure on it. Yep. So that comes from state guidance.

I just wanted all that clarified here for the audience. OK, with that said, who would like to address Ordinance 02026-13? Please come forward. Just your name and address for the minute taker, please.

My name is Steven Ringland. I live at 104 Howard Street.

OK.

So I filed this petition after I heard that, The city was gonna sell it to a developer and I didn't want high density housing there and everyone I talked to in the neighborhood didn't want high density housing there. So I thought maybe putting it in conservation would be a good idea. That way it would stay like it is for generations maybe. So the reasons why. I think it should be conservation, is to maintain the character of the neighborhood. It's a wooded lot. It's not a vacant lot. It's not empty. It's a wooded lot. It's got wetlands in there. There's vernal pools, the spring peepers. Every year I hear the spring peepers. And it's been a wooded lot as long as anyone can remember. I moved with my family from West Keene to Howard Street in 1971. That was a wooded lot. My father grew up there. It was a wooded lot. It's like 90 years. It's part of the character of the neighborhood. It provides a buffer, privacy buffer, a sound buffer, a light barrier. It has a purpose. It's part of the community, like I said. And speaking of community, I looked on the key master plan, and the word community comes up 403 times. It's on the master plan. So it's pretty important that the community is considered in this. But for most of us, it was a total surprise. We didn't even know it was going to happen. It was all consolidated. It's all owned by the city of Key now. It'd be really easy to just put in conservation. Because it was like five different lots before, I think. You know, in page 41, the Keene Master Plan shows a building, a large gray Soviet-style apartment building, like pushed into a vacant lot, I think it says. And I don't want that to ever happen. And as long as it's not in conservation, that could happen. We don't know what's going to be put there. And if there is a housing development put there, some sort of high density through the cottage core process, which is what's been happening in other places, like at Carroll and Elm Street, they want to put, I was here for that meeting that passed 16 units. If there ever is a high density development here, it's going to affect property prices, property values, and it's going to change the whole character of the neighborhood. There's going to be more traffic, there's going to be, It's gonna be different, that's for sure. And the second main reason is the environment. The key master plan on page five talks about protecting green spaces and environmental stewardship. I mean, after the ocean, I'm pretty sure trees are your largest carbon sink. I'm pretty sure. It's also a wildlife habitat. Like I said, the spring peepers, there's deer, there's birds. People have said they've seen a bobcat in the area. So I think the city closes one of the roads down a couple of days a year to let amphibians cross the road. And there's amphibians here on this lot. I mean, it seems kind of contradictory. And it is a great, also from the, the Keene Master Plan has a summary report. And 82% of people support preserving land for habitat. 78% support creating and protecting open and green spaces as important to shaping the future of Keene. That's in the Keene Master Plan summary report. And as a final thought, I'd just like to say, that the city council, or at least the Ward 3 city councilors, are supposed to represent the community that they live in. And no one I talk to wants a development there. They all agree it should be conservation land. That should matter, what the community wants. Not what some people that don't even live there yet. That shouldn't matter.

OK. That's all. OK. Thank you. City?

Good evening, everyone. Evan Clements, planner and zoning administrator. Subject parcel, 0.19 acres in size, located on the western side of Howard Street, approximately 200 feet from the intersection with Spruce Street, with 33 feet of frontage on Howard itself. The parcel is characterized as relatively flat. It was originally several small lots that were part of an old subdivision. that was never developed. The city took these parcels as part of a tax deed process and merged the separate parcels into the current parcel we see this evening. The merger was done in preparation to market the property through a request for proposal or RFP process and development agreement which was issued on October 10th, 2025 to construct housing on the parcel utilizing the cottage court overlay ordinance. As part of the RFP, the city contracted with Fieldstone Land Consultants to perform a wetland delineation of the parcel. The wetland report, dated June 20th, 2025, described the parcel as almost level with an old network of shallow drainage swales along the southern and western boundary lines with trace amounts of residual residential debris. The debris suggests that the entire area was cleared and opened in the past and has since become forested with trees and underbrush. Vegetation identified in the report includes black cherry and Norway maple trees as well as as well as invasive shrubs such as burning bush ornamental bittersweet and Japanese knotweed The report noted that while poorly drained soils were present in accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers 1987 wetland delineation manual no naturally occurring wetland systems were observed on the parcel a The purpose of the conservation zoning district per section 7.3.1 of the land development code states that the conservation district is intended to provide for lands which have been identified as necessary to preserve as open space because of their critical or delicate environmental nature. The parcel is not included in any tier of the New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan as shown on the city GIS mapping tools. It is not associated with any known wildlife corridor. The Center for Wildlife Studies describes conservation planning as a collaborative approach to managing natural resource sustainability to protect resources such as soil, water, and wildlife habitat while maintaining economic productivity. Furthermore, the Center for Wildlife Studies states that effective conservation planning is rooted in science and data-driven decision-making. Based on the analysis of the subject parcel, this does not appear to be critical or delicate natural resources located on the site that would warrant any form of conservation efforts. The subject parcel is also not contiguous with any parcel that is currently zoned conservation and is entirely surrounded by the medium density district. The proposal would single out the subject parcel with uses that significantly differ from the surrounding area. Planning staff believe that if this proposal were approved, the decision could leave the city open to a legal challenge and the determination that the zone change constitutes spot zoning, which is illegal due to being inconsistent with the master plan and public goals. Just to remind the committee this evening, in rezoning decisions, the petitioner's intended use of the property should not be considered. Rather, the permitted uses allowed in the proposed district should be evaluated for their suitability on the site. Additionally, the board should consider the following. Surrounding uses and zoning patterns, the consistency of the proposed rezoning request with the master plan, existing and proposed zoning requirements, as well as possible resulting impacts. in regards to master plan consistency. The 2025 comprehensive master plan was endorsed by the city council on September 18th with the adoption of resolution 2025-32 and was subsequently adopted by the planning board at their meeting on September 29th. The following is a summary of relevant pillars of the master plan that conflict with the proposal and indicate inconsistency with the plan's goals. Pillar one, livable housing. This pillar discusses the importance of livable and affordable housing and how the existing housing shortage has been highlighted as a major impediment to growth and resident attraction. In order to identify in order to address the identified housing need, the plan states the following goals that staff believe are in conflict with this proposal. Goal one, boost infill development and redevelopment. Goal two, remove barriers to housing development. And goal four, increase the diversity of housing options and price points. The subject parcel is a prime example of infill housing opportunity as it's surrounded by an existing developed neighborhood that supports moderate residential density consistent with the medium density district. Existing regulations are in place to support residential development in an area of the urban compact where municipal services and utilities are present. If the zone change were approved, this would be considered an intentional barrier to housing development by taking one of the few remaining developable parcels within the urban compact and rendering it unbuildable. The city would lose the opportunity for the construction of a variety of housing types, utilizing the cottage court overlay, which would allow for a mix of single unit, duplex, and townhouse style building forms. Pillar six, flourishing environment. The pillar discusses the importance of environmental stewardship and climate adaptation through renewable energy systems, ecological protection, and sustainable development practices. The pillar states that as the climate changes, urban environments will need to be designed to handle a hotter world and more intense climate events. In order to address these identified climate adaptation goals, The plan states the following goals that staff believe are in conflict with this proposal. Goal one, promote smart land use and development. Goal two, prioritize environmental protection and sustainability. Goal three, integrate green technologies and best practices in Keene's built environment. The city's site development standards promote low impact site design that utilizes green infrastructure practices to manage development impacts such as stormwater runoff. The existing site does not provide for water detention as the existing soils are poorly drained and do not allow for infiltration. A well-designed development has the potential to improve the existing drainage and runoff conditions for the surrounding area. The plan promotes protecting wildlife corridors from fracturing and conserving large areas of high quality conservation land. Best practices for land conservation encourage protecting large areas of green spaces with native plants and wildlife as well as farmland. The subject parcel is small, not contiguous to any existing conservation land, filled with invasive species, and is of low quality in terms of natural resources worth conserving. In regards to the future land use map, the area proposed to be rezoned is located within the residential neighborhood area of the future land use map, directly north of the downtown area. The residential neighborhood area is described as vehicle-oriented neighborhoods with less defined boundaries and street-oriented residential development. These areas have recreational access to larger city parks, rail trails, as well as hiking and other outdoor recreation through established transportation networks. Areas identified for conservation in the future land use map are generally located to the east and the west of the residential neighborhood area that we are talking about. The conservation and low impact recreation areas are described as areas with lots of steep slopes, wetlands, vernal pools, streams, and rock outcroppings and are not suitable for development. These areas have limited access for vehicles and pedestrians and are characterized by trails for pedestrian access and historic and natural sites for vehicle access. The committee this evening will need to determine if the proposed zone change and the subject parcel itself reflects the intent of the adopted future land use map. The intent statements for the medium density district is the medium density district is intended to provide for medium intensity residential development and associated uses. All uses in the district shall have water and sewer. I'll read conservation again. Conservation district is intended to provide for those lands which have been identified as necessary to preserve as open space because of their critical and delicate environmental nature. Based on the intent statements, the proposed zoning of the subject parcel would not be appropriate as the subject parcel has not been identified as land of a critical or delicate environmental nature and is more suited for residential development with access to city water and sewer. The staff report also includes the uses for both districts as well as the dimensional standards for both districts. I can go through them if you want, Mr. Chairman, but I will just say that if this zoning were to go through, It would render this parcel non-conforming if it was zoned to conservation. We've got a five-acre minimum for the conservation zoning district, as well as setbacks and frontage constraints as well. Would you like me to go through the uses?

Do you want to get more?

Turn the microphone on. I think at this point, we're OK there. If any of the board have any questions, please.

OK. The last thing I'll just say is the recommendations this evening by staff are to find that ordinance 2026-13 is inconsistent with the 2025 comprehensive master plan, and that the PLD committee recommend that city council hold a public hearing on this request.

OK.

I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.

OK. Councillor Williams. Which street do you live on?

Stop.

Council Williams, please.

Can you just clarify the status of that property for me? Is it currently owned by the city, or did it go through a process with a bidding?

There's currently a purchase and sale agreement. The buyer has put their earnest money down on it, but I don't believe it's finally transferred hands at this point.

Any other questions from anybody in the committee?

Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question, if you know. You had mentioned there was a subdivision at one point. Do you know how long ago that was, when it was being thought of to be a subdivision that obviously didn't move ahead?

I don't know off the top of my head. It was very long ago and these, the parcels were tax deeded a long time ago as well. So it's been sitting off of the tax rolls for quite some time.

And then just another question. How long has it been zoned in that as a, as a house, you know, for housing? Has that been a long time or a recent change or? Has it been mid-density housing for quite a while?

Yeah, this entire area has been medium density for quite a while. As far as I'm aware, there was not a recent zone change for this part of the city.

Okay, so that's kind of an existing condition from way back? Correct.

Okay, thank you. Council Jones?

Thank you. Evan, I just want to ask you, the zoning ordinance that was passed in September 2025 that increased allowable number of residential units by right in medium density districts from three to six per building, would that be part of this? Does this meet that standard where they can allow the six?

That's correct. This parcel is medium density. So a multifamily up to six units per building is allowed in the medium density district.

Thank you.

Any further questions at this point? OK. We'll let the public make some comments. Anybody wishing to come on down to one of the microphones and just give your name and address for the minute taker, please. Thank you.

thank you my name is jeannie kingsbury i'm in a butter at 34 spruce street and i want to talk about the animals that i've seen thank you i'm very short now i've really broke it i'm having a bad day thank you sure i have motion lights and a small dog so the lights get triggered i get to see all the animals come through i bought my house and right before covid um So frogs are the one thing all spring. The bobcat for the second year in a row has gone back there and had kittens. This year she had two. Last year she had three. The bobcats come through starting in December. They stay till like April or May. When the kittens get big enough to be wandering around in my yard, she scoops them up and leaves. After she left, a doe moved in again this year. She had two fawns last year. She had one fawn and gave birth in my yard and then took it into the knotweed into that area back behind the land that we're speaking of. I've seen the fisher cats. I've seen the cottontails. I've seen the more uncommon New England cottontail in my yard that scurries back there and has burrows. The bear has come through on multiple occasions. Believe me, my little dog made it run off through the park across from Spruce Street. A moose came through one year, which was startling. There's raccoons, possums, fox. After, again, the bobcat leaves, everybody else comes back. I can tell when she leaves the neighborhood when the rabbits and the woodchucks and the skunks come back. But the fox also has had kits. I have red fox and gray fox. There's the skunks, the woodchucks, there's birds. There's a big tree in the middle of that that's a very old tree. Part of it has died. that a bald eagle has set up in on multiple occasions and i'd like to know how they don't consider this a fragile environment it's the park across from my house at spruce the animals cross the road there come through there's a wooded area between my house and the house next to mine on spruce they come through there and go back into that acreage and hide out out there from the city they hide out from cars they hide up from traffic they hide up from other animals so for them to say that this has no ecological or reason to be for the city to consider to make it a park or be protected is ridiculous because there are a lot of animals using that land. It's squishy year round, so they can get some water back in there. The other thing is when my house was built on 34 Spruce Street, they had to put in a very special foundation. So I have technically a crawl space and not a true basement. And there's 15 feet of crushed rock between the 12 feet on all four sides of my foundation my sump pump in that area runs year round it can be january frozen and my sump pumps running if it rains or thaws at all so it's a very marshy and squishy area in that area which is why when i bought my house i was getting told by the person i bought it from mr geyer he said the city wanted me to buy those three lots they offered them up to me And I asked them what I could build on them, I was told nothing because it's too wet. It's wetlands and that's why it was never developed. So again, I'm kind of confused on how that suddenly changed in six years. But there is a lot of animals that rely on that quiet space in the middle of the city. And the park gets a lot of traffic through it, there's a lot of people through it, but they use it as a pass through.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Let's see, I thought somebody on the left just saw a hand come up over here, but no, okay. Sir? Okay, your hand, okay, come on. Once again, just your name and address for the minute taker, please.

I'm Marcus McCarroll. I live on Woodburn Street. I bought the property that started this whole thing rolling. 130 Rear Howard, it's called. And there's a warehouse building there and a workshop that I fix up old bicycles in. I don't know if anybody's going to like what I have to say. I'd like to get running water back at that warehouse. And I wouldn't mind seeing some tiny houses going in back in there. I don't want them to clear cut that forest, however, like they did up on Court Street and like they did on Maple Ave. I don't care for that. I do like that little forest, but there's a lot of junk stuff in there. And yeah, there's a wildlife for sure, but what if they could put a couple of little tiny, like really tiny, like a cottage, like a Jamaica house, you know? Just something really small. that two people could live, and a bicycle road, not a car road, for emergency vehicles only, that would go back in there, loop around, and leave most of it as wild, but keep a couple of little tiny places where six people could live or six families could live, because there's no place to live unless you guys want to open up your houses. I have a room in my house that I rent out to somebody. My insurance company isn't happy. They want me to have nobody. If I had a college student, they were like, oh, no, no, that's terrible. So, you know, I came into Keene with good intentions. Oh, I don't think that's a good idea.

You can kind of speak into the microphone better. Sorry, I was talking to the audience here. I know, just speak to us, please.

Yeah, so what I'm saying is if you could put in tiny little houses that didn't cut down every single tree, that didn't require a lot of digging, and it had sewage that went right by the front of my building so I could hook in and get sewage there and turn, maybe even put a couple of cottages on my property Then, you know, there would be housing for people. But like I said, I think a bicycle road would be the way to go. And I'd tell people, no cars beyond this point. You must use a cart or a walk or a trolley or something else. thank you for your comments sir i love that i love that piece of property i'll attest to the fisher cat i want to look in public speech so yeah all right mr chair members of the audience excuse me sir need to remain quiet and let people speaking finish

Who would like to speak next, please? Okay, sir. Once again, just come to the microphone again. Just your name and address for the minute takers, because they're remote.

My name is Steve Ringland. I live at 104 Howard Street. My question is, there was supposed to be a large map. I paid for it, I believe. I expected it to be displayed, but is that true? Did I pay for a map? As what?

Yes with the application submission a map was required and it was included in the agenda packet this evening Okay it was included Yes So the agenda packet is the full agenda packet is online we have the agenda itself printed but the full packet is not printed for all the attendees Just withhold comment just let the person in the microphone speak please I'll give everybody a chance

Because that would put into perspective is where this will go and how it's in so many people's backyard. Okay, great, thanks.

Thank you, sir.

Councilor? Thank you, Chair. The petitioner makes a good point. Could the map be displayed up on our monitors here for the public to see?

I'm seeing a nod.

I would never volunteer for such a technological challenge.

While you're doing that, is there anybody else who wants to come to the microphone to speak? I would like to. Sure. Name and address for the minute taker, please.

My name is Carl T. Mason. Okay. I live at 96 Hot Street.

Okay.

But I was born in 1966, and I lived at 135 Howard Street. So every house I've ever known is that neighborhood. And everything from 135 Howard Street back to Carroll Street, which used to be my great grandfather's land, has sunk. So anything that you're gonna build from there on, you're gonna have to drive piles. And second of all, we already have a bus problem My grandchildren cannot get on the bus. We're going to need two buses already. We have issues getting to school. When I was a kid, I used to walk down Washington Street. I used to go to the junior high. Now we're busing them. Well, now we need two buses because we don't have enough buses for that area. You're going to put more housing in. We need more buses. And you're going to have to do something to hold the houses up. Take a ride, go down Spruce Street, go down Carroll Street, and this woman's got 15 feet of gravel under her house without a foundation?

Once again, please, just one person at a time.

So you can build whatever you want. You know what I mean? It's going to have to float. How much did we spend on trying to make a soccer field on Spruce Street? Go look at the soccer field. You don't see one, do you? You want to know why? It's too much water. This guy can't get sewer unless he's got a good pump. He can get water. But he ain't going to get a sewer. There's a reason for that. That is more than wetlands. You need to build a pool in order to build a house to keep the water out.

Thank you for your comment, sir. Anybody else like to come down? Thank you. You're welcome, sir. Anybody else like to address the committee? I think I see Doug moving. No, Doug, you're going to work your way down. It's always good to hear from you. We're going to let Doug speak. He's going to work his way down here. And I'm sure he has something to say. My name is Doug Hill. I currently live at 123 Elm Street. Yeah, just make sure the green light's on the mic there, Doug.

All right. What do we do?

There you go, green light's on, we hear you.

Fine. As I said, my name's Doug Hill, I live at 123 Elm Street. I've been there since 1976. I was born and raised in this community, so I've been here since 1939. And to further identify myself, I was a former city councilor from this same ward. I spent one with the city and one with the state. I served on a number of city committees. I have interest in that zone or ward. I've owned five apartment houses and three different residences in the same neighborhood in my lifetime. Now I'm going to be 87 next week. I may not be here next week, but if the Lord help me, I will make it.

Doug, you've been sitting there for years. You keep coming back. Yeah, but me. Thank you.

But I not only know at least two of the people in Rome that have questions about this and interest, two of them are related to me and from that neighborhood. So my interests go way back and not so much mine personally, but the people – that were born and raised or have moved into that neighborhood and still reside there. It's a nice neighborhood, but I don't think that particular piece of land, it used to be an auction house. Every Saturday night or Friday night, there was an auction there. It was Katie's Auction House. I don't know, and then one of the medical places put a warehouse or something. I have no idea what's there right now. But I know there is a water problem there. And less than a block down Spruce Street, we have a stream fed brook under water brook that goes all the way down Carroll on to Elm Street down through the city right the other side of City Hall and back out under the ground we in our intelligence allowed houses to be built Right on top of that, and I don't know about 15 feet of stone, but I know I looked at a house recently that the south end of the house is a foot lower than the north end of the house. Their pump runs 24. every day of the year. Ice, snow, it's still running. They still have pumps in the cellar. Those pumps are running every day. We allowed houses to be built on that. We put P stone, we put inch and a half stone. and a very beautiful home has been erected up in that general area in the last year year and a half there is a lot right next door they're filling with stone and sand to hope they can put another house on that's not going to sink but i don't know i wish them all luck and and at this point i don't know how i feel legally or as far as the intent or future of that land but i know water problems in the city of keene are problems for everybody in the city of keene we all pay for it and having raised children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren in that neighborhood, and attending the available schools, it's mainly Franklin School, used to have Washington School there as well, terrific for the kids. that population child population has expanded greatly and if you're talking about six houses or 60 houses it's going to put additional strain on the neighborhood uh on buses on car traffic on motorcycles we have five or six motorcycles in my direct neighborhood that every morning about five o'clock i don't know where they go and don't care but it's a terrific lamb clock And I'm just saying, I hope you will take this into due consideration and really look at this. And I wish whomever wants to develop it, if he still wants to do it, I wish him luck, but I don't think it's in the best interest of the community. Okay. Thank you, Doug. I'd be happy to answer any other questions, but that's about it. Thank you, Doug. We appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Councilors. I always appreciate your comments. Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Thank you.

You're welcome, Doug. Who would like to follow up after that? OK. Come on.

I can't beat it.

No. No. So my name's Eli. I live at 34 Spruce Street. I helped my mother, when we first moved in, extend some of our privacy fence, which is very, very close around my neighbors. And any time I dig down for a project, anything, I get down past four inches and that hole starts filling up. I get down to six inches, if I'm lucky, and it's filled right up level with the grass with straight swamp water. It's wretched. It don't trickle in. Within two minutes, it's full and almost flooding out in my grass by the time it stops. I mean, you're going to build anything back there. As he said, you're going to have to figure out a system on pillars or something. And even then, it's going to sink. It's been known facts in the community with anyone that's lived around here for some time that most of your buildings in some of these neighborhoods have a sinking problem. And they have to have specialized pillars to hold them up, to help float it. And I've been in the crawl space. There's days that even the pump going nonstop, I still have this much water in 90% of it that it's pumping nonstop. Been in there in the wintertime for we had to replace our sub pump to a bigger one because it wasn't keeping up and it froze. And I was halfway up to my freaking knees. And it was still, it was coming up through the ground even when the ground was froze. And it was pumping nonstop. It's a massive water issue. I mean, it's not ethical to cram anything more in there, even weight-wise, on the ground. It's just going to be a massive problem. So I don't think between the space being not much space and how wet it is, even if you go down just a little bit through the surface, it's not ethical to put anything back there. You want to build housing? Great. Go five minutes up the road where it's nothing but woods. Buy a few acres and build a big apartment building with a parking lot. It's more common sense, especially with how the ground is. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Any other comments from the public at this point? Come on down. Yep. You in the back. Yep. You're in the back. Nothing to be scared about here. You're good. Especially the green lights on there.

Okay. Can you hear me? Yep. Okay. So, A, I'm not politically smart. I need your name and address. Oh, I'm so sorry. Jenna LaJoy, and I live at 123 Howard Street.

Thank you.

I'm not politically smart at all, and I don't mean to be offensive, so stop me if I get offensive. I love animals like the best of them, and I love conservation land and all of that jazz. All of that is very important to me, so yes to everything that everyone's saying. For me, I moved out of Colony Mill Apartments after relocating from Florida. I stayed there for about a year and not only was it super expensive, but we had a couple break-ins and the population in that area is just becoming unsafe. and my fear is we're using a small piece of property or a big piece of property or land and we're going to continue building these residential buildings and is it now i don't have a lot of money so there's no there's i'm not trying to be offensive for people that have low income i'm not but i work my butt off to get to where i am to raise my son And I moved to Howard Street because I liked the area and it was away from the homeless people. There's homeless people everywhere downtown now. And Cumberland Farms, forget about it. I wouldn't go down there during the day, let alone nighttime. Like, what are we trying to pull into Keene right now? That's my concern. And everything else that everybody else is saying, right? But... it's getting to the point where keen used to be this quaint super safe oh my god i love keen we have everything all the stores and all of that to like i am questioning my decision to live in this little town now you know we're going to keep on building these things and pulling what type of people are pulling and that's just my comment and i'm sorry if it offends anybody thank you appreciate any further comments from right you can come on down

There we go.

My name is Danny Wheeler. I live at 155 Howard Street. I just have a question. They're telling you that there's 15 feet of crushed gravel around the house for drainage. What happens when this person buys this property and they go in there and they start, if they find out that, oh, well, this is going to be more, they find out that it actually is wetlands. What are the rules, I mean, that you guys are going to be, they're going to have to do some sort of, you know, examining of the land there. So what happens if they get in there and they buy this land, they get permission, but they have to do all these tests and they find out, oh, geez, we can't, you know, we're going to have to do a million more dollars to put this in. And then they're not going to either want it or they're going to want to get you guys to subsidize something to help them take care of this problem. I mean, if this is their problem and you're going to be putting it in, because this is a low part of town. This used to be, where I live, used to be a dump. It used to be the town dump. And I know that because I had to replace the sewer pipe. And while they were digging up my sewer pipe, I became 12 years old playing in the dirt because I'm finding bottles from Chicago laboratories and wizard oil from Derry, New Hampshire. So I know that the area at one point in time was a dump. So I know that usually dumps were put in the most undesirable land. So this was obviously at one point in time an undesirable piece of land. So what are you guys – what's the procedure if this person goes in there and finds out it's wetter than when it is? Are you going to put in different rules for him? Because – okay, okay, we said it wasn't wetlands, but now we found out it is wetlands, so – What changes are going to be made in his requirements for building this house if this is all of a sudden found out?

Being that there's been a lot of questions about the area being fairly wet, I will throw this back to city staff a little bit because a lot of questions have been asked about the condition of that area being wet. Would somebody from the city like to address that particular and to answer the question, if somebody were to build a house there, what would the requirements be so it wouldn't sink?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's a difference between wetlands and unstable soils, I guess is what I'll call them. So there are ways to engineer buildings that you can build on unstable soils. It just adds a lot of cost. My understanding is that this is all very public knowledge, so whoever purchases the land is well aware of that extra cost that would be involved. As far as the structural integrity of any building that gets built, that would be reviewed through the building permit process, and it would also be inspected. So the city has a fully trained staff that would both review the plans and then also go out and inspect during construction to make sure that whatever does get built is safe and structurally sound.

I'm living in a house that was built in Keene, and I'm finding all of these structural things that were let go by the city of Keene when my house was built. So I'm not so trusting of you guys saying that, oh, yeah, we've got experts. They're going to look at that. In my house, they cut a support beam and held it up with a jack. So I'm a little sketchy on some of these things, I mean, that I'm finding. I appreciate your comment there.

I wanted to kind of withhold the opinion there. I just wanted the question answered that if somebody does buy it, it's buyer beware that you're going to have to spend extra money.

But it sounds like it's going to be a lot of work there. I mean, this is a wetland. I mean, it was, like I said, we hear peepers there. So there are... Vernal pools are only there for a short period of time in the spring. So you may not notice them in August. Okay. Or even in December.

Okay. Well, I did want to have the question answered because I have heard a lot of comments about it being wet. And I'm a lifetime Kenite. I'm familiar with the neighborhood, so I'm aware that it's a wet neighborhood. But I appreciate city staff answering it. But if somebody did buy it and they were going to build there, they have to be aware that it's probably going to cost them a little bit of extra money. But that's not for us to decide.

That would be for – No, no, but I'm curious. Like I said, if they go – you're telling them that it's not wetlands. you know what it what happens like i said when they start digging there and it is will the will the rules that you gave them for building their change i mean you you know you've said that this is not wetlands so these are the requirements for you building on this land if you they all they're all of a sudden get in there and they decide that it is wetlands do you change the rules that they can what they what they need to i think i think city staff explained it pretty well it's not wetlands but it is wet i mean you know well okay

Councillor Haas.

Yeah, but we should answer the question that the rules do not get changed. They have to build a substantial structure. And I'd just like to point out, modern building codes are only with us for the past maybe three decades where they're really effective to address these situations. So houses built before that are always troubled. And there's no city inspections for houses that get modified by their owners without seeking building permits for the city. And we all know when you want to do something on your house, whether you want to go get a building permit or not, I do. It introduces more cost to everybody. So there's a lot of structures that don't get attended properly. But in this case, the codes today, as city staff pointed out, do mandate stable structures. And if someone builds something here and they have to do floating piles or they have to go down to bedrock to hold it up, so be it. That's what they'll have to do. And we count on our staff to make sure that that happens and the neighbors to keep an eye on it while it's happening.

Thank you, Councillor. Once again, we're trying to keep this very civil. And does anybody else have anything to add? Please come on down.

Candy Dion, 22 Spruce Street. I've owned the house on 22 Spruce Street for a couple of decades now. This is, as everybody has been saying, a very wet area. I have concerns over what will happen when we put more buildings on land that can't handle the water that's there now. What will happen to our houses? I go through a sump pump every year. It burns out in my basement. As they all said, I've had multiple floods, many insurance claims. I recently had to have my basement that is not finished. It is rock, completely mold mitigated due to flooding. So when we put more people and more buildings in this confined space, that already has these issues, I have some very large concerns over what will happen to our homes, especially if we start putting new water lines, sewer lines, and things like that in this area. How will we be protected for our homes?

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any further comments at this point? Any further comments from Council Haas?

Just for everybody's sake, could you describe process from this point forward?

Well, at this point, the question is, will it be if that... Go ahead. I'm just trying to read it without screwing it up.

So this is a public hearing and we've heard presumably from all the public. We'll have to close the public portion in a moment. Once that's done, we can move on to, uh, discussions and deliberations questions for staff, for, uh, for the applicant, for the, uh, petitioner questions for staff. Um, but, and typically the deliberation process starts with a, a motion.

Right. once we get a motion and seconded then that's on the table then we can discuss it and give our opinions so i want to make sure at this point that everybody from the public's had a chance to speak that's wanted to speak before you go any further here i just got one other thing to say just once the microphone please that's fine just your name again for the minute taking pick up carl mason i live at 96 arch street and keen i would just like to say that i believe

I am sure that one of the houses that was sinking on Carroll street was removed. So that could be a number zero. Like you were talking about to Doug, we have a zero street address. So this is the reason why this piece of property that you're talking about is a zero street because it can't exist. I mean, you've got to, The one on Carroll Street, they talked down. It's no longer there. It's not a tax thing anymore. That's all I got.

Thank you. One more comment from the public.

I'm Carrie, Denny Wheeler, 155 Howard Street.

Make sure the microphone's on, please, that's all.

Yeah, it is. Where is the access going to be for this cottage court? I mean, I'm having trouble figuring out where, because I can't understand the map there, and I'm pretty good with maps.

Well, at this point, what's before us is if we wanted to turn it to conservation. Yes. So right now we don't even have a building in front of us.

I know, but I'm just kind of wondering if somebody's building there, where are they getting into it from?

That would, if there's ever a proposal down the road and there's something in front of us, then that'll be addressed. We don't have that to address.

Oh, I know. Well, yes, but there must be. I'm just kind of curious. I can't understand this map up here to tell where it is. I'm just wondering, I'm trying to figure out how somebody gets onto the property. Are they going to be taking somebody else's property? Are they going to be, is there a road to access it? I mean, I'm just curious. This is why I'm asking.

If there's a building plan before us, then we can address that at that point. The planning board would address that if there's a building plan. Counselor?

It does look like the piece of property extends over towards Howard Street between 124 and 142. So by assuming that where that meets the road, one would think that that would be where the property would be entered, but that is just an assumption. There's no other point. Yeah? Yeah.

Okay. Yes.

There's no other place that touches a road in that little gas can looking piece of property.

We would assume that, but I just don't want to say anything because there isn't an actual building plan in front of us, so I never want to...

I know, but I'm just curious, is this going to be...

Any further comments from the public so we can start discussing this request in front of us? You can come down. You can go to the standing microphone if you would.

There's a building back there because I used to go back and there was a building back there.

So Marcus McCarroll, it's the panhandle there that comes out to Howard Street that's the right of way that comes back to the workshop that I've got. So I don't want to lose the right of way.

Right.

Thank you. I imagine that's where it would come. The only other way it would be through your paper lot, through the paper lot that she had on her land that went up to Carroll Street.

Thank you.

Spruce Street.

OK. Thank you very much. OK. I want to let staff address this further. So at this point, I'm going to close the public portion of this. And we're going to move this over to a potential motion or comments from staff. But before we do that, is there any gentleman comment at this point? OK. Did you want to? No problem. Take your time.

Yeah, I'm working. I'm working on it.

Are you stuck in the front?

You want to do this for me?

Oh, OK.

There you go.

all right from the planning board perspective i would like to make a motion to find that ordinance 0-2026-13 is inconsistent with the 2025 comprehensive master plan

Second that. Is there a second? I'll second that.

Mayor seconds that. Because the motion is that the ordinance is inconsistent with the master plan. And that's for the planning board.

Did you want to go through that piece? Yeah if you'd like to go through that piece at this point We're required to have a public hearing so if the petitioner wants it

I'll speak to my second I think there are obviously a lot of interest in what if not a conservation district then what goes there that's not before us tonight though what's before us is a request to establish a conservation district Think the case was pretty well laid out. This is if there is an improvement here that the zoning and the neighborhood is a Residential neighborhood and to designate This as anything other than that I think is not consistent with any Past practice with ours not consistent with zoning not consistent with a master plan either for housing or for environmental standards So I think tonight we have a fairly easy decision. As has been mentioned by people in the neighborhood, somewhere down the road there may be a more difficult decision to be made. But that's not happening tonight.

I would agree with the mayor. I think in the planning world, the term wetlands has a specific definition. And those wetlands throughout the city of Keene are fully delineated on the maps. and they're very specific to either standing or running water. Even vernal pools can fall under wetlands. They all have specific delineations of the wetland themselves as well as buffers around them. So it's incorrect really to use the term wetland for this parcel. Whether or not the soil can support a building or not, that's a whole other question. And as the mayor said, that's not the question for tonight.

I would agree with the mayor also, and I think the planning staff brought up a really good point in the fact that Everything else here is medium density, and zoning this conservation would be a spot zone, an area of the medium density zone. And it does leave the city open for a lawsuit doing something like that. And I think also, though, that this is the right use for this property, I think, to have it in the medium density zone.

I just want to explain to the public that we're not discussing any potential building there. What we're discussing is, would this make sense to change it to conservation? That's what's really being discussed here tonight. So I know there can be some confusion because things can get moved around, but we're talking about the petitioner asking for the land to be conservation. That's what we're discussing tonight. I just wanted to make that clear.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to say Mr. Ringland kept referring to high density housing. He doesn't want to see high density housing there, but as has been said, it is zoned for medium density, so there's not going to be high density housing there. A couple other people addressed animals. I live on the corner of Cross and Carroll Street, so not You're into the street, but not far away. We get bears every spring. We have a groundhog that lives under our porch. We've seen foxes. We also have a bunny in our yard. So, you know, it's not quite the same, but also we do get a lot of the same animals that you've talked about. Not the bobcat, but that's not bad. Also, the city is not proposing to build on this. I think some people may have been under the impression that the city is proposing to build right now. I'm not saying you. Mr. Ringland, if I was addressing him personally. But after I finish, you can, if the chair says so. Some people, it seems, have had the impression that there is a proposal right now. We're not addressing a proposal. There's not a proposal right now. The city is selling this property, and then the buyer can use it for any permitted use. We can't. We can't. We can't not sell based on whether the buyer does something we may not like, as long as it's permitted. Also, if the city owns this property, it's not on the tax rolls. If we sell it, we could be recouping some tax money. And also, as Mr. Clements said, it was apparently zoned for a subdivision decades ago, and nothing came of it. know maybe nothing will come of this we don't know but it's up to the buyer and they'll be paying taxes on it regardless even if they have to spend a lot of money driving piles or even if they decide it's not cost effective to build that that's you know not up to us that's that's as uh mr mr chair said that's a buyer beware situation but um again as has been said we can't spot zone it doesn't It doesn't meet any of the criteria for conservation. So I think that I echo the statements that everyone else has made Thank you No, no the public portion is over thank you Thank You mr.

Chair There's a lot of good comments about the you know, the quality of the land in in the animals and habitat and that's wonderful uh... really is wonderful uh... the engineering issues i think we've talked about uh... that's up to the developer to decide if it could be done and how to be done a would have to be built properly So I think that's a concern, if it ever gets developed, to worry about later. To me, in the master plan and in these groups, we talk about housing all the time. And I just constantly hear, in Keene, there is no place to build. It's a mantra we say. I hope we stop saying that. But we keep saying there's no place to build. So here's a property that's zoned for housing. And with everything we've been talking about with the need for housing, uh... for all kinds of people who have to live here and we we talk about that workforce housing and housing for families it's just desperate it's a problem for keen not having enough housing so to take a piece of property and change its own so wouldn't be built for housing, I think, is really against the core concepts of several of the pillars in the master plan. So for that reason, to me, it would not make sense to change this from housing to conservation.

And once again, that is the discussion. Are we changing the conservation? That's the discussion that's before this committee. Further comments? Good. OK. Harold, go ahead.

OK. So why don't we, the planning board, vote on the proposal that's on the table, which says that The 2026-13 is inconsistent with the master plan. So all those in favor of the motion? Being in favor.

Oh, yeah. Not in favor. Right.

OK. Any opposed? OK. OK. That's unanimous.

OK. And moving over to the Planning, Licensing, and Development Committee, may I have a motion that we recommend the city council hold a public hearing on this issue? Do we have a motion?

Mr. Chair, because Mr. Ringland is entitled to it by state rule, I would recommend that the City Council hold a public hearing on this zoning issue.

Okay. Do I have a second?

Second.

It's moved and seconded. So the motion is that the petitioner still has a chance to go before the city council on a public hearing to have the city council hear this particular issue. There's a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. All those in favor of PLD sending this to the... Go ahead, Councillor.

Thank you. Again, on process, when might this public hearing get scheduled?

I'll send that over to the staff.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the public hearing will be scheduled by the city clerk's office, and they will have to schedule it at least a couple of weeks in advance to give time for the notice. So there will be a notice in the paper, and there will be a notice to all of the direct abutters to the map chain.

Okay, so everybody will be informed and kept up to date on this. And once again, because this is transparent, and what we're discussing right now, does it go to conservation, and that's the request before us, they'll have another chance to comment before the city council at a public hearing. But once again, it'll be just discussing, does this get sent into conservation? Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor to send it back to city council for a public hearing at a date to be named later from the city clerk's office. All those in favor?

Sorry, I just want to confirm that as far as conservation land goes, is there a stricter definition around what can happen sale-wise with that that you could provide?

So in terms of selling the land, I think the impact would be that if it's zoned conservation, probably the value of the land to a potential buyer would be lower because you can't really build anything in conservation. Much smaller based on the list that you provided, yeah. Yeah, I believe it's like community gardens and open space. All right. I just wanted to clarify. Thank you.

But it's not unsellable.

Yeah, you can still sell it. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. The permitted uses are in the staff report.

Okay. Anybody else have any questions before I ask for the motion to be confirmed? Thank you. All in favor of the motion from PLD? 5-0 to go to a public hearing to be discussed again. So you will be notified to the city clerk's office when the public hearing comes up for this again. And once again, it is just discussing, does it go into conservation? We're not talking building plans here. I want to thank the public very much for coming in. You're all very respectful and very polite. I appreciate all of your comments and once again, it'll coming back before the City Council Probably in the next month or two. So thank you all very much for attending on this particular issue We have another item on the agenda tonight if you have nothing else to do and you want to hang around With that said The next item on the agenda is going to be ordinance over 2000 26-09 relating their short-term rentals The Thank you.

We'll just hang tight for about one minute here.

Okay, everybody ready now? Ready for part two? Okay. Ordinance 0226-09 is relating to short term rentals and it looks like we're ready to address it. So fire away and thank you all for being patient tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mary Brenner, Senior Planner. I am joined by Rick Wood, our fire marshal and building official and health official, as well as Ryan Lawless, code enforcement officer? Compliance. Compliance officer. I knew I was going to get that wrong. but they are here tonight to help with answering questions i'm just going to go through the addendum to the staff report i know we went through the staff report at the last meeting but based on the discussion i did work with my colleagues and reached out to some other communities and did quite a bit of research into some of the specific questions that were raised and just to jump to sort of the end really quick staff's recommendation at this time is to continue moving forward with the ordinance as it was originally submitted and I'll go into some of our rationale for why but that's our recommendation so just to go through the questions that were raised at the last meeting there were a number of questions about whether short-term rentals could be assessed differently or taxed differently there were also some questions about the meals and room tax which is handled through the state and so I did reach out to the city assessor and there are a lot of state laws and rules that really strictly govern how taxation can be done in New Hampshire and so the the answer to all of that is pretty much no we cannot assess or tax a short-term rental property in any differently than we would a non-short-term rental property. With respect to the meals and rooms tax that is collected by the state, and the state only shares limited data with communities. So I did include a link in the staff report to the most recent distribution report that's available. This shows that Keene received just over $2,248,800 in tax revenue. But it doesn't say how many businesses or entities that was collected from or where they're located. So that's really all the publicly available data that staff was able to find. The next sort of issue or concern that was raised was around allowing non-hosted short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods. And there was a lot of concern expressed around protecting neighborhood character and also some concerns around protecting our housing supply, our long-term housing supply. And so this is probably the item where I did the most research. I looked at a few different studies that were done, um, a really comprehensive study that was done in New Orleans, um, around short-term rentals. And while there is evidence, pretty strong evidence out there that when you have a concentration of short-term rentals in a neighborhood, it has quantifiable negative impacts, that level is much higher than what we're seeing in Keene. So right now, I believe we attached in your report an AirDNA report that showed that in the last 12 months there were 80 active short-term rentals. A pretty small number when I was looking up how that compares to other communities. We're at the very low end, which hopefully doesn't surprise anyone because we're not really a tourist destination. You don't really start to see negative impacts that become a problem until you're looking at about 10% of your housing stock, and we're at less than 1%. So I thought that was very telling. The other sort of indicator to look at is whether or not you're seeing a concentration in one specific neighborhood. And that data, we kind of are using different platforms to kind of guess at where there might be a concentration. But that data is actually readily available through AirDNA. So the city can monitor that over time. And if we start to see that there's becoming a concentration in a certain area or that the number or the percentage of our housing stock is creeping up, we can come back to you and reassess the situation. We looked at the cost and it's $125 for a month of air DNA data or 400 a year. So it's within the realm of a reasonable cost. So I did mention, though, in the staff report, if this committee does still want to explore having density controls, I researched some of the different options that are out there. And I think for the most basic low-end option, you're looking at around $6,000 a year. We would probably need something more in the middle. And then it goes all the way up to around $25,000 a year, just based on Keem's size and the number of short-term rentals that we have. I did not actually go get formal quotes because I didn't want to go down that road unless that's something that you're seriously interested in. But I think that's around kind of ballpark numbers of what you could expect. I also did put quite a bit of information in the staff report. based on conversations with compliance staff and building inspectors. Basically, what I learned is that the compliance issue is not just a matter of collecting fines when somebody doesn't comply. There's a lot of work that goes into it and there's many situations where the city will spend years documenting just one case, building the case, documenting, compiling the evidence, bringing all of this to court and after years of staff time, years of documentation, Lots of work. And then we go to court and we ask for the fines and the judge doesn't award them because they feel bad for the property owner. And so that's a lot of staff time, legal fees, legal staff time, in addition to compliance staff time. That is just being paid for out of the general tax fund. And so I do think that that's something that this. Committee should, or counsel at least should consider when deciding whether or not to implement new regulations that will require another level of, um, of compliance and enforcement. But I will let. You all can speak for yourselves. The next issue was the zoning districts where short-term rentals are allowed. I believe this was brought up in relation to the downtown districts and why we weren't proposing to allow them in those districts. And so I did include a table that shows all of the districts where staff is proposing that they be allowed. And really what we look at when we're making a recommendation as to where uses should be allowed is both the intent statement That zoning district and whether similar uses are allowed there So we have a definition for bed-and-breakfast that is very similar to short-term rental And so in my opinion and staff's opinion It just made sense to allow short-term rentals where bed-and-breakfast is currently allowed in addition because short-term rentals are typically run out of a residential structure That they would be allowed in residential zoning districts and and so that is what you see in this table i did look at the downtown districts some of them um could be appropriate so like downtown edge downtown limited downtown transition um specifically seem appropriate but the downtown core and downtown growth where we want to see that really um like those that's our big opportunity areas for developments multi-family commercial retail that sort of thing that it didn't make sense to staff to allow short-term rentals there where where you'd probably want to see something more on the scale of like an inn or a hotel But that would be up to you all to decide. We are proposing that the short-term rentals be allowed by right with limitations. So that's the P with the little one superscript. What that means is that it would be allowed by right, but there would be use limitations in zoning that they would have to meet. Any questions about that?

Any questions so far? No? You're doing good.

Great. I'm almost done. One sec.

Go back. I got a question.

I did have a question on one of the – 22 people just back.

You'll have to give them a second. Well, I was going to wait for you to finish. You caught him off guard. But the door opened. Yeah, you might have regret this one.

No, it was – No, it's all good.

Where am I?

All right, do you want me to weigh in?

Oh, I know what it was. It's the sales tax. So the figure that you gave, the $2.2 million, that's the entire state distribution of sales tax revenues for Keene's?

for the yeah so that's for room and meals specifically yep so that would be from restaurants hotels bed-and-breakfast and short-term rentals that meet that state definition of short-term rental so yeah it's really hard from that data to parse out I wanted to know how big the pie was that we were talking about

It should be 25% bigger, but that's another argument for another day. Councilor Haas.

Chair, you opened the door, so here we go.

You got it.

Regarding concentrations, it's 80 units that you've identified from air DNA over the entire city. And I know we don't have the data that tells us where those units are. Do we have any feeling of where those units are and what concentrations we're dealing with right now?

So I don't have the exact data, but I have been looking on different, like Airbnb and VRBO and those different platforms. There's another one that's escaping me right now. But just looking at the map, that they provide, you can see that a lot of them are around the downtown and there's a few on like lower Main Street and kind of going off from downtown on Roxbury. And then there's a few around the edges, but it's mostly concentrated near the downtown.

And I know you've mentioned the lack of complaints from neighbors about these wherever the short-term rentals are located as evidence that we haven't approached a concentration threshold where we would be concerned. As we move through this process and we get to more public hearings, it will be interesting to hear feedback as to what the feelings are for people in those areas.

Right.

Okay.

Further comments at this point? Questions? Got more to go? Yeah, one more. One second. I see another hand coming up over here.

I'd like to start with, I'm so sorry, and you're doing such a great job as always. I wasn't here for the July meeting, and I apologize if I missed this. Is there any sort of licensing that is required beyond just them deciding to sign up through Airbnb like they're an Uber driver with their house?

No, so that is something that some communities have decided to implement, but in terms of through the city, there's no sort of permit or license or anything. They do have to... And through the platforms, actually, we found out at the last meeting that like Airbnb, for example, will collect the meals and rooms tax automatically through the platform. So if you're using a platform that does that, that it will sort of be automated. But there's no license at the local level.

You good? Yeah. Okay.

So this next item.

One more question over here. Sorry about that. I can't wait to the end. I know. Keep looking down. You won't see it.

Go ahead. Thank you. I can't wait to the end if it's better to wait. It's fine. Since we're all asking, I didn't know if we were going to have a chance or it's done. It's all good. It's all good. I'll get back to you.

Okay. All right. So I'll just get through this really quick so we can get to more questions. But the last item was about a short-term rental registry. And so this would be basically the city maintaining a list of all short-term rental properties operating within the city. And there were a few concerns from staff about this idea. It's certainly possible, but it comes with all of the same sort of challenges that we were talking about earlier with compliance. And I think the main issue here is the consistency and the fairness. Like we would want to make sure that we're being consistent and fair and treating everyone the same, and so it's likely that we would need to use a third party platform for monitoring and compliance, which is fine. It's not a huge cost. It's more of the enforcement piece. So when we find out that somebody isn't following the rules and isn't doing what everyone else is doing, and then we have to follow up and enforce that, that's the part where I think staff has some real concerns about what that would entail. The other piece is that in the ordinance as proposed currently, we would already have contact information being posted in the short-term rental unit. So if they're non-hosted, they would have to have contact information posted so that the guests would know who to contact or the city would know who to contact if there's a complaint or some sort of emergency issue. So we would be able to get the contact information when we need it already as the ordinance is currently proposed, but we wouldn't have like a publicly viewable list of all of the short-term rentals. We could also, as I mentioned, have that air DNA data that we could subscribe to and purchase to know, keep an eye on the overall number of properties and they give you neighborhood level data. Um, I haven't actually seen this report, but their website tells me they give you neighborhood level data. So you can kind of get a sense of the concentration in different areas of the city. So that would be, um, our recommendation in lieu of doing a registry.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure I'm really having a lot of trouble hearing partly because it may be a cold or my ears are plugged or I just my hearing is not so good I don't know but anyway did you I'd ask whoever's maintaining the sound tonight to amp it up a little bit, and maybe if folks were directing their comments to the chair, that would help too, because I think you're turning your... Anyway, I'm trying. That aside, I think I heard you say that... I guess I want you to repeat what you... just said about the registry, not a registry, but you would require that those who are in this business maintain a contact, an owner's contact in the residence. Is that for all rentals? That's not singling out short term, right? That's all rentals?

Rick Wood, fire marshal and building official. So that's consistent with the chapter 18 revisions that we just passed. So for rental property in general, that's housing related. There's provisions in there for that posting. In this case, there was an exception in that particular ordinance relative to single family size buildings, things that didn't have common area. In this case, what we're proposing as part of the short-term rental is that that would still carry over into that space that doesn't have common area because otherwise there's really no way to glean that information consistently.

Would that require a change to Section 18?

No, because this is a separate ordinance. Okay. So this is just short-term rentals. That would be an issue for, and it's non-hosted.

So you'll say regardless of common area?

Correct, yeah, and it's for non-hosted. That means that the owner operator is not on site. So it's that kind of short-term rental only.

Thank you.

Okay, I just want to point out this is still a continued public workshop, and I know I have one person way in the back there. Doug, did you have anything you wanted to add, Doug? Yeah, I didn't know if you were done. No, you can come down. We're just trying to get, you know, you're the public tonight, Doug, so, you know, if you want to come down and, you know what? We deliver. Thank you. You're welcome, Doug.

Thank you.

What's your question, Doug?

I'm still, Doug Hill, still the same address.

Yep.

I'm confused with this one, because the only other time I ever ran into anything similar is in Florida, where they have an ordinance that says you can only be on your property six months out of a year. If you own your property, you ought to be able to use it year round. And it never made any sense. And I'm not sure whether we're trying to regulate short-term renters or just rewrite a statute. I'm lost. I haven't heard, and evidently I lost it somewhere where I don't know anything about what's going on for short term. In the years I had as a landlord, if you will, I rented to a great many students who were short term.

And what involvement do you have for that?

And there's somebody up there that ought to know. And I just say, you know, some of them were here for six months of the school year, and then some went home, some came back, some came back to the same apartment, some we never saw again. And I think, my God, the last question was,

Yeah, well, Doug, we'll try to answer that for you. You're a little late to this party, but it is something that we've been discussing for a little bit. But in the next couple of minutes, we'll try to update you over what we've been discussing about the last six months. But we always appreciate, Doug, when you have questions. Anyhow, if we could try to, you know, as quickly as we could in the next couple of minutes, update Mr. Hill kind of where we're at here.

Sure. I'm going to blame the state on this one. No, but seriously, this all started when the state changed state statute around the definition of family, which caused the city of Keene to change our definition of family, which is based on two things. The group of people living in the dwelling unit function as a single housekeeping unit, and they're primarily non-transient. because we have the non-transient piece in the definition of family which is tied to the definition of dwelling unit what that did is it made short-term rentals no longer legal in a residential district but even though we've never regulated short-term rentals before we've never explicitly allowed them we've we also haven't explicitly told them that they couldn't operate and so we have a number of short-term rentals already operating within the city and so we thought it was time to address this issue define it and figure out where and how the community and council wanted to allow this use so really what we're trying to do with this ordinance is maintain the status quo so that the folks that are already operating short-term rentals can continue to do so. It puts something on the books so that we have a definition and we have defined what that use is. By the way, when we're talking about transient versus non-transient, it's 30 days is the number. So 30 days or more or a month-to-month lease or more would be considered non-transient and less than 30 days would be transient.

Basically, that's a long version of just saying we're trying to keep up to date with state statute. That's pretty much what we're trying to do. The state changed definitions, and we're just trying to stay in line with the state law. That's pretty much it's a complicated bunch of pages just saying we're trying to conform to state law. Yes. Yes. Yes, we're trying to just be in, like I said, which, you know, the state's always a moving target, and we're just trying to move with it. That's kind of where we're at now. Sir, would you like to comment also?

I just have a question for staff. Name and address of the minute taker, please. Chris Freeman, 390 Court Street. So the specific language single housekeeping unit, is that something that originates in the state statute? Or is that something that we adopted when trying to come up with a compliant definition of family?

So that is something that we adopted locally, but it's very common throughout the country. A lot of communities have moved away from using relationships and instead have used this term, a single housekeeping unit. And it's pretty common throughout zoning codes and in other sort of regulatory schemes. to use in lieu of saying somebody related by blood or through foster care or adoption. Previously, people would sort of list this long list of ways that people were related to each other. So yeah, that's where that came from.

Okay, and follow up. So with the term single housekeeping unit specifically, could you define that?

Sure, it looks like the Rickwood is,

So I'll take a stab at that. That concept really comes from a change in state law again. over the last couple years in the way we deal with recovery homes is a great example. The idea is that people that live in a single family home environment are living as a single family unit and that's kind of what we're talking about. Do they have the same space? Do they all share the same cooking facilities, share the same restroom facilities? That's what they mean by living as a household unit. versus I have a motel that has single bedroom occupancies and they have to walk down to the end to use the restroom because it's a different environment. That's not a single housekeeping unit.

I don't know if I'm completely seeing the distinction between the specific example of a recovery household because in that context you could still have common use of sanitary facilities and cooking facilities just perhaps with a larger number of people.

That's the same concept, right? We used to regulate recovery homes differently. We looked at them as group homes because they were getting services. That has changed. So there is different levels of the way it's regulated. That terminology that we've incorporated is really the lowest level to try to say, hey, look, these people function as one. They live together. If one person goes out, they know where that person's going, the other person. So it's that kind of relationship versus a relationship with a whole bunch of separate entities just being under one roof structure.

So that kind of brings me to the reason that I'm asking is that we operate a co-living business here in Keene, so these are room-by-room rentals, and I'm a little unclear whether those tenancies, they're non-coterminous, they're all on individual leases for a room sharing kitchens and bathrooms, whether they would be considered a single housekeeping unit, and for that matter, whether student housing would be considered a single housekeeping unit. Go ahead, Mary.

So I've been thinking about this today. So I think that there's a couple of things to consider. One would be, was the group a group before they rented? So even if they're renting out rooms individually, if they're like a group that knew each other beforehand, I think that would be a factor that comes into play. And the second thing is how they interact together as a group in the household. Like if they have meals together, if they share a household budget for any reason, if they... manage a garden space together it kind of goes back to um how they operate as a group so if they're really operating as um like if each room is rented out by the week and the who's there keeps changing they probably won't have time to form those ties but if it's going to be a long-term rental and the group forms a cohesive group then I would call that a single housekeeping unit

So just one question for clarity. The description that you just had with renting rooms been going on for centuries, right? That may, depending on the way that looks and feels, if you're renting for less than 30 days, in theory that could become a short-term rental. That's why we're trying to have this ordinance go forth so that we don't have to say that that is not an allowed use because we recognize that occurs in the city in many places. So it's not as much trying to prevent that use. It's actually trying to enable us to say, yes, that's a legitimate use.

Okay. I guess I'm wondering if the only place that needs to change is the insertion of the short-term rental definition or if the

definition that we've chosen for family might also be too restrictive the the family definition is elsewhere that's already been passed so what we're trying to do is provide a short-term rental definition so that we aren't excluding what you described So the family definition is in a separate place already enacted.

Okay. Is that something that can be included in this ordinance as an amendment?

That becomes, I believe, up to the council on how they want to deal with that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Continuing. Any further presentation from staff? You good? Okay. Mayor? Question from the mayor?

So one of the questions I raised at the last meeting was the duration and is there within a municipal ordinance, the ability to distinguish between a 30-day short-term rental and a shorter short-term rental, like five days or 10 days.

so yeah the short answer to that is yes you could you can do that if you'd like um staff proposed the 30 days to be to make sure that there wouldn't be any sort of gap so right now a long-term rental would be for 30 days or more and then if we said a short-term rental was 15 days for example or less then what are you if you rent for 18 days so just we were just trying to keep it simple and make sure that we're being consistent across the different oh excuse me different updates that we're making um but you could create a distinction between a short short-term rental and a short-term rental um i'm not entirely sure what the purpose of that would be

If I might.

To be more specific, I think that the concern that I've heard is that it is rented for a wedding for four days over a weekend. people come and have a grand time in somebody's backyard and that that's you know it when repeated it's becomes a an unwanted neighborhood issue So that's why I'm raising it. It's just I haven't heard concerns about 30-day rentals. It's more the weekend thing.

Just to follow up a little bit with what the mayor said, and actually I met with staff on this and asked if we've had any problems with the police department. Have they commented if we had? And at this point, it doesn't appear, at least when we had the conversation, the police haven't found any problems with that, with their short-term. I asked that same question.

That's that's correct. So yes, we will actually director and just talked to the police chief and According to him there we aren't receiving any noticeable amount of complaints regarding short-term rentals I'll let our compliance staff talk about their experience I just want to go back to the 30-day and just kind of shed some light so 30 days was chosen because it's consistent with hotel rentals and

Hotel rentals. So hotel rentals, basically the rules are that if you rent for more than 30 days, you become something other than a hotel. That's the term that they use, transient, for hotel purposes. So that's where we gleaned that from to try to get some definition behind the word transient.

consistent throughout the code so that's that's used throughout the life safety codes the fire codes the building codes that kind of stuff yeah in my experience with this is is you know through the state legislature and and that I believe by statute it is defined as 30 days short-term rentals and So I've heard the testimonies, and maybe that's confusing. I could be confusing. But I know we've talked about this before. Part of why you were asked to do this, and it was put on the planning board's agenda for a future item, was because city councilors raised the question of and it may not be current city councilors but in the last city council there were people that were raising the question about in their neighborhoods they were concerned about the weekend party hangout So that's how we got here. I just want to make sure that as we move forward, that people that have that kind of concern come forward and express it. Because if we're missing the mark, let's see what it is we need to come back and check, as you suggested. We probably need to move forward with something in a one-year review, collect data kind of basis. But let's set up the criteria for what it is we want to evaluate.

No, I agree with the Mayor and the same question I asked with staff if we went forward as it is now because the police were reporting they didn't see any issues with the four or five day rentals at this point because that was the concern of the previous council and there might have been one particular house that I do remember that but since then the police have said there's nothing and I did meet with staff also and we were talking about a year we could actually come back in less than a year with this if we see over the next six to seven months there's been an issue You know, we have to go into a new calendar year for an ordinance, but we could jump right on that in January if we had to. But you know why I don't get too far ahead of myself. You know, I do appreciate what staff done and we spent a lot of time talking about this particular one. I think the ordinance weight is now. I think they've done an excellent job on it. We can always bring it back, but like I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself here, so I'm kind of tipping my hand where I feel about it. But counselor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I feel a lot better. Some of my concerns about the ordinance have been allayed by the presentation that we read and that you guys gave. I really appreciated seeing the air DNA data. That was really interesting. If I read it correctly, it sounds like the total number of short-term rentals have decreased a little bit over the past year. I was going to ask you about the price, and you already named that. So I wondered if maybe we could just review this briefly at some point every year and just kind of see what the trends are. Because if it remains like this, if it remains basically stable and we're not having any concerns with bad parties, you know, acting up, then, you know, this is great, but maybe it would be good to just kind of keep an eye on it. So, yeah, I would love it if we could do that. And I feel comfortable now with the ordinance. Comfortable is good. With all that info.

So thank you. Far away.

So is this the appropriate time to talk about the ordinance and maybe some suggested?

Well, yeah, first of all, yeah, if there's any more comments from the public, because this is a – the public being dug in. You guys all set? Okay, Chris, close the public hearing part of it, and we'll just move to, you know, committee comments. And you were starting to say something? I was. Okay. You can finish it.

I actually have two observations, and one is this idea of – the the downtown districts and and when I look at downtown and and I kind of heard that most of the these Airbnbs or whatever are kind of centered around downtown where I think people would want to come when they come to Keene and so I wonder there's a lot of apartments in downtown there's a bunch of condominiums downtown and And so if I don't own apartments, but if I own some apartments in a building, say, above first floor stores on Main Street, and I wanted to take one or two of those and turn them into a short-term rental because that's a great location, people want to be there, they could be right downtown. Why am I not going to be able to do that? Why is that not a good idea? Because it's saying I can't here. But yet that's a really good location and resource for these kind of things. So that's one observation on why we're not including downtown. Then my other observation, and this is the one that just nags me a lot, is, again, and I know it's not an issue and it might not be an issue and it may never be an issue in Keene, but by saying that entire houses can be set aside for short-term rentals, um seems to go totally against the idea of providing housing for residents of Keene and and so I think the non-hosted type of short-term rental is really flying in the face a little bit of the master plan which says we want to create housing we want housing for residents and not not make it you know not set it in code that you know if I own a house and it's not working out for me great maybe I'm renting it or something to someone and but boy I could do an Airbnb so I'm gonna stop renting it to this family I'm gonna make that an Airbnb it just seems to be going against our whole concept of trying to create housing now the hosted ones and I think is fine someone wants to rent a room or part of a house Because I think the idea of allowing people to have some income stream like that is important, because it might even allow them to invest money in improving properties and things like that. And so I'm not against this of having these things. But I think actually saying, yeah, you could take your entire house and get it out of the housing market and make it a short-term rental seems to go against most of what we've talked about in the master plan. Almost all what we talk about with housing so that that's just my observations on this Thank you Mike you do have a hand up.

I did. Thank you. Mr. Chair Thank you staff for doing all the research. We asked you to do at the last meeting and think we're there's an aspect of my comments are it seems to be we're looking for problems when there are none I'm not sure if I speak for staff with that or not but by any means but with 80 properties in the in our area with this I think we're we're searching for a problem that's not there. That potentially we could continue to monitor the situation on an annual basis if we find that all of a sudden 10% of our housing stock is being used for short-term rental. Then we have a problem, but it feels to me like we should move forward with this ordinance as written. It's not, you know, we have 80 properties already Apparently, I'm not sure what their status would be today. Are they non-conforming use within the, you know, this is happening whether we like it or not. Let's define where it should happen and move forward. As someone who has family traveling to Keene on the occasion for holidays and graduations, I wish we had more short-term high-quality short-term housing rentals available for people to visit our great city.

Thank you. Councillor?

Yeah, I feel like this is going to come as a surprise to me as well because I was I came into this very unsure how I felt about it because I am more familiar with the issues of areas like there was a lot in the news around how Laconia recently handled this and in the past how Portsmouth had but keen is neither Laconia nor Portsmouth and I personally choose generally to stay in Airbnbs when I travel because they are generally more high quality for what you pay versus what you pay in a hotel most of the time and generally cleaner. I am back and forth on the hosted versus non-hosted side because like Ken was saying, I do feel like I a little bit more prefer the fact that there's also people established in those neighborhoods but I think I err on the side of what Mike said where at this point it's not really a problem I'm not saying in the future it wouldn't it shouldn't be reviewed where if we are suddenly I don't know. I just can't see creating a lot of red tape around something that's not currently causing a huge problem since we're not having swells like we see in Intervale, North Conway, places like that where people are specifically buying up housing stock to rent them out as Airbnbs. And I know that that is a huge issue in areas like that. So I'm grateful it's not here. But yeah, I think I kind of err on the side of what Mike said as well.

Thank you.

Staff?

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I can provide an anecdote with a recent conversation that I had with a prospective buyer of a single family residence that will kind of address sort of some of Ken's concerns. A gentleman was looking for an investment property in one of our low density districts. And basically he was telling me that it wouldn't make sense for him to purchase the property unless he could get an ADU for it. The single unit to then turn around and rent it out. didn't make sense to him financially unless he could rent out the second unit. So our owner occupancy requirement for ADUs seems to be protecting a lot of these single family stocks from investors in our community. So I had a very polite conversation with the gentleman. He was great to work with, but basically he was like, so why do you require owner occupancies for ADUs? And I said, well, sir, with all due respect, it's to protect our housing stock from people like you. And he took that very well, and he understood, and I told him that if you find another piece of property, I'm happy to have that conversation with you, but There doesn't seem to be that demand or the economics don't seem to be working that way right now. Now that doesn't mean that it might not change, but I don't see, the math doesn't seem to be working for a lot of people looking to take these single families like this.

Thank you. I kind of tend to agree with what Mike said. Maybe we'll look for a solution for a problem we don't have yet. But with that said, that's still good. I think a smart city and a good city stays ahead of the curve. We look at it, we say, we don't have a problem now, but let's address it again in six or seven months. That's what a smart city does. We don't get behind the eight ball. So I think this is all good. And I commend staff for staying on top of this, I think, and everybody here. I think we've done a good job. Yeah, you know, we looked at it, and to the mayor's comment also, it's like you hear comments from our constituents, and we didn't ignore it. We've jumped on it and looked at it. And the new calendar year, January 1st, we can look at it again. So I commend everybody, especially staff.

You guys have put in a ton of time on this, and I know because I sat with you on this.

And when I said you have a few minutes, when your eyes rolled to the back of your head and came back forward again, it's like, yeah, I have a few more minutes to talk about this. But I commend staff for putting so much, all of you, You put in a ton of time with this, and I realize you have, and hopefully you don't have to do any more the rest of the calendar year. Is there any further comments? The mayor has one.

Yeah. Mr. Cost raised a good point. And in particular, I guess I'd have a little bit more desire to see the opportunity to have short-term rentals in downtown growth. And I'm thinking of some of the properties that are in downtown growth between Winchester Street and Gilbo Avenue. They're college season rentals and they could very well over the summer when there are festivals happening in downtown any time in the year. So I think mr. Costas raised a good point why prohibit short-term rentals and those two zones and in particular in the downtown growth, I Mean if we're for out here without a problem I Think we've put a barrier To property owners that may not be necessary. I

I would say that they're currently not allowed so like bed and breakfast right now is not allowed in those districts sorry that that use is currently not allowed however it's a pretty if you wanted to allow them in those districts that would just be an amendment I think that's a simple enough amendment that you could amend it on the floor here and we could still move forward Again, I think staffs recommendation goes back to the intent of the district being for development of I believe it uses the phrase significant scale So again, I think the intent for those districts is to have larger scale You know like a building with a hundred units would be awesome a hotel or an in downtown which we already have and but the bed and breakfast short-term rental which is a smaller scale type of commercial use is currently not allowed in that district but you can always allow them it's up to you it would just be an amendment to create an a version yeah to allow this the short-term rentals as a permitted use with limitations in the downtown growth and downtown core districts

Thank you. Further comments from Council Jones?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To see where it goes, I would like to move for that amendment that we include downtown growth and downtown core districts. Second.

Okay. That motion is moved and seconded. Anybody like to comment on that?

I think it's a good idea. And, you know, I understand the idea that it would be large hotels and things, but there are individuals who own units and apartments, and they're used for different things. So I think this would go to what we were talking about before, helping people get additional income stream. And I think actually it would be quite popular. People would much rather stay downtown. So I'm glad you've made that motion. That's fine. Okay. Councilor?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was wondering if it's possible, and it's probably, I guess, as I say this, it's probably too much work to make sense with compliance, but I was wondering if it might make sense to permit short-term rentals in the downtown areas, but only if they were owner-occupied. I think that goes to what Ken was saying, like people's condos or apartments or whatever. But as I say this, I think that's not realistic. So never mind. It would make sense.

I hear what you're saying, but I think we've got a simple A version, and I think we're heading to a B, C, D version on that particular one. Anyhow, so right now we're discussing the proposed amendment which would just be an a version which would not require A major change would just be the a version Is there any further comment on the motion on the floor for the amendment? Okay, all in fate This is a total body all in favor. Would you like yes all in favor of the amendment?

I?

OK, you get a bingo there, Mayor.

So we are now, the motion in front of us by the end of the night is going to be the ordinance is going to be the A version.

But that's fine.

It's just, I guess, more of a staff, more of housekeeping on an A version than anything else, right? Just changing the, OK, fine.

I just want to make sure of that.

Miss Most? I just want to ask one more question on the non-hosted. I don't like it, but if we want to move this forward and not make it more complicated, and it sounds like we could revisit it and change it if it's an issue. If in the time before we revisit it, there's another, I'm making all this up, 10 houses that are taken off the market because they are now non-hosted short-term rentals, and now we say this isn't going the way we like it, we're losing housing stock. What happens to those 10 houses? They stay that way? You can't go back and say you can't do it anymore if we change it.

They would be considered legal non-conforming.

I hear what you're saying. I think based on everything that we've heard, this is moving fairly slowly in Keene. I don't think we're going to run into a problem by January 1st.

Yeah, I think right now it's a free market situation. So if an owner wants to do it, wants to list his house, then he's doing it. There's no restraints. So putting this implementation of this ordinance doesn't put a restraint on it. So it's not having this isn't holding people back from putting their house into this inventory.

Okay. Any further comment from anybody on anything here tonight? We're on the, is it 2026-19A as it's before us right now? Okay. All right, I'll start. So I move that the planning board find ordinance 0-2026-09A version compatible with the comprehensive master plan.

Second. Second. Any further discussion? Or I think we have a discussion.

Yeah, yeah, 1980. It's the amended motion, amended version.

Just that language, compatible with the master plan, it's not compatible with the master plan. Because the master plan talks about housing, housing, housing. Let's keep housing. Let's encourage people to bring in residents for housing. So I understand why we're doing it, but that word doesn't sit well with me. I'll still support it because it could change, but it isn't compatible with the master plan. Interpretation.

Okay, let's call the vote. Planning Board, all in favor of the motion? Okay. Any opposed? All right, unanimously approved.

Okay, if I'll send it over to the PLD Committee. Do I have a motion on 2026-09A to send this to City Council for a public hearing?

I would move to recommend that the City Council hold a public hearing.

Chair will second. Any further comments on that? All those in favor? 5-0. Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you, staff. You guys have put in a gazillion hours on this, and we appreciate that. We really do. It was a very long, enduring, complicated process. With that said, that is, we are done with there. Is there any new business that we need to discuss over there? Okay. Our next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 13th at 6.30 p.m., until then if there's no further comment yeah I would just note that the meeting is not on Monday the 12th that's Columbus Day so it's the Tuesday following so noted thank you very much with all I said thank you everybody that attended tonight and watched on TV and I appreciate the public input silence is never an option with that we are adjourned good job guys

YMCA like it?