On the agenda: Keene City Council Agendas for October 1, 2026 — DATA CENTER (Oct 1)

KEENE CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Keene City Hall
October 1, 2026
7:00 PM

ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES FROM PRECEDING MEETING
•
A.

B.

HEARINGS / PRESENTATIONS / PROCLAMATIONS
1.

Community Recognition - HCS - Certification of Family Resource Center

2.

Proclamation - Fire Prevention Week

3.

Public Hearing - Ordinance O-2026-13 - Relating to Zoning Map
Amendment - 0 Howard Street - Medium Density to Conservation

ELECTIONS / NOMINATIONS / APPOINTMENTS / CONFIRMATIONS
1.

C.

D.

September 17, 2026

Nomination - Human Rights Committee

COMMUNICATIONS
1.

Councilor Filiault - Request to Review Planned Traffic Lane Configuration
Around Central Square

2.

Kenneth Kost - In Opposition to Solar Pavilion Conceptual Design
Recommendations

3.

Martin Wyman - Request for Enforcement of City Ordinance Regarding
Barking Dogs

4.

Kiwanis Club of Keene - Request to Use City Property - Tree Lighting
Ceremony

REPORTS - COUNCIL COMMITTEES

Page 1 of 146

1.

Duncan Hilchey and Amy Christian - Request for a Traffic Study and
Safety Assessment of School Street

2.

Michael Guitard/Guitard Homes LLC - Petition for City Ownership of
Water and Sewer Infrastructure - Cottage Court Community on Court
Street

3.

Shawn Voisine/Elmside LLC - Request for Waiver of City Public Utilities
Standards for Water Metering Infrastructure - Elmside Cottage Court

4.

Kenneth Kost - Request for a Comprehensive Planning Study of the Gilbo
Avenue Site Prior to Solar Pavilion Development

5.

Gilbo Ave Solar Pavilion Conceptual Design - City Engineer

6.

Partner City Committee - Annual Report

7.

Continued Discussion: Erik Murphy - Petition - Safety Improvements at
the South Lincoln Street and Roxbury Street Intersection

8.

Roadway Safety Action Plan Update - Public Works Director

9.

Downtown Infrastructure Project Update - Public Works Director

10.

Monadnock View Cemetery Expansion Project Funding Allocation - Parks
and Recreation Director

11.

2027 Highway Safety Agency Grant - Police Captain

12.

In Support of Proposed Amendments to the Keene Community Power
Program — Energy & Climate Committee and
Proposed Amendments to the Keene Community Power Plan –
Community Development Department

E.

CITY MANAGER COMMENTS

F.

REPORTS - CITY OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENTS
1.

Residential Property Revitalization Zone (RPRZ) Application 128-130
School Street - Community Development

2.

Let It Shine - 2026 Pumpkin Festival License Amendment - City Manager

3.

Fiscal Year 2025 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Award Acceptance Fire Chief

G.

REPORTS - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

H.

REPORTS - MORE TIME

I.

ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING

J.

ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING

Page 2 of 146

1.

K.

Relating to the Installation of Two Stop Signs on Roxbury Street
Ordinance O-2026-15

RESOLUTIONS
1.

Relating to the Alteration of Thompson Road
Resolution R-2026-37

NON PUBLIC SESSION
ADJOURNMENT

Page 3 of 146

09/17/2026
SITE VISIT - PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION R-2026-37: RELATING TO THE
ALTERATION OF THOMPSON ROAD
A site visit was held on Thursday, September 17, 2026, relative to a petition from Donald
Lussier, Public Works Director to alter the layout of Thompson Road, a Class V highway. The
site visit commenced at 5:30 PM. Councilors in attendance included: Randy L. Filiault, Michele
A. Chalice, Catherine I. Workman, Bryan J. Lake, Jacob R. Favolise, Laura E. Tobin, Robert C.
Williams, Edward J. Haas, Molly V. Ellis, and Mitchell H. Greenwald were present. Councilors
Philip M. Jones, Kris E. Roberts, Bettina A. Chadbourne, Laura E. Ruttle-Miller, Thomas F.
Powers were absent. Mayor Jay V. Kahn, City Clerk Terri Hood, Deputy City Clerk Kathleen
Richards, City Attorney Amanda Palmeira, Deputy City Attorney Brandon Latham, Public
Works Director Donald Lussier, City Engineer Bryan Ruoff were also present.
The alteration was deemed necessary by the Public Works Director because it was realized
during the recently completed Thompson Road Stabilization project that the traveled path of
Thompson Road did not fully align with the Right-of-Way as it was originally laid out by the
City Council. In two locations, the paved portion of the road actually encroached onto the
abutting properties. In addition, the construction of retaining walls as part of the stabilization
project required additional right-of-way width. The proposed alteration, which was already
completed, added a total of 5,098 square feet (+/-) to the public right-of-way and incorporated all
public infrastructure into the layout.
With the aid of a drawing from Bailey Associates entitled “Thompson Road, Keene N.H., Right
of Way Boundary Plan, Land Located along the Branch River,” and dated 3/1/2025, the Public
Works Director oriented the Councilors as to the location of the Thompson Road Stabilization
project. He said that in a nutshell, Thompson Road was originally not built in the location that
the Council had agreed on. Not only was it not built in the correct location, but it was also not
built as wide as specified (33 feet, which he later explained is 2 rods).
Councilor Haas asked when the road was originally constructed. Mr. Lussier said it was in the
1800s and he would get back to him about that later.
Mr. Lussier went on to explain that the three tracts of land that were altered recently during the
stabilization project were intending to correct the historic record. He explained that Tract 1
(which according to the drawing is named Proposed ROW Taking #1 on the plan and contains
1,795 square feet, more or less) is owned by Mrs. Walker. Mrs. Walker was in attendance at the
Site Visit. Mr. Lussier went on to explain that Tract 2 and 3 (which according to the drawing are
named Proposed ROW Taking #2 on the plan and contains 699 square feet, more or less and
Proposed ROW Taking #3 on the plan and contains 2,604 square feet, more or less) are owned
by Mr. and Mrs. Ball.
Mayor Kahn asked if the property owners are in agreement with what we will be offering them
(in compensation). Mr. Lussier said yes.
Councilor Lake asked for a clarification about where Tract 1 starts and Mr. Lussier pointed to the
location and explained the old right-of-way location and the new right-of-way location.
205

Page 4 of 146

09/17/2026

Mayor Kahn asked if the recent project required any tree removals. Mr. Lussier said two old oaks
were removed from Mrs. Walker’s property. She is being compensated for that removal in the
compensation portion for Tract 1.
Mr. Lussier went on to explain that Thompson Road used to be 12.5 feet wide and it is now 18
feet wide. Councilor Favolise asked if the homeowners will traverse the road in the same way we
are today. Mr. Lussier said yes, because the road improvements are already completed.
Councilor Tobin asked what was meant by matching the historic record. Mr. Lussier said that is
matching the lines of the road defined by the City Council in the 1800s. It was not intended that
the road would be constructed and run in and out of private property, but that was what
happened. Now the City ROW is matching where the road is actually built.
Councilor Ellis asked what was meant by the 33 feet. Mr. Lussier explained that 33 feet equals 2
rods which is what the full width the road should be including the shoulders, guard rails, and
retaining walls.
The Mayor asked how many properties are located on Thompson Road. Mr. Lussier said three
are affected by the right-of-way changes and there are other property owners on the road.
The site visit concluded at 5:43 PM.
A true record, attest:
City Clerk

206

Page 5 of 146

09/17/2026
A regular meeting of the Keene City Council was held on Thursday, September 17, 2026. The
Honorable Mayor Jay V. Kahn called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. Roll called: Randy L.
Filiault, Michele A. Chalice, Catherine I. Workman, Bryan J. Lake, Jacob R. Favolise, Laura E.
Tobin, Robert C. Williams, Kris E. Roberts, Bettina A. Chadbourne, Edward J. Haas, Laura E.
Ruttle-Miller, Molly V. Ellis, Thomas F. Powers, and Mitchell H. Greenwald were present.
Philip M. Jones was absent. Councilor Ellis led the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
A motion by Councilor Greenwald to adopt the August 6, 2026 minutes was duly seconded by
Councilor Powers. The motion carried unanimously with 14 Councilors present and voting in
favor. Councilor Jones was absent.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Kahn announced upcoming dates of interest in September 2026 and October 2026:
• All of September:
o NH Recovery Month. Mayor Kahn thanked people from the Serenity Center and
State Representative Jodi Newell for having organized a moving event at
Ashuelot River Park in honor of those who perished to addiction and those having
recovery success
o Childhood Cancer Awareness Month
• September 17, 2026 to September 23, 2026: Constitution Week, with New Hampshire
having had the honor to cast the 2/3-vote to pass the U.S. Constitution
• Friday, September 18, 2026: U.S. Air Force 79th Anniversary. The Mayor thanked all
who served.
• September 13, 2026 to September 19, 2026: Disability Support Professionals Week. The
Mayor said there was a ceremony with Monadnock Developmental Services at their staff
recognition picnic, and Mayor Kahn provided a Proclamation dedicating the beginning of
the week, September 13, 2026, as a day honoring their service.
• SAU 29 celebrated a week dedicated to honoring those who provide the service and those
who benefit from the service of adult literacy
• Sunday, September 20, 2026: Keene Pride Festival from 12:00 PM to 6:00 PM
o There were events scheduled throughout the week. The Colonial Theater would
have a production on Saturday night and on Sunday. The parade and the Festival
would move to the downtown area and be hosted by Keene Pride, so Mayor Kahn
said folks in the City would hopefully join those in the community to honor that
week and in particular the Festival they organize. He said they put a lot of time
and effort into it.
• September 26, 2026: Keene International Festival from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM
o Mayor Kahn called this another highlight of the year. He encouraged everyone to
join those who give a more diverse side to our community and provide food and
entertainment at another very well-organized event.
• Sunday, September 27, 2026: Clarence DeMar Marathon

207

Page 6 of 146

09/17/2026

•

•
•

o The Mayor called this another well-organized event. There are runs for kids and
seniors, with festivities kicking off at 7:00 AM. He thanked all from the City who
take up service to help these organizations be successful with their events.
October 4, 2026 to October 10, 2026: Fire Prevention Week
o Chief Seymour would be hosting the Fire Prevention Parade on October 4, 2026
at 1:00 PM. There would be a viewing station for Councilors on Main Street near
Cherry Garden.
October 8, 2026: The Annual Fireman's Dinner volunteer event at 6:00 PM. The Finance,
Organization and Personnel Committee meeting that evening will be canceled to allow all
Councilors to attend.
October 26, 2026: Keene State College will present “Orchestra with Concert Choir” at
7:00 PM in the Redfern Arts Center Main Theatre, featuring René Clausen’s Memorial: a
30‑minute orchestral and choral work commemorating the 25th anniversary of the 9/11
tragedy, organized by Sandy Howard

The Mayor noted that the State Primary Election was held on September 8, 2026. Keene’s voter
turnout was just under 30% overall with over 4,100 voters casting a ballot. 236 new voters were
registered Citywide on Election Day. Mayor Kahn thanked all the City staff, election officials,
and volunteers who assisted in administering another successful election in Keene.
Related to elections, the City Clerk's Office posted an online volunteer form for those wishing to
volunteer at the upcoming State General Election on November 3, 2026. Anyone interested
should go to the City's website homepage (keenenh.gov), where they will find the link. He said
that just a few hours of your time on Election Day can make a big impact, so he asked members
of the public to please consider signing up.
Next, the Mayor shared a note on upcoming Public Hearings. In May 2026, an Ordinance was
adopted related to the process to amend the Zoning text and Zoning Map. In keeping with the
updated process, the Mayor would be announcing two upcoming City Council Public Hearings
related to Zoning amendments that have been publicly noticed by the City Clerk. All background
related to the joint public workshop, including associated staff reports, would be provided to the
City Council in their packet of the meeting when the hearing is conducted. The first Public
Hearing would be held on Thursday October 1, 2026 at 7:00 PM relative to Ordinance O-202613: an amendment to the City of Keene Zoning Map for property located at 0 Howard Street
from Medium Density to Conservation. The Mayor wanted the Council and public to be aware
that this matter was heard by the Joint Planning Board-Planning, Licenses and Development
Committee on Monday, September 7, 2026 and that Committee chose not to endorse the
petitioner’s request. However, by state statute, the Council must follow through the process all
the way by coming back to the Council for a Public Hearing on October 1, 2026; it will go to the
Planning, Licenses and Development Committee subsequent to that, and back to the Council on
October 15, 2026 with a recommendation. Mayor Kahn announced a second Public Hearing that
would be held on Thursday, October 15, 2026 at 7:00 PM relative to Ordinance O-2026-09-A,
which would amend the Land Development Code relative to Short-Term Rental Uses.

208

Page 7 of 146

09/17/2026
PROCLAMATION - ACKNOWLEDGING DR. DOTTIE MORRIS FOR HER YEARS OF
SERVICE TO KEENE STATE COLLEGE, THE CITY OF KEENE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMITTEE, AND THE COMMUNITY
Mayor Kahn welcomed Dr. Dottie Morris, who Mayor Kahn has known all her time in Keene.
The Mayor said it had really been a pleasure to work with Dr. Morris, and he even had the
pleasure of supervising her. What the Mayor said he had learned about Dr. Morris is that she is
an extraordinary and fairly-skilled listener, a terrific facilitator, and a creative problem solver. He
had also learned one very powerful point from Dr. Morris: it is not only the power of the
solution, it is the path that gets you there. Mayor Kahn said Dr. Morris had offered that kind of
assistance to groups throughout the state of New Hampshire. So, on behalf of the City of Keene,
the Mayor read into the record and presented Dr. Morris with a Proclamation declaring
September 18, 2026 as Dr. Dottie Morris Day in Keene and expressed the City’s sincere and
deepest gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Dottie Morris for her outstanding service, unwavering
dedication, and transformative contributions to the City of Keene, Keene State College, the State
of New Hampshire. The Mayor encouraged all residents to join in recognizing her remarkable
leadership and lasting impact. The Mayor thanked Councilor Philip Jones for contributing
greatly to this Proclamation because he felt deeply about Dr. Morris’ service.
Dr. Morris said she is not often speechless, but this honor left her speechless. She called this such
an honor and a privilege. When she first moved to Keene, her plan was to stay for five years, and
it turned into much longer than that. She said she still feels very connected to this community,
which she truly loves, noting there are so many amazing people in this community who have
supported her and mentored her in a lot of ways. She could not express how surprised and happy
she felt right now. Dr. Morris said she loves this community and will always be a part of this
community if allowed to be. She said thank you for this Proclamation. Mayor Kahn wished her
the best of luck and success in New York State.
PROCLAMATION - ADULT EDUCATION AND FAMILY LITERACY WEEK
Mayor Kahn welcomed Heather Jasmin, Director of SAU 29 Adult Education, with Lauren
Osowski from Pro Literacy, a nonprofit that promotes adult literacy across the country. The
Mayor read into the record and presented the guests with a Proclamation declaring September
13, 2026 to September 19, 2026 as Adult Education and Family Literacy Week in the City of
Keene and encouraged all residents to recognize and celebrate the achievements of adult
learners, educators, staff, and volunteers whose dedication expands opportunity and strengthens
our community.
Ms. Jasmin, Director of Keene Community Education, said they were really grateful for this
opportunity to speak to the Council and share the important work that they do both for adult
education and workforce development in the region. She said they have been a part of Keene
since 1967 and have served over 100 apprentices who are studying to be electricians, plumbers,
HVAC technicians, and pre-apprentices. They also serve adults looking to earn their high school
diploma or their high school equivalency by taking night classes or studying for the HiSET,
which is like the GED. Ms. Jasmin noted that Keene, New Hampshire, ranks fifth in the nation as
far as adult literacy and high school attainment, but that means that there are still about 50,000
209

Page 8 of 146

09/17/2026
people in New Hampshire who do not have a high school diploma that are age 24 and older. So,
she said they are really grateful for the opportunity to work with them. She explained that
attaining a high school diploma dramatically increases their earning power, their health, and their
job security. So, it is a really important thing. In fact, for every dollar that they spend to educate
a student and get them to a high school diploma, there is $60.00 returned to the community in
increased income, property taxes, savings on legal and welfare costs, and so forth. So, she said it
really impacts everyone who works with these students. Of the 100 students served between the
High School and Adult programs, the youngest served are 16 years old and the oldest are 60.
They also work with English Language Learners and the most popular countries that they work
with are Ecuador, Haiti, Peru, and China but there are almost 30 different countries, so there is a
great range of diversity and individuals.
Ms. Jasmin noted she also had the opportunity to be at the City Council Workshop on August 17,
2026 with a bunch of teachers and volunteers. She said one of their students was picked up by
ICE immediately after that meeting, and two students told them they were moving out of the area
because they felt unsafe here. Then, they noticed that intake appointments for English Language
Learners went way down, and Ms. Jasmin got really nervous. She said it was a low point for all
of them, and they were in a bad way when they came to that August 17, 2026 meeting. So, she
could not say how great it was to hear both the support of the Council and the community; she
thanked the Council very much for that. Since then, she said their teachers had been reaching out
to every student personally, inviting them back, encouraging them, and offering online classes if
they did not feel safe to come in person. This was their first full week of having a regular
schedule back for the fall: she said they were really well-attended, and she hoped that would
bode well for the rest of the semester. She hoped that being a part of a supportive community
would give them the opportunity to continue working with these students and get them the skills
they need to be productive members of our society. Ms. Osowski provided handouts on literacy
and individuals in Cheshire County specifically.
Mayor Kahn noted that he provided Councilors with copies of correspondence from himself to
the Governor and Commissioner of Public Safety, saying what the Council heard during the
special meeting. He thought it was worth sharing the observations that were shared with the
Council about the general lack of transparency and accountability on the part of immigration and
custom officials that were disturbing and certainly not living by the standards that have been set
by our local police and state law enforcement departments. Mayor Kahn said he looks forward to
joining the Governor and Commissioner in trying to work toward greater transparency and
accountability. The Mayor said he did receive a reply from the Commissioner regarding ICE
operations in Keene, which was provided to the Council. He thought it said things that were very
much consistent with what the Council heard from Keene’s Police Chief about the difference that
the state has not joined the 287(g) protocol, but otherwise Keene is not being informed and not
providing direct assistance to ICE work in the state. Mayor Kahn felt better having corresponded
and having gotten some reply. Mayor Kahn noted that every Councilor would also be receiving a
packet from Project Home that describes various resources that they can share with members of
the public should they have concerns. It includes information for the National Immigration Law
Center and the ACLU.

210

Page 9 of 146

09/17/2026
PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION R-2026-37: RELATING TO THE ALTERATION OF
THOMPSON ROAD
Mayor Kahn opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 PM and the City Clerk read the notice of
Hearing. The Mayor welcomed the petitioner, Public Works Director Donald Lussier, for
comments.
Mr. Lussier said this is a petition to alter the layout of Thompson Rd. He recalled that there was
a question earlier this evening during the site visit about when the original layout occurred. He
said we actually do not know when the original layout happened from our records. What we do
know is that the Council had it resurveyed and confirmed the layout in 1836. So, it was a public
highway sometime before 1836. However, in those intervening 190 years, the road apparently is
not where it was supposed to be. He said that was the point of this hearing. The road was laid out
two rods wide, which means 33 feet. It is one of the narrower roads in the city. The constructed,
traveled portion of the roadway before the reconstruction project got as narrow as about 12.5
feet, which was exacerbated by geotechnical concerns, and it got even narrower when the City
had to put barriers in front of the guardrails. So, in 2020, the City began planning for the
reconstruction that was driven by those geotechnical concerns. The road was cracking, the
guardrail was settling, and the whole thing was sliding down the hill. In conjunction with that
planning, they intended to build retaining walls on the uphill and downhill sides to be able to
allow for widening the road but they also wanted to be able to add guardrails that would make
the road a little safer than what the current condition was. The survey for that project identified a
bit of a problem, which was that the road as it was currently being trimmed and where the
pavement was constructed was not entirely where the City Council had laid out the roadway in
1836. In a couple of locations, the pavement itself actually encroached onto private property. So,
the City wanted to correct the historic record. The project itself also added infrastructure: it
added those retaining walls, (what you see of that retaining wall is only one foot thick but those
blocks are actually about six feet deep) Mr. Lussier said all of that infrastructure was now in the
public right-of-way and clearly identified for City maintenance and responsibility.
Mr. Lussier said the Thompson Road project is now complete. The City Council appropriated
$1.267 million as part of that project through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The
actual expenditure to date was $876,000. So, he was happy to report that it was completed well
under budget. He said the Council may recall when the City was making the downtown project
whole, the Council approved a transfer from this project’s unspent balance of $350,000 to help
fund the downtown project. However, the Thompson Road project is still under budget, so the
petition before the Council requested four specific actions:
1. Add three strips of land across three separate parcels to the public right-of-way. They
total 5,098 square feet but they are in three separate strips, which Mr. Lussier showed on
a map. The first one, has the retaining walls in front of it, is the sloped portion of the
roadway, and is identified as proposed right-of-way 1; it is 1,795 square feet. The second
strip is smaller across 27 Thompson Rd., is a total of 699 square feet, and is identified as
proposed right-of-way 2. Third, there is a separate lot that is currently vacant with no
home, where the roadway is most encroaching on private property; the project did not
really do anything except repave the roadway but in order for that roadway to be on the
211

Page 10 of 146

09/17/2026
public right-of-way, the City is adding 2,604 square feet, which includes the pavement
seen today and two feet beyond the edge of the pavement. So, he said the City just
captures a utility pole; they are not taking any more from the property owners than they
really need to. He said the point of this exercise is to look and make sure all the public
infrastructure is actually in the public right-of-way.
2. The second item the petition asked the Council for was to grant a waiver from Article
23.2.1 of the Land Development Code. That article says that when a developer proposes a
new public roadway or a new subdivision (e.g., Magnolia Way), they are required today
to actually give the City not just the right to use the land for the roadway, but to actually
deed the underlying land to the City. So, the City owns the roadway and all of the public
infrastructure, which had not always been the case; the lawyers call it “fee simple.”
Historically, most roads in the City that are very old were laid out as easements for
highway purposes. So, the adjoining property owners retained the land/soil under the
roadway, but the City had, in public, the right to use that strip of land for highway
purposes. If the City abandons those roads, it discontinues them, and that land becomes a
part of the adjoining property owners. It is a quirky part of New Hampshire law. Mr.
Lussier said Thompson Rd. is one of those roads where the City does not own the
underlying soil. It does not really make sense for the City to own these three little strips
of land adjacent to the land that does not belong to it. So, the City suggested waiving that
requirement: that land will, on paper, still belong to the adjacent property owners, but the
public will enjoy the right to use it for a highway. If Thompson Rd., for whatever reason,
ever gets abandoned and discontinued as a public highway, that land will revert back to
the adjacent property owners.
3. The petition asks to authorize the City Manager to accept and record those deeds for
highway purposes. It will give her the permission to do all the paperwork.
4. Finally, it asks authorization so that the City can negotiate and execute payments to the
property owners that are affected. The City would be acquiring property rights from these
affected property owners; although they are pretty modest, the City is taking a piece of
their land and dedicating it for the public's use. Justice and the 4th Amendment say that
the City should compensate them for that. Mr. Lussier said this is not a federally funded
project, obviously, but the City followed essentially the same process that they use for
federally funded projects just because it is a really simple, clear, well-defined way of
doing it. So, they had an independent appraisal firm prepare what is called a “waiver
valuation.” It is not a full-blown property appraisal; it is a simplified appraisal approach.
That came up with a range of values and an estimated value for the strips of land. That
was done by Bergeron Appraisals. That valuation was used to develop the offers of
compensation that are listed in the Resolution. In the case of the one parcel identified as
proposed right-of-way, construction of retaining walls required that the City had to
remove a couple of mature trees, either nice oaks or maples (mentioned as oak trees
during the site visit), and the property owner requested compensation for those, which
was reasonable. So, that was a part of the negotiation. Mr. Lussier said the offer listed in
the Resolution reflected the value of those two trees, as well the land the City is
acquiring.
Mr. Lussier thanked both property owners involved, who have been incredibly patient and
cooperative with the City as they have worked through this. Their cooperation is what allowed us
212

Page 11 of 146

09/17/2026
to complete a great project. Mr. Lussier said the road is much safer than it was: we fixed the
problem before it became a real crisis and he thinks everybody is happy with the results.
Mayor Kahn acknowledged that the Council had a site visit before this meeting, so they were
very familiar.
Councilor Favolise asked a question about what fund that compensation is coming out of: is
there still money left in this project fund? Mr. Lussier said it is coming from that project fund
balance. In the Resolution in which the Council moved money for the downtown project, they
did not move all the remaining balance from the project because they knew this was still
happening, so they kept some here to cover that cost. The remaining would close out the project.
Councilor Haas said he was curious and it struck him: should these boundaries have been
determined prior to construction, and that whatever the answer is to that leads to questions about
other existing projects that we have going on in the City right-of-way—are we sure about the
boundaries of those roadways? Mr. Lussier said the boundaries were identified before
construction happened and the City was working with the property owners, negotiating, and sort
of resolving the questions. Councilor Haas noted that the construction of the road has improved
these properties’ values; he said the road was horrible before, it is wonderful now, and what a
great neighborhood that is. He called it kind of disappointing to him that this was not settled
ahead of time and now he is really worried about the other projects that there may be in the City
and whether we are sure of the boundaries. Mayor Kahn thought Councilor Haas could share that
concern with the Public Works Director at another time.
Mayor Kahn opened the floor to public comments.
Pat Walker (of 17 Thompson Road) said the problem she has is with her land. She bought the
house and the property was 4 acres. The Assessor's Office billed her at 4 acres for 40 years. Now
she is told she only has two acres, but she is also told that she cannot get back any
reimbursement. She said that if she paid her taxes incorrectly, they would tax her for the
difference plus interest. Now she is saying she has been taxed for 40 years for two extra acres
and she gets no reimbursement. She asked for explanation. The City Manager, Elizabeth Ferland,
said Ms. Walker has met with the Assessing Department, who have explained that at some point
her property was subdivided. The larger parcel was subdivided and the part that was left is 1.8
acres. So, the City Manager suggested maybe going back and looking at when that subdivision
happened might be the way to determine. Ms. Walker said she should go back to the Assessor’s
office. Discussion ensued as the City Manager directed Ms. Walker. Ms. Walker noted this
would make a difference for her if she is going to sell her house. Ms. Walker confirmed that she
had already surveyed her land. Mayor Kahn wondered whether there would be an appeal process
for Ms. Walker to follow. The City Manager thought there was some confusion here and that it
would probably be better for her to have another conversation with the City Assessor. Ms.
Walker wanted to know if she would then get some type of letter from the City stating when it
changed / how it changed. The City Manager said to talk it over with the Assessor’s Office and
the City would be happy to put something in writing for her.

213

Page 12 of 146

09/17/2026
Ms. Walker asked another question about the money for Thompson Road. She said there was a
grant and then there was also $318,000 that came from the state. She said she wanted to see five
years’ money left in that account so that if there would be problems with this new road, there
would be money to fix it, and the City would not say we do not have the money in the Budget.
So, she asked what happened to the $318,000 from the state? Mr. Lussier replied that this project
did include some one-time funds that were distributed from the state. It was not a specific grant;
it was funds that were given to the state through some sort of formula. The Council decided that
the City would use that as a part of the funding for that project. Mr. Lussier said the other half of
the question is what happens if there is warranty work or something needs to be done. He
explained that as a part of all capital projects, there is a one-year warranty. That warranty is now
up for this project and has been released, but there is a project closeout process: for capital
projects, it is typically about one year after the project is completed and the City knows there is
not going to be any more work done on that project and everything has been paid for. At that
point, those capital funds go back into the Unallocated Fund Balance, or they are available for
reallocation through the City Council via the Finance Committee who can approve that staff use
the unspent funds for another purpose. Typically, however, the funds revert to the bottom line in
case there is an emergency in the future, whether it is on Thompson Road or another street in the
City, in which case City staff would come to the City Council and explain why additional
funding is needed that was not planned for the emergency repair. Mayor Kahn certainly recalled
that appropriation from when he was in the State Senate and a surplus was distributed at the end
of a year by formula to every City in the state. Ms. Walker said she understood that Mr. Lussier
was saying that basically the City never leaves any money left in the Budget at the end of a
project. Mayor Kahn said that was right.
Hearing no further comments, The Mayor closed the Public Hearing at 7:51 PM, except that
written comments would be accepted up until 1:00 PM on Tuesday, September 22, 2026.
A true record, attest:
City Clerk
PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT MID-GRANT
HEARINGS:
• KEENE HOUSING, ROOSEVELT WEST HOUSING PROJECT
• CEDARCREST CENTER PLANNING GRANT
Mayor Kahn opened the Public Hearing at 7:52 PM and the City Clerk read the notice of
Hearing. The Mayor welcomed Jack Ahern of Southwest Region Planning Commission.
Mr. Ahern explained that it is a requirement of the federal Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program to hold a Public Hearing during the projects while they are still
underway to allow the public the opportunity to make comments and inquiries regarding project
activities and impacts. So, the following is an update on the Roosevelt West Housing Project,
after which Mr. Ahern would accept public comments and questions.

214

Page 13 of 146

09/17/2026
Mr. Ahern explained that a CDBG housing grant in the amount of $750,000 was awarded to the
City of Keene in July of 2025, which was sub-granted to Keene Housing and its affiliate,
Monadnock Affordable Housing Corporation, to support the second phase of the redevelopment
of the former Roosevelt School property located at 438 Washington St. A previous Block Grant
awarded to the City in 2023 helped to fund the renovation of the existing school building into 30
apartment units, known as Roosevelt East. This project serves as Phase Two of the
redevelopment plan, which consists of the new construction of an additional 30 units on the
property located directly to the west of the first building, known as Roosevelt West. The
Roosevelt West Apartments will be 100% permanently affordable housing for low- and
moderate-income households and will include 22 one-bedroom apartments and eight twobedroom apartments on two stories. Keene Housing will provide a comprehensive program of
supportive services for all residents and will reserve five apartments for households which are
homeless or in immediate danger of becoming homeless. Construction began in November of
2025 and is anticipated to be complete in April of 2027. To date, all of the grant funds have been
drawn down for construction costs. There have been no major setbacks to completion and the
project scope remains as originally proposed. The total cost of the project is $11.6 million. Mr.
Ahern introduced Carolyn Sweet of Keene Housing to share some additional details about the
project.
Ms. Sweet, Special Advisor for Planning and Development at Keene Housing and its nonprofit
affiliate development arm, Monadnock Affordable Housing Corporation, first thanked the City
of Keene for its decades of support. That support helps Keene Housing to provide housing in
support of increasing economic security for members of our community. She said Roosevelt
West was moving along beautifully. There are 60 units there: the first 30 units came up for rent
in May of this year, and they were all rented 100% within 45 days, most of them within the first
30 days, and are now fully occupied. She said they expected the same to happen with the next set
of apartments that would be open and she wanted to invite the Council to come see the location
and to see how these types of projects activate streets; you can see a lot of people moving around
there now and it has also really beautified one of the City's gateways on Washington St. Ms.
Sweet said these type of investments, as the Mayor mentioned at a recent meeting with Keene
Housing, often spur other types of investment in the neighborhood and can be a part of our City's
beautification. So, she thanked the City for all the support over the years and welcomed
questions.
Councilor Tobin asked, when someone is coming out of the shelter or is homeless, how long are
they able to stay in that designated unit? Ms. Sweet replied that Keene Housing offers permanent
housing, so when somebody comes into one of the units, they become income eligible. Keene
Housing partners with Hundred Nights and other entities in the region, including the Keene
School District through some of the Homes for School programs. She said that as long as people
are income eligible, they stay in the units. So, that could be for the duration. She noted that
Keene Housing recently changed their policy in order to make sure they are continuing to serve
people who are at the highest need. Roosevelt East and West have an income cap at the
beginning of rent at 60% household income on the average median income for the one- and twobedroom units.

215

Page 14 of 146

09/17/2026
Mayor Kahn thanked Ms. Sweet and asked her to pass thanks to past and current board members
of the Keene Housing Authority, who have contributed to that work. The Mayor said the City’s
part of that package is clearly a small percentage of the overall effort and called it a remarkable
accomplishment. He wished them luck with the next phase.
Mayor Kahn opened the floor to public comments. Hearing no comments, Mayor Kahn turned to
the next part of the Hearing on Cedarcrest Center.
Mr. Ahern was present to provide an update on the Cedarcrest Center Planning Grant project and
to accept public comments and questions. He recalled that the City of Keene was awarded a
CDBG Planning Grant in the amount of $25,000 in June of 2025 to be sub-granted to the
Cedarcrest Center for Children with Disabilities, located at 91 Maple Ave. These funds are to
support an engineering and feasibility study to assess their facilities: the HVAC system serving
the classroom wing of their building. The work will include mechanical design services and an
existing conditions assessment. The existing system was installed in 2001 and is no longer
adequate to serve Cedarcrest's clientele in terms of air quality and facility goals in terms of
energy efficiency. Due to timeline delays involved with their procurement of a mechanical
engineering firm, the project requested a timeline extension in May of 2026. A six-month
extension was granted by CDFA, extending the project period through to December 31, 2026. It
is anticipated that work will be completed before this date. Cedarcrest intends for this feasibility
study to lead to the implementation of a full project potentially funded by a CDBG
Implementation Grant. The results of this study will be used to support an application for that
grant. Mr. Ahern introduced Jay Hayston, President and CEO of Cedarcrest.
Mr. Hayston said the project was well underway. He noted that there are a number of unique
considerations with the Center’s population in terms of identifying potential partners for the
feasibility study after a competitive bid process. He said they had identified a partner, who had
done their initial analysis and Cedarcrest was working through the stages of revision with them.
He said that as you might imagine, with a medically fragile population like the children at
Cedarcrest, it is really important to have an HVAC system that can dial in precise temperature
control. Many of the residents and students at Cedarcrest have temperature regulation or other
issues, and a 25-year-old system with a conventional refrigerant is no longer adequate. So, Mr.
Hayston said Cedarcrest is deeply appreciative not only of the partnership with the City in
general, but also of the opportunity to participate in this project.
Mayor Kahn asked if this would improve the existing structure. Mr. Hayston said this is a
feasibility study: the HVAC system for half of the building is now 25 years old, and it uses a
conventional refrigerant that can no longer be replaced. So, the system requires an upgrade. Both
of the units are aged and require additional maintenance, so he said they believe it is time to
improve it and both the refrigerant and the age of the system require an upgrade.
There were no public comments.
Mayor Kahn thanked Mr. Ahern.
Hearing no further comments, the Mayor closed the Public Hearing at 8:03 PM.
216

Page 15 of 146

09/17/2026

A true record, attest:
City Clerk
CONFIRMATIONS - HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
Mayor Kahn nominated Julie Odato to move from an Alternate to a Regular member of the
Human Rights Committee, with a term to expire December 31, 2028. A motion by Councilor
Greenwald to confirm the nomination was duly seconded by Councilor Powers. The motion
carried unanimously on a roll call vote with 14 Councilors present and voting in favor. Councilor
Jones was absent.
Mayor Kahn let the public know that an updated list of current vacancies, and vacancies due to
terms of office expiring on December 31, 2026 on City boards and commissions had been posted
online. Anyone interested in learning more should go to the City website (keenenh.gov). An
online volunteer submittal form is available to indicate your interest in serving. Councilors
should encourage members of the public to get involved.
COMMUNICATION - MICHAEL GUITARD/GUITARD HOMES LLC - PETITION FOR
CITY OWNERSHIP OF WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE - COTTAGE COURT
COMMUNITY ON COURT STREET
A communication was received from Michael Guitard of Guitard Homes LLC requesting that the
City assume ownership of the water and sewer infrastructure serving the approved Cottage Court
Community on Court Street. The development is proposed in three phases totaling 29 homes, and
the applicant requests the City’s consideration of municipal ownership of the infrastructure as the
project moves forward. Mayor Kahn referred the communication to the Municipal Services,
Facilities and Infrastructure Committee.
COMMUNICATION - DUNCAN HILCHEY AND AMY CHRISTIAN - REQUEST FOR A
TRAFFIC STUDY AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF SCHOOL STREET
A communication was received from Duncan Hilchey and Amy Christian, requesting a Traffic
Study and Safety Assessment of School Street. They would like particular attention to be spent
on studying and assessing vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, traffic patterns, and excessive vehicle
noise. They mention that residents have become increasingly concerned and mention that
although they are part of the central business district, they do not want to lose the safety,
livability, and residential character of their neighborhood. Mayor Kahn referred the
communication to the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee.
COMMUNICATION - JOHN T. NEWCOMBE - RESIGNATION - BOARD OF ASSESSORS
A communication was received from John T. Newcombe, submitting his resignation from the
Board of Assessors. He has served on the Board since 2016. A motion by Councilor Greenwald
to accept the resignation with appreciation for time served on the Board was duly seconded by
217

Page 16 of 146

09/17/2026
Councilor Powers. The motion carried unanimously with 14 Councilors present and voting in
favor. Councilor Jones was absent.
COMMUNICATION - COUNCILOR JONES - CENTRAL SQUARE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
DURING THE 2026 KEENE PUMPKIN FESTIVAL
A communication was received from Councilor Philip Jones, requesting that barriers and
obstructions associated with the downtown infrastructure project be removed, where it can be
done safely, to allow pedestrian access to Central Square during the 2026 Keene Pumpkin
Festival. The request is limited to pedestrian access and does not seek changes to vehicular
traffic patterns, the festival’s licensed footprint or liability, or the display of pumpkins in Central
Square. Mayor Kahn referred the communication to the City Manager.
COMMUNICATION - SHAWN VOISINE/ELMSIDE LLC - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF
CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES STANDARDS FOR WATER METERING INFRASTRUCTURE ELMSIDE COTTAGE COURT
A communication was received from Shawn Voisine of Elmside LLC, requesting a waiver of
City of Keene Public Works public utilities standards requiring a main water meter serving the
privately-owned water and sewer infrastructure at Elmside Cottage Court to be located within a
stand-alone heated building. The applicant requests instead that each of the development’s 18
homes be individually metered, citing concerns regarding reliability, equitable billing, and longterm costs to homeowners. Mayor Kahn referred the communication to the Municipal Services,
Facilities and Infrastructure Committee.
PLD REPORTS - COUNCILOR FILIAULT - REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGULATING DOGS AT DOWNTOWN EVENTS; AND
PAUL ALLEN-WEBBER - REQUEST TO RECONSIDER ORDINANCE O-2004-15-A
SECTION (E) REGARDING DOG RESTRICTIONS DURING THE PUMPKIN FESTIVAL
A Planning, Licenses and Development Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
that the City Attorney draft an ordinance restricting dogs at all licensed downtown community
events and return it as a draft at the next PLD meeting. A motion by Councilor Filiault to carry
out the intent of the Committee report was duly seconded by Councilor Greenwald.
Councilor Tobin said, as someone who used to have a fear of dogs, that she really appreciated
this.
Seeing no further comments, Mayor Kahn asked people who felt differently about this or cared
passionately for this to please come to the Planning, Licenses and Development Committee
meeting, so the various perspectives on this could be heard. In particular, he thought about
downtown residents. He asked everyone to spread the word.
The motion carried unanimously with 14 Councilors present and voting in favor. Councilor Jones
was absent.

218

Page 17 of 146

09/17/2026
PLD REPORT - COUNCILOR JONES - REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS
AND CRYPTOCURRENCY MINING FACILITIES
A Planning, Licenses and Development Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
that the Request for Consideration of an Ordinance Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on
Data Centers and Cryptocurrency Mining Facilities be referred to the Planning Board. A motion
by Councilor Filiault to carry out the intent of the Committee report was duly seconded by
Councilor Greenwald.
Councilor Chalice noted that she asked at the time that not only data centers and cryptocurrency
mining centers, but ICE detention centers be added to this effort because of the similar
constraints and pressures on our community. Her understanding was that would be a part of the
process somewhere, but she wanted to make sure that the public was aware that she would like
that to be an additional consideration. City Attorney Amanda Palmeira said that for something to
be addressed as part of the moratorium, it could be brought up at the Planning Board because
they are the ones who make the original start of the process for a moratorium. She thought what
Councilor Chalice was referring to was Councilor Jones’ letter, which did have a suggestion for
definitions to be created through Zoning Ordinance: he had four definitions, two of which were
related to private detention facilities. Those are currently on More Time at the Joint Planning
Board-Planning, Licenses and Development Committee, separate from the moratorium. This
moratorium is intended to address data centers.
The motion carried unanimously with 14 Councilors present and voting in favor. Councilor Jones
was absent.
FOP REPORT - FY25 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PRESENTATION - CBIZ
CPAS, P.C.
A Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
accepting the presentation on FY25 Audited Financial Statements by CBIZ CPAs, P.C. as
informational. Mayor Kahn accepted the report as informational.
FOP REPORT - WARREN STEINBERG - REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY FREE PARKING
WITHIN ACTIVE DOWNTOWN CONSTRUCTION ZONES
A Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
that the Council grant free parking under the provisions of the Free Parking Policy (Resolution
R-2015-11) for on-street public parking spaces within downtown for the remainder of the 2026
construction season. This to be coordinated with the Parking Division. Staff shall report back to
the Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee before the next construction phase for reevaluation. A motion by Councilor Powers to carry out the intent of the Committee report was
duly seconded by Councilor Lake.
Councilor Greenwald thought it was very important to note that this is for all of Main Street: all
the on-street parking, not just with the holes being dug. He said all of Main Street is dealing with
219

Page 18 of 146

09/17/2026
the stress of the decreased traffic and all the chaos downtown, and all the businesses are
struggling to keep up and stay in business. He thought it was very important that this Council
make a statement of support and, he would hope, unanimously to go along with this.
Councilor Greenwald asked if the City Manager wanted an amendment for the motion to have
this extend through the end of 2026. He certainly wanted it to go through the Christmas season.
The City Manager said it was phrased right now to continued through this construction season.
She added that there hase been discussion about extending some of the work into December
2026. So, if the Councilor wanted to say through the end of the year, the City Manager suggested
phrasing it as “this construction season or the end of December, whichever comes first.”
A motion by Councilor Greenwald was duly seconded by Councilor Filiault to amend the
Committee report so that free parking will be in effect through the end of calendar year 2026.
Councilor Ruttle-Miller asked if there would still be enforcement around time so there is
turnover. City Manager replied in the affirmative and said people would still be asked to put their
information into Park Mobile app or to use the kiosk system, so the City is able to more easily
monitor that two-hour limit.
Councilor Chalice wanted to briefly draw attention to the people who did not have the
opportunity to attend that meeting. She noted that the downtown businesses were very interested
in having discussions through the wintertime to come up with some more creative options as we
come into the next construction season. She thought they had very interesting ideas, and hoped
those would go forward and the City would have the opportunity to explore some of those ideas.
Councilor Filiault noted that the motion on the floor was the amendment, and he wanted to
applaud Councilor Greenwald because Councilor Filiault agreed with the amendment. Councilor
Filiault went to the hardhats meeting and said they were talking about construction season, which
may not end and may go right into 2027. He said he would like to see this go a little bit farther
down, personally. At the very least, he thinks it shows good faith to the downtown merchants, as
Councilor Greenwald said on this amendment. Councilor Filiault said maybe Casella would
work all the way through the season, and maybe the project would get done sooner than hoped.
He agreed with the amendment because the wording was particular here.
Councilor Williams said amendment or not, he does not think this is a good use of a good chunk
of revenue. He said the Council spent a lot of time figuring out the budget for this project and a
lot of good parts of the project got cut. Now, here at the end or in the middle, he said they were
saying there was a whole bunch of other money they were going to spend on this. He recalled
stating that some of this should be paid for by the Parking Fund and he did not get a lot of
support on that. Councilor Williams said that when you consider how much of this effort in
downtown was made to preserve the parking spaces (with an actual increase by one space), and
none of that came out of the Parking Fund: it all came out of taxes or other parts of the Budget.
Now, he said the Council would be hitting the Parking Fund to provide parking subsidies, which
did not strike the Councilor as a wise use of the money; he said there are a lot of other ways the
City could spend that money, noting that one thing pulled from the project was a shelter for

220

Page 19 of 146

09/17/2026
bicycle parking. Now, he said that money would be spent on free parking instead. It did not
strike him as a good idea.
On a vote with 13 Councilors voting in favor and one Councilor voting in opposition, the motion
to amend the Committee report so that free parking will be in effect through the end of calendar
year 2026 carried. Councilor Williams voted in the minority. Councilor Jones was absent.
Councilor Tobin said that when she first heard this idea and started listening to the discussion, it
did make sense. She did remember having this discussion briefly about a year, maybe a year and
a half ago, in the context of planning for this project. As she listened to the discussion more and
thought about it, she had a couple of concerns. One of them is that the Council would actually be
creating more demand for spaces in an area that is already attracting a lot of traffic. She thought
the intent would be to what would make more sense, which is actually to increase foot traffic.
She noted there were a few communications on the agenda tonight from stakeholders being
affected by the construction in different ways. When planning the construction, she said the
Council took all of these things into account and weighed them: what was the impact on
businesses? What was the impact on residents? What did people riding bicycles need and what
infrastructure? With that, she said the Council came up with a plan. Coming back to this idea,
she said if they did make parking free, first of all that would go to the Parking Fund, which
would mean that in the near future the City would not have funding (or would need to find an
alternative) for the maintenance of parking and any parking infrastructure, or we would have to
decrease the number of projects. She thought that was worth considering. In terms of the other
communications the Council received tonight, she noted that one was about School Street and a
lot of that traffic would be filtered that way. She understood that was necessary but said if Main
Street is free and you have to pay to use the lots, that seems like the opposite of what they want
to happen: it would be drawing more people down, incentivizing that traffic pattern, and causing
more traffic to the people who are in the surrounding neighborhoods. Councilor Tobin said she
absolutely wants to find ways to support businesses. She thought that she did not know that
parking would be her first investment if the intent is to draw more people and especially from
outside communities, which she thought was another important factor, noting that the Parking
Fund is one of the few ways the City collects revenue from outside of this community. She
thought at the very least she would like to hear some conversation about that and maybe a
consideration of possibly amending it so maybe this should not be Main Street. Rather, maybe it
should be one of the lots or some of the spaces in the lots around Main Street, so that it actually
draws more foot traffic.
Councilor Favolise said he had spent some time thinking about this, and whether this is the best
way to support downtown businesses and the downtown economy through this project. He is not
sure that this is a sustainable, fiscally responsible solution for the entire length of the project. So,
he was really encouraged by the kind of phased approach here; the idea of phases comes up a lot
around this downtown construction project. He said they would kind of do this blanket now as a
starter and he really did look forward to the conversations that are going to happen through the
winter with business owners, stakeholders, the Council first through the committee process, then
the full Council. Councilor Favolise said he was hoping and it was his expectation that those
conversations will be data informed and will be able to take a look at the impact that this did or
did not have in different areas and be able to make some informed decisions about what worked
221

Page 20 of 146

09/17/2026
well with this for businesses, what did not work as well as we had hoped, and come up with
some solutions that are sustainable and creative but continue to send the message that the
Council cares about the downtown community. He wanted to ensure the Keene Sentinel reported
in its article that the downtown is open for business. He thinks it is important that we continue to
say that. So, Councilor Favolise said he would vote in support of this tonight, but he looked
forward to some potentially more nuanced, more creative, more sustainable solutions coming out
of the working group over the winter that still have the effect of supporting downtown businesses
through this project. He thinks we can do both of those things.
Councilor Filiault said, getting back to the Committee motion, he heard a couple of comments
tonight saying, “well, that is not what we originally thought was going to happen.” He said
nothing has happened that they really thought was going to happen. He and Councilor
Greenwald served five years ago on the original steering committee, and he said it had been a
moving target since day one; what they thought might work, did not, and vice versa. He said it is
still a moving target. So, he said just to give the City Manager authorization to the end of the
year just to allow parking for businesses downtown is the least the Council could do. Councilor
Filiault asked some of the Councilors who were in opposition whether they had ever owned a
business and known what it is like to lose money because of a project: you do not get money
back. He had been one of those people who owned a business during a project downtown and
said you lose thousands of dollars in a weekend, and it does not come back. If you lose your
paycheck for a couple of weeks, he added that it does not come back. That is what the downtown
merchants are facing: they are losing their paychecks, which do not come back. Councilor
Filiault said the very least this Council can do, the absolute very least, is to authorize the City
Manager to allow free parking to the end of this calendar year. Then, he said the Council could
be sure that on January 1, 2027, he would be bringing this item right back up at the first Council
meeting of the year. Once again, for those saying this is not what was originally planned, he said
to go back five years and look at the steering committee and take a look what was planned back
then and see what we have now: you will be in for a little bit of a surprise.
Councilor Haas said that the motion presented by Councilor Greenwald asked for free parking on
all of Main Street, which excludes Washington and Court Streets, where there are adjacent
merchants. It also excludes some on Emerald Street, Gilbo Avenue, and Roxbury Street. He
wondered if this could be refined somehow. Mayor Kahn wondered if it had to do with the
definition of downtown and asked for comments from the City Manager. The City Manager said
the side streets were not included in the calculation that was provided to the Council. So, she did
not have those numbers off the top of her head as to what the additional financial impact for the
side streets would be. However, the City Manager did believe the conversation had been about
the Main Street on-street parking because that is where the construction is.
Councilor Ruttle-Miller said she was going to vote in favor of what downtown businesses have
asked for but just wanted everyone to keep in mind: she would love to know data/consumer wise
because it is $0.75 or $1, and if you are already planning on going downtown, she wondered if
that would really make a difference in someone deciding where they want to go. She wanted to
understand the effect of people realizing they do not have to spend to park to go downtown. She
understood downtown businesses really wanted it, so she was totally willing to do that if the
Council felt like it was going to help and she would vote in favor of it. However, in the long
222

Page 21 of 146

09/17/2026
term, come January 1, 2027, Councilor Ruttle-Miller thought that the City should find a way to
determine what the actual impact of free parking was for supporting downtown businesses and
that we can continue to look at other ways to support downtown businesses. She was not sure the
City was getting from point A to B with what they were doing here but she thought it was worth
trying to make sure.
Councilor Greenwald noted that the two-hour limit would still bring in fines, and the parking lots
would still bring in revenue and fines. He asked the Council to bear that in mind. He heard
mention about a decrease in revenue and that a lot of the Parking Fund is used for downtown
maintenance. There is no downtown maintenance going on: it is all a construction zone, so there
is some degree of expense savings, nonetheless. Councilor Greenwald acknowledged the error
Councilor Haas pointed out about the side streets.
A motion by Councilor Greenwald was duly seconded by Councilor Haas to amend the
Committee Report to include the following side streets: Washington Street, Court Street,
Emerald Street, Roxbury Street, and Gilbo Avenue.
Mayor Kahn asked if the City Manager had comments and she had nothing to add.
Councilor Greenwald withdrew his amendment based on the sentiment in the room. Councilor
Haas withdrew his second.
A motion by Councilor Haas was duly seconded by Councilor Greenwald to amend the
Committee Report so that in addition to the entirety of Main Street, any parking space
immediately adjacent to active construction areas be included (which would include Washington
and Court Streets).
Councilor Powers said he was not trying to be mean-spirited, but that amendment raised the first
question of what is that area to be? How are you going to deal with that? Who is going to know?
Councilor Powers thought the Council was going to come into this meeting and have a little bit
of a compromise to address a number of issues that we have to deal with over the course of the
next three or four months and then look at it for the next year or so. Now, he said we are making
chop suey, and it never works when we try to do that on the Council floor. He could accept
Councilor Greenwald’s first amendment, but said we are going in the wrong direction, noting his
experience with parking, and calling it a no-win situation. Councilor Powers said something was
presented that seems reasonable; he said, “let’s do it.”
Councilor Haas withdrew his motion, and Councilor Greenwald withdrew his second.
Councilor Favolise just recognized what the will of the Council was on these two items and said
that when a motion is made and seconded, the motion then belongs to the body. So, he said the
kind of unilateral withdrawal, two Councilors can say “withdrawn” after motioning and
seconding, is not really aligned with the way that we should be doing the procedure. Councilor
Favolise did not think there was an active objection from the Council toward this. He raised this
formal point of order and said moving forward, if Councilors make a motion and offer a second,
they should be prepared that the Council can take it and run with it, even over their future
223

Page 22 of 146

09/17/2026
objections. So, Councilor Favolise said, let’s be thoughtful about motions we are making on the
floor if we do not really want to commit to them. Mayor Kahn acknowledged that he could have
asked if there was an objection to withdrawing the motions prior to accepting those withdrawals.
Councilor Williams noted that these ideas kept getting more complicated and more expensive.
The motion to carry out the intent of the Committee report, as amended, carried with 12
Councilors voting in favor and two voting in opposition. Councilors Tobin and Williams voted in
the minority. Councilor Jones was absent.
FOP REPORT - ACCEPTANCE OF NH JUVENILE COURT DIVERSION NETWORK
FUNDING - YOUTH SERVICES MANAGER
A Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
that the City Manager be authorized to do all things necessary to accept and expend funds
provided by New Hampshire Juvenile Court Diversion Network for Youth Services programs. A
motion by Councilor Powers to carry out the intent of the Committee report was duly seconded
by Councilor Lake. The motion carried unanimously with 14 Councilors present and voting in
favor. Councilor Jones was absent.
FOP REPORT - FY26 DOJ BYRNE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM
AWARD - POLICE CAPTAIN
A Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
that the City Manager be authorized to do all things necessary to co-apply with Cheshire County,
NH and to accept and expend the U.S. Department of Justice FY26 Byrne JAG in the amount
allocated to the City in the amount of $6,519.00. A motion by Councilor Powers to carry out the
intent of the Committee report was duly seconded by Councilor Lake. The motion carried
unanimously with 14 Councilors present and voting in favor. Councilor Jones was absent.
FOP REPORT - ACCEPTANCE OF FAA/NHDOT GRANT FUNDING – WILDLIFE
PERIMETER FENCE PHASE II CONSTRUCTION - AIRPORT DIRECTOR
A Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
that the City Manager be authorized to do all things necessary to accept, execute, and expend
grant funding from the Federal Aviation Administration and New Hampshire Department of
Transportation for the Wildlife Perimeter Fence Phase II Construction Project, SBG 08-32-2026
and SBG 08-33-2026. A motion by Councilor Powers to carry out the intent of the Committee
report was duly seconded by Councilor Lake. The motion carried unanimously with 14
Councilors present and voting in favor. Councilor Jones was absent.
FOP REPORT - CARRY FORWARD REQUEST - 2026 UNSPENT WAGES - TO SUPPORT
TWO ONE- TIME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

224

Page 23 of 146

09/17/2026
A Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
that the City Council authorize the Community Development Department to carry forward
$32,500 in unexpended Fiscal Year 2026 personnel appropriations and repurpose those funds to
pay for the conversion of the Land Development Code to the online Municode system and to
provide a local match for a Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) match. A
motion by Councilor Powers to carry out the intent of the Committee report was duly seconded
by Councilor Lake. The motion carried unanimously with 14 Councilors present and voting in
favor. Councilor Jones was absent.
FOP REPORT - 2025 HAZMAT EQUIPMENT GRANT - PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
EXTENSION - FIRE CHIEF
A Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
that the City Manager be authorized to do all things necessary to execute the 2025 Homeland
Security Grant agreement amendment. A motion by Councilor Powers to carry out the intent of
the Committee report was duly seconded by Councilor Lake. The motion carried unanimously
with 14 Councilors present and voting in favor. Councilor Jones was absent.
FOP REPORT - FY28 AMBULANCE REPLACEMENT - FIRE CHIEF
A Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
that the City Manager be authorized to do all things necessary to execute a contract with
Autotronics of Maine for the purchase and construction of the Fire Department ambulance. A
motion by Councilor Powers to carry out the intent of the Committee report was duly seconded
by Councilor Lake. The motion carried unanimously with 14 Councilors present and voting in
favor. Councilor Jones was absent.
FOP REPORT - LWCF GRANT ROUND 33 AMENDMENT - SKATE PARK - DEPUTY
CITY MANAGER
A Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
that the City Manager be authorized to accept and execute an amendment to Land and Water
Conservation Fund sub-grant #33-00761_Patricia T Russell Park-II, with the State of New
Hampshire to increase the award limit by $75,000 (from $225,000 to $300,000), and to extend
the completion date by one-year (from 9/30/2026 to 9/30/2027), and to increase the agreed-to
project scope further including a parking lot and pathway extensions at Patricia T Russell Park in
addition to the development of the skate park. A motion by Councilor Powers to carry out the
intent of the Committee report was duly seconded by Councilor Lake. The motion carried
unanimously with 14 Councilors present and voting in favor. Councilor Jones was absent.
FOP REPORT - RELATING TO THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH
KEYNETGPS - CITY ENGINEER
A Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
that the City Manager be authorized to do all things necessary to negotiate and execute a
Participant Agreement with KeyNetGPS. A motion by Councilor Powers to carry out the intent
225

Page 24 of 146

09/17/2026
of the Committee report was duly seconded by Councilor Lake. The motion carried unanimously
with 14 Councilors present and voting in favor. Councilor Jones was absent.
FOP REPORT - RELATING TO THE EXECUTION OF A CHANGE ORDER WITH
STRUCTURAL PRESERVATION SERVICES - CITY ENGINEER
A Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
the City Manager be authorized to do all things necessary to negotiate and execute a change
order with Structural Preservation Services, Inc in an amount not to exceed $65,325 for the City
Hall Parking Garage Rehab Project (22M006AA). A motion by Councilor Powers to carry out
the intent of the Committee report was duly seconded by Councilor Lake. The motion carried
unanimously with 14 Councilors present and voting in favor. Councilor Jones was absent.
FOP REPORT - SALE OF SURPLUS MECHANICAL VENTILATORS - FIRE CHIEF
A Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
that the City Council suspend the public auction or competitive quotation requirements of City
Ordinance O-2023- 15, Section 2-1341; authorize the City Manager to do all things necessary to
sell three surplus Zoll ZVent mechanical ventilators to the Town of Fitzwilliam for $6,000, with
sale proceeds to be deposited to the General Fund; and direct staff to bring forward a separate
resolution to the City Council requesting an appropriation for the purchase of swift water rescue
dry suits for the Keene Fire Department. A motion by Councilor Powers to carry out the intent of
the Committee report was duly seconded by Councilor Lake.
Councilor Ruttle-Miller pointed out a typo on page 83 of the agenda packet where it read $6,006
and should read $6,000. This correction was accepted as a scrivener error.
The motion carried unanimously with 14 Councilors present and voting in favor. Councilor Jones
was absent.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
The City Manager, Elizabeth Ferland, began by acknowledging Fire Chief Greg Seymour for
actually getting creative with the sale of that equipment because he doubled the amount of
money the City was going to get. Good work, Chief.
Next, the City Manager noted that the Parks and Recreation Director asked her to share an
update related to the recent Robin Hood Park public session. We had a successful feedback
session hosted at Keene Parks and Recreation and facilitated by the consultants, CHA. This
phase of the project is focused on park amenities and features, playground, camp building, public
restrooms, multi-sport, sport court, accessible dock, amphitheater upgrades, and circulation and
parking improvements. She called it a big project. She recalled that the first phase was focused
solely on the pool. This presentation reflected four months of work by the Steering Committee
and City staff, along with the community feedback that has been gathered today. Roughly 40
people attended this session: neighbors, Councilors, the Mayor, park users, and summer camp
families, and children. They all had ideas to share. The City Manager noted that the City was
226

Page 25 of 146

09/17/2026
also planning to open an online platform for communities who were not able to attend the session
to share their feedback as well. Next, the City team would be meeting with the consultant, CHA,
and once they have gotten all the feedback and categorize it, they will come up with a scope and
fee for park amenity plans, integrating all of that feedback. Then, they will be back to the
Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee for further direction.
The City Manager wanted to let the Council know about an upcoming program from the
Bike/Walk Alliance of New Hampshire, which is a nonprofit organization that promotes bicycle
and pedestrian safety and accessibility. They are coming to Keene to provide an e-bike and
personal electric vehicle (PEV) presentation, which covers a lot of different things. The
presentation was tentatively set for October 27, 2026 from 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM at Cohen Hall. It
is intended for municipal officials, so the City Manager did think this was something the Council
would be interested in, and she would confirm once the date is confirmed. The presentation will
cover an overview of e-bikes and other personal electric vehicles, New Hampshire laws and how
they govern personal electric vehicles, common incidents and patterns and risk factors, lithiumion battery and fire safety, and municipal policy and decision-making tools, which is something
that the Council has wrestled with. So, the City Manager did think this was timely as the City
moves forward with the downtown bike lanes. There is also a train-the-trainer module for
continued education and outreach.
The City Manager also provided an update from the Greater Keene Transit Steering Committee.
This Committee convened through the Southwest Region Planning Commission (SWRPC), had
been meeting since April 2026, and been evaluating options to develop a recommendation for the
future of transit service in the greater Keene area: a replacement for City Express. The
Committee presented its recommendation to Monadnock Regional Coordinating Council for
Community Transportation, and the Council supported the Committee's recommendation to work
with SCS. There was an RFQ that was put out. They evaluated the RFQ's and right now they are
having conversations with SCS to develop a transition plan. This does not mean that SCS has
formally been selected as the new City Express operator, or that the transition has been finalized.
The next step is for them to bring SWRPC, NH Department of Transportation, and the transit
consultants together to work through an operational and a financial plan. This could potentially
change the way that public transit works in our community and maybe even our region.
City Manager Ferland went on to discuss an update about downtown event licenses. She would
be asking the Council to support greater flexibility and licenses for community events through all
phases of the downtown project. Following the Keene Music Festival, the City received feedback
that Central Square should be included in the footprint for our future events, when possible. The
planning and protocol meetings for these events take place several months in advance, and
changing an approved footprint requires considerable coordination by both the event organizer
and the City staff: it is not an easy thing to do, which is why there is so much advance work.
When the Council approved the Pumpkin Festival event license, the proposed footprint did not
include Central Square because we anticipated that downtown construction would create
significantly more disruption in that area, but current construction conditions have been less
disruptive (kudos to the Public Works Department and crew). That created an opportunity to
reconsider the use of Central Square. City staff spoke with the Pumpkin Festival organizers, two
of whom were in the audience, and they were willing to adjust the event footprint to include a
227

Page 26 of 146

09/17/2026
display or activity in Central Square. The City Manager noted that the power pedestals in Central
Square are not available anymore and have been removed, so any display or activity located
there would need to be designed without access to electrical power (e.g., some pumpkins
displayed or some other type of activity). Understandably, the organizers do not want to be
responsible for any additional expense, but this change such last-minute leading up to their event
and they were really, truly considering this based on feedback that the City received and people
reaching out to them, asking them to expand into Central Square.
So, the City Manager said a Protocol meeting with the organizers was scheduled for Thursday,
September 24, 2026, but because the Council has already approved a license with that specific
footprint, staff would need to return to the Council to authorize an adjustment. Following the
Protocol meeting, the City Manager planned to come back with some revised language to
Council for October 1, 2026, which would allow greater flexibility to adjust the footprint based
on actual conditions at the time, which she thinks will give more flexibility throughout the entire
downtown project. If the Council is agreeable to that, she and the Pumpkin Festival organizers
would like to get some sort of consensus from the Council this evening that it is something they
would support. The City Manager thought it was a relatively low risk that if they agree to change
their footprint and the City works with them, so that they are able to do that safely through our
protocol process, that she anticipated the Council would be supportive. Still, she was hoping for
some consensus for them because they have to change vendors and their footprint; before they go
through all of that and before the City Manager could ask for an official vote from the Council,
she just wanted to ask for a little consensus to give them some comfort. Mayor Kahn asked if
there were any concerns or objections from the Council.
Councilor Favolise said the City Manager made reference to festivals throughout the downtown
project, but they were talking specifically about this license in front of them. He asked what
exact language they would be seeing here. The City Manager replied that she did not have that
exact language in terms of the flexibility but had asked the City Attorney to think of drafting
something that would allow flexibility; we would still go through a protocol process, but we
would not be required to come back for adjustments to the footprint based on current
construction conditions. Basically, it just allows some flexibility. The City Manager said there
were two different things because she would be talking to the Council about language so that
they are not in this predicament in the future, but for the Pumpkin Festival, they would talk about
the actual changes to the footprint the next week. Mayor Kahn said the Council would be asked
to adopt language that would authorize the City Manager to amend as conditions change in the
future. They would work on workable language.
Mayor Kahn heard no objections or further questions from the Council, so the City Manager said
she was satisfied and sure the event holder was satisfied. She said she was going to work with
them to extend the footprint into Central Square and work with them in terms of City services
and what that cost may be, so that they are able to move forward and the City will not inhibit
their programming at all.
Next, the City Manager provided an update from the Council’s workshop on immigration
activities as promised. She reviewed a list of things that staff had been talking about and things
that they had done and were working on. She said they heard very clearly that there was a need
228

Page 27 of 146

09/17/2026
for greater clarity and she thought at the workshop the City tried to give some of that clarity in
terms of what the City can do and cannot do, and what is the responsibility of the federal
government. To try to put that on paper, the City created an FAQ (thank you Rebecca Landry,
Deputy City Manager for putting this together; it took more effort than you would imagine). The
City Manager thought it was pretty good in terms of answering some of the questions that came
up. The City is planning to share this on social media and on our website. The City Manager
asked all Councilors to review the document and provide any final feedback before it was
published, noting that they could continue to work on this document. The City Manager
explained that the FAQ also has links to organizations that offer helpful resources in New
Hampshire and Vermont. Many of those resources were identified through the ICE rapid
response pamphlet that the Mayor referenced earlier. If someone is on the City’s website or
social media, they can go directly from those links.
Next, as discussed at the workshop, New Hampshire law places specific limits on municipal
policies related to immigration enforcement and cooperation with federal immigration
authorities: among them is the recently changed state law, which prohibits state and local
government entities and law enforcement agencies from maintaining a statutorily defined
sanctuary policy. The City Manager said that is not super clear. As discussed in the past, Keene
is one of four communities that had its Welcoming Resolution reviewed and did not get anything
back. That said, she said that it is okay because it is definitely being monitored. They also talked
at the workshop that the Keene Police had not entered into the 287(g) agreement, which was
clarified on the FAQ as well. She said they kept repeating that there was no intention to enter the
287(g) agreement: that is the mechanism through which designated state or local officers may be
authorized to perform specific federal immigration and enforcement activities under federal
supervision. She thought many other communities in the state had signed onto that recently.
So, the City wanted to make sure that was clear, that is not something that we have done here.
The City Manager said there is an important distinction between not obstructing federal
immigration enforcement and local police assuming the role, and so that FAQ is trying to break
that down and where those differences lie.
The FAQ also talks about Keene PD’s operating approach, but in addition to that, the Police
Chief drafted some language for inclusion in the Department's general policies. One of the
questions we were asked: do we have a policy on immigration? We have lots of places that we
refer to, and the City Manager thought it could be helpful and the Chief agreed to be able to put
some language in there. One of the things that they have been doing is the City Attorney has
been sharing these things with the Department of Justice to get their feedback to make sure that
we are not running afoul of anything. One of the things that came out of the communication is
that they are going to be updating their law enforcement manual. She reiterated that this was just
the draft FAQ presented to the Council because she was unsure if anything would need to
change. She thought this would be a step in the right direction. The City Manager said the
proposed language makes it clear that officers will not ask crime victims or witnesses about their
immigration status, and that everyone who interacts with KPD will be treated fairly, respectfully,
and with dignity. She said that is something the City had been saying over and over again
because they do not want people to be afraid to be witnesses or afraid to report crimes. She said
kudos to the Police Chief. She noted that he starred in a few videos giving that exact message
created by the City’s Audio and Video Production Specialist. The City Manager knew that the
229

Page 28 of 146

09/17/2026
Council talked about education and outreach and hoped that these videos would be well-received
by the community and thanked the Chief for participating in those videos.
The City Manager continued, stating that in the City Attorney’s contact with the New Hampshire
Department of Justice (DOJ), one of the things that the City asked them about was providing a
statement after ICE is in town: something from the Police Department that says what happened.
The City Manager said it should be easy, but it is not for a few reasons. One, they do not always
tell the City exactly what happened. She said this last time, the City was learning things later on
in the process. She noted that the New Hampshire DOJ was also concerned about the City
providing any sort of statement about operations related to ICE because it could be seen as
interfering with their operations or somehow creating an issue for their Operations, so the City
Manager said that would be trickier than we thought; we may not be able to come up with
something, but we are going to continue to think about that and work through that to see if there
is something that we can get the New Hampshire DOJ on board with. The City Manager added
that the New Hampshire DOJ was not saying this was their final decision. She noted that one of
the things the City wanted was to be able to ask federal immigration officers to show
identification and to remove their masks to confirm their identities. The New Hampshire DOJ
indicated that ICE would likely take the position that masks are necessary for officers’ safety and
that a local policy requiring additional identification would be viewed as interfering with federal
operations.
City Manager Ferland said the City also inquired about where residents can be directed with
questions about ICE operations in Keene, including questions about who they may have detained
and where they may have been brought. New Hampshire DOJ advised that neither they nor the
New Hampshire State Police would necessarily have that information because ICE is not
required to notify them of activities or plans, and today they have not routinely done so. So, they
said to refer people to ICE, which the City Manager said she knows has not been super effective
in doing what we want it to do, which is get additional information for our residents.
After the workshop, City Manager Ferland contacted the Fire Department about the City’s black
SUVs (black Tahoes). They created some confusion and some fear, so she asked to have them
branded, which was in process. The vehicle logos were in production with Gemini Screenprint
and an installation day was pending. She showed the Council a photo of what they would look
like when completed, with “Keene Fire Department,” “City of Keene” and “Chief” or “Deputy”
printed on the SUVs.
The City Manager closed by mentioning the Mayor’s communication to the Governor and
Commissioner (discussed under Announcements), and said it is a process in motion and
hopefully the City would not face this again. She said the City had tried to move the needle and
hopefully those conversations would be useful.
Councilor Tobin said she shared with the City Manager after the ICE Workshop that she
happened to come across a police recruiting video and it was really nice to hear the stories about
why people became police officers and what they cared about. She hopes that we can continue to
see more of that. Councilor Tobin commented about running into a few Police Officers on Main
Street just petting a dog and said she kind of stopped and thought that a lot of those common
230

Page 29 of 146

09/17/2026
experiences where the police become more human are really a step that even though we cannot
do a lot about this other issue, we can be more human and improve those relationships.
Mayor Kahn thanked the City Manager for her work on this and Chief Stewart as well. He also
thanked Deputy City Manager Landry for creating the FAQ, the final version of which would
soon be on the website and social media.
Mayor Kahn called a recess from 9:20 PM to 9:25 PM.
REPORTS - CITY OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENTS - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE KEENE COMMUNITY POWER PLAN - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A memorandum was received from Senior Planner Mari Brunner, recommending that the
proposed amendments to the Keene Community Power Plan be referred to the Finance,
Organization and Personnel Committee. Mayor Kahn referred the amendments to the
Community Power Plan to the Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee.
REPORTS - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
KEENE COMMUNITY POWER PROGRAM - ENERGY & CLIMATE COMMITTEE
An Energy and Climate Committee report was read, unanimously supporting changes to the
Community Power Program. Mayor Kahn referred the recommendation to the Finance,
Organization and Personnel Committee.
MORE TIME - PLD REPORT - COUNCILOR WILLIAMS – REQUEST TO CONSIDER
RESTRICTING THE SALE OF 7- HYDROXYMITRAGYNINE (7-OH) AND
CONCENTRATED KRATOM PRODUCTS
A Planning, Licenses and Development Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
placing Councilor Williams’ Request to Consider Restricting the Sale of 7-Hydroxymitragynine
(7-OH) and Concentrated Kratom Products on More Time. Mayor Kahn granted More Time.
ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING - RELATING TO AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE
VII. - FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS - ORDINANCE O-2026-14
A Planning, Licenses and Development Committee report was read, on a vote of 4–1,
recommending the adoption of Ordinance O-2026-14. Ordinance O-2026-14, Relating to
Amendments to Article VII. - Food Service Establishments, was read into the record for a second
time. A motion by Councilor Filiault to adopt Ordinance O-2026-14 was duly seconded by
Councilor Greenwald.
Councilor Haas noted that he voted against this in Committee mainly because of the process. He
thought it would have been preferable that the those that will be affected by this would have been
notified that the City was considering this change in the Code prior to us making the change in
the Code. Now it was coming out as changed and the City was saying they have one year to
comply, and he said they should comply. Councilor Haas loves Code and always thinks the City
231

Page 30 of 146

09/17/2026
should have the latest codes. However, the fact that they were not given an opportunity to
express their opinion about the change is what concerned Councilor Haas at Committee level. He
said he would be voting in favor of doing this but would hope that the City improves the
communications on it, not just when their license renewal comes up. City Attorney Amanda
Palmeira said there was an Ordinance that went through the City Council process and the
Councilor would be familiar with the first reading that went down to Committee. Second, she
said every Ordinance gets the same notice provisions: publication in the newspaper, in City Hall,
etc. This Ordinance was not treated any differently. City Attorney Palmeira said that when the
Council had seen people come in for comments on previous ordinances, that is because they have
seen those notices. The same notice went out for this Ordinance.
The motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote with 14 Councilors present and voting in
favor. Councilor Jones was absent.
RESOLUTION - RELATING TO THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE
MARLBORO STREET & CHESHIRE RAIL TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT RESOLUTION R-2026-40
A Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee report was read, unanimously recommending
the adoption of Resolution R-2026-40. A motion by Councilor Powers to adopt Resolution R2026-40 was duly seconded by Councilor Lake. The motion carried unanimously with 14
Councilors present and voting in favor. Councilor Jones was absent.
NON-PUBLIC SESSION
A motion by Councilor Greenwald to go into non-public session to discuss litigation matters
pursuant to RSA 91-A:3, II(e) was duly seconded by Councilor Powers. The motion carried
unanimously on a roll call vote with 14 Councilors present and voting in favor. Councilor Jones
was absent.
At 9:35 PM, Mayor Kahn called a brief recess. The non-public session began at 9:40 PM.
The session concluded at 9:53 PM. A motion by Councilor Greenwald to seal the minutes of the
non-public session held this evening as divulgence of the information would render the proposed
actions ineffective was duly seconded by Councilor Filiault. On a roll call vote, 14 Councilors
were present and voting in favor. Councilor Jones was absent.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Kahn adjourned the meeting at 9:54 PM.

A true record, attest:
City Clerk

232

Page 31 of 146

PUBLIC HEARING
Amendment to Land Development Code Amendment to the City of Keene Zoning Map - 0 Howard Street – Medium
Density to Conservation
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the Keene City Council relative to
Ordinance O-2026-13 - Relating to Zone Change. Petitioner, Steven Ringland, proposes to amend
the Zoning Map of the City of Keene by changing the zoning designation of the parcel located at 0
Howard St, TMP# 536-034-000, from Medium Density to Conservation. The total area of land that
would be impacted by this request is ~.91 acres.
The Ordinance is available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk during regular business
hours.
HEARING DATE: October 1, 2026
HEARING TIME: 7:00 pm
HEARING PLACE: Council Chambers, Keene City Hall

Attest:
City Clerk

Page 32 of 146

Monday, September 14, 2026 Joint Planning Board/PLD Meeting Minutes Excerpt:
1.

Public Workshop:

a. Ordinance O-2026-13 - Relating to Zone Change. Petitioner, Steven Ringland, proposes to
amend the Zoning Map of the City of Keene by changing the zoning designation of the parcel
located at 0 Howard St, TMP# 536-034-000, from Medium Density to Conservation. The total
area of land that would be impacted by this request is ~.91 acres.
Mr. Douglas Hill of 123 Elm Street addressed the Committee first and stated it is believed that 0
Howard Street is at the end of Howard Street and noted there are only four houses on Howard
Street and there is no room for conservation. Chair Farrington clarified any address designated as
0 means there are no buildings on this site.
Mr. Steven Ringland of 104 Howard Street addressed the Committee and stated the reason he
filed this petition is because he heard the City was planning to sell this land to a developer. He
indicated no one in this neighborhood wants to see high-density housing on this site, so he and
his neighbors felt placing the land in conservation would be a good idea. He indicated this is a
wooded vacant lot, which has vernal pools and spring peepers. He stated this wooded lot is part
of the character of the neighborhood and provides a privacy buffer, sound buffer, and light
barrier for the neighborhood.
He noted the term “community” is referred to around 403 times in the Master Plan and he felt it
was important for the community to be considered in this change. He indicated on page 41 of
the Master Plan there is reference to a large apartment building on a vacant lot and he did not
want to see that happen on this lot and if this lot is not in conservation it could happen.
He referred to page 5 of the Master Plan, which talks about protecting green spaces and
environmental stewardship, and noted this site attracts a lot of wildlife. He stated the City closes
one of its roads a couple of days a year to let amphibians cross the road, but there are amphibians
here right on this lot and he felt it seemed contradictory. He noted that the Master Plan also has a
summary report, which notes that 82% of people support preserving land for habitat and 78%
support creating and protecting open and green spaces, which is important in shaping the future
of Keene.
Staff comments were next.
Planner Evan Clements addressed the Committee next. Mr. Clements stated the subject parcel is
~0.19-acres in size and is located on the western side of Howard Street, approximately 200 feet
from the intersection with Spruce Street and has ~33 feet of frontage on Howard Street. The
parcel is characterized as relatively flat and was originally several small lots that were part of an
old subdivision that was never developed.
He indicated the City took these parcels as part of a tax deed process and merged the separate
parcels into the current parcel. The merger was done in preparation to market the property
through a request for proposal and development agreement, which was issued on October 10,
2025 to construct housing on the parcel, utilizing the Cottage Court Overlay Ordinance. As part

Page 33 of 146

of the RFP, the City contracted with Fieldstone Land Consultants to perform a wetlands
delineation of the parcel. He noted that the wetlands report dated June 20, 2025, describes 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 the entire area was cleared and open 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 invasive shrubs such as Burning Bush, Ornamental Bittersweet
and Japanese Knotweed. The report notes that while poorly drained soils were present in
accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual report, no
naturally occurring wetland systems were observed on the parcel.
Mr. Clements went on to state the purpose of the Conservation District as outlined under Section
7.3.1 of the Land Development Code (LDC): “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.”
Mr. Clements indicated this parcel is not included in any tier of the New Hampshire Wildlife
Action Plan, as shown on the City’s GIS mapping tool. Additionally, 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.”
He stated based on the analysis of the subject parcel, this do not appear to be any critical or
delicate natural resources located on the site that would warrant any form of conservation effort.
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.
Mr. Clements reminded the Committee that in rezoning decisions, the petitioner’s intended use
of the property should not be considered, but rather the permitted uses allowed in the proposed
district should be evaluated for their suitability on the site. Additionally, the Committee 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, Mr. Clements stated that the 2025 Comprehensive Master
Plan was endorsed by the City Council on September 18, 2025 with the adoption of Resolution

Page 34 of 146

2025-32 and was subsequently adopted by the Planning Board at their meeting on September 29,
2025.
He noted 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 1: 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 address the identified housing need, the plan includes the
following goals that staff believe are in conflict with the proposed map amendment.
Goal 1 - Boost infill development and redevelopment
Goal 2 - Remove barriers to housing development
Goal 4 - Increase the diversity of housing options and price points.
Mr. Clements noted the subject parcel is a prime example of an infill housing opportunity
because it is 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
construction of a variety of housing types utilizing the Cottage Court Overlay, which would
allow for a mix of single units, duplexes, and townhouse-style building forms.
Mr. Clements referred to Pillar 6 next.
Pillar 6 - Flourishing Environment. This Pillar discusses the importance of environmental
stewardship and climate adaptation through renewable energy systems, ecological protection,
and sustainable development practices. This 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,
which staff believe are in conflict with this proposal.
Goal 1 - Promote smart land use and development.
Goal 2 - Prioritize environmental protection and sustainability.
Goal 3 - 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 storm water runoff.
The existing site does not provide for water detention, as the existing soils are poorly drained and
do not allow for infiltration.
Mr. Clements felt a well-designed development has the potential to improve the existing
drainage and runoff conditions for the surrounding area. The Master Plan promotes protecting
wildlife corridors from fracturing and conserving large areas of high quality conservation land.

Page 35 of 146

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, is filled with
invasive species, and is of low quality in terms of natural resources worth conserving.
With reference to the Future Land Use Map, Mr. Clements stated, 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 vehicleoriented 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 west of the Residential Neighborhood Area that is being discussed today. 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.
Mr. Clements stated the Committee will need to determine if the proposed zone change and the
subject parcel itself reflects the intent of the adopted Future Land Use Map.
He noted the intent statements for the Medium Density District states that, “the…District is
intended to provide for medium intensity residential development and associated uses. All uses in
the district shall have City water and sewer.”
The 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 these intent statements, the proposed rezoning 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.
Mr. Clements indicated the staff report also includes the uses permitted uses and dimensional
requirements for both districts. He added that if this rezoning were to go through, it would render
this parcel non-conforming. If it was zoned Conservation, there is a five-acre minimum lot size,
as well as setbacks and frontage constraints with which the parcel would not comply
Councilor Williams asked for ownership of the property. Mr. Clements stated there is currently a
purchase and sales agreement pending and the buyer has put down a deposit, but the sale has not
been finalized yet.

Page 36 of 146

Mr. Kost asked how long ago there was a subdivision involving this property. Mr. Clements
stated he did not recall but it was a long time ago. It has been off the tax rolls for a while.
Councilor Jones asked whether the Zoning Ordinance that was approved in September 2025,
which increased the allowable number of residential units by right in Medium Density District
from three to six per building – whether that meets this standard. Mr. Clements agreed this parcel
is in Medium Density and would be permitted to have up to six units in a single building.
Chair Filiault asked for public comment.
Jeannie Kingsbury of 34 Spruce Street addressed the Committee and named the animals this area
attracts, including foxes, bobcats, deer, bears, raccoons, rabbits, wood chucks, and a bald eagle.
She questioned how the City does not consider this a fragile environment. She felt this area
needs to be protected.
Ms. Kingsbury stated she has 15 feet of crushed rock on all four sides of her foundation and her
sump pumps run all year round, even in the winter. She went on to say when she purchased her
property, she was told nobody could build on this parcel because it is too wet and she questioned
what has changed since that time. She stressed many animals rely on that quiet space in the
middle of the City.
Mr. Marcus McCarroll on 130 Woodburn Street addressed the Committee and stated he also has
a warehouse he uses to fix bicycles. He stated he would not mind seeing running water in his
warehouse and would not mind seeing tiny houses constructed on this land but would not want to
see the forest clear cut. He agreed this area does attract a lot of wildlife. He felt a bicycle road
would be an option, but not a road that motorized vehicles could drive on.
Mr. Ringland addressed the Committee again and questioned the large map he paid for and stated
he would like to see that displayed. Ms. Brunner stated that map was included in the committee’s
agenda packet, which is available online.
Councilor Haas asked for the map to be displayed as well.
Mr. Kyle Mason of 96 Arch Street was next to address the Committee. He stated he lived at 135
Howard Street for many years. He indicated any home between 135 Howard and Carroll Street,
(which used to be his great grandfather’s land) has sunk. He noted anything that is going to be
built would need piles to be driven in. He questioned the money spent to locate a soccer field on
Spruce Street, but the soccer field does not exist anymore due to how wet this area is.
Mr. Doug Hill of 123 Elm Street stated he has lived in his home since 1976. Mr. Hill stated he
was also a former City Councilor from the same ward. He stated he has lived in five apartment
houses and three different residences in the same neighborhood during his lifetime. He stated he
knows of a house where the south end of the house is a foot lower than the north end and their
sump pump runs 24 hours a day all year around.

Page 37 of 146

He felt housing would add additional strain on the neighborhood and did not feel developing the
property is in the best interest of the community.
Mr. Eli Kingsbury of 34 Spruce Street stated any time he starts digging for a project, anything
past four inches deep causes the hole to start filling up with water. He stated most of the
properties in this area have sinking problems and need specialized pillars to hold them up. Mr.
Kingsbury stated they have had to acquire a larger sump pump to keep up with the water. He did
not feel it would not be appropriate to place any more housing on this parcel.
Ms. Jenna LaJoie of 123 Howard Street addressed the Committee stated she agrees with what has
already been stated. She stated her concern is the constant development of land adding
residential units into neighborhoods and turning the quaint atmosphere of Keene into a much
more populated area
Ms. Danny Wheeler of 55 Howard Street questioned what happens when a developer realizes the
property is actually wetlands. She noted that at one point this piece of property used to be a
dump. She questioned what changes would be made by the City to accommodate constructing on
this property.
Chair Filiault referred this question to staff; if somebody were to build a house what the
requirements would be. Ms. Brunner explained there is a difference between wetlands and
unstable soils. She stated there are ways to engineer buildings on unstable soils, which would
add cost, but it can be done. She added her understanding is that this is all very public
knowledge, so whoever purchases the land is well aware of the extra cost that would be involved.
As far as the structural integrity of any building that is built, that would be reviewed through the
building permit process and would also be inspected. She noted the City has fully trained staff
who would both review the plans and inspect during construction to make sure that whatever is
built is safe and structurally sound.
Ms. Wheeler stated she is now finding structural things in her house that were ignored during
construction and stated she is less trusting that experts would adhere to requirements.
Councilor Haas addressed the Committee and stated rules for construction do not change
regardless of where is property is constructed. He also added there are now modern building
codes that have only been with us maybe for three decades and are effective to address these
situations. Hence, houses that were constructed in the past often had issues. He added however,
there are no City inspections for housing that is modified by their owners without seeking
building permits.
Ms. Candy Dionne of 22 Spruce Street stated she agrees that this is a wet area and has concerns
about adding more structures. She stated she has had to replace her sump pump every year and is
dealing with mold in her basement due to water issues and has multiple floods and many
insurance claims. Hence, adding more people and more buildings in this confined space that
already has these issues is concerning, especially if new water and sewer lines are introduced.
Ms. Dionne questioned how her home would be protected with these changes.

Page 38 of 146

Councilor Haas questioned the process moving forward.
Chair Farrington stated once the public portion is closed, Committee deliberation would begin,
which starts with a motion on the table.
Mr. Carl Mason of 96 Arch Street stated he believes one of the houses on Carroll Street that was
sinking was removed.
Ms. Danny Wheeler addressed the Committee again and asked where the access was going to be
for this Cottage Court. Chair Filiault stated at this point the request was to only rezone this
property to Conservation. Councilor Ruttle-Miller stated it looks like the property extends
towards Howard Street between 124 and 142 Howard Street where the site meets the road and
felt the property would be accessed at that location. Chair Filiault stressed there is no building
permit yet.
Mr. Marcus McCarroll stated he would not want to lose access to the right-of-way.
With no further comment, Chair Filiault closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Harold Farrington that the Planning Board find that Ordinance 0-2026-13
to be inconsistent with the 2025 Comprehensive Master Plan. The motion was seconded by
Mayor Kahn.
The Mayor stated what is before the Committee tonight is establishment of a Conservation
District. He indicated this is a residential neighborhood and to designate this land as anything
other than that would not be consistent with the Master Plan or with zoning. He felt the decision
before the Board tonight is an easy decision, but the decision down the road might be something
different.
Chair Farrington stated for planning purposes the term “wetlands” has a specific designation and
those wetlands are delineated on City of Keene maps and are very specifically noted. He felt it
was incorrect to use the term “wetlands” for this parcel, but whether or not the soil can support a
building is not what is before the Committee tonight
Mr. Bergeron stated he too would agree with the Mayor and noted Planning Staff brought up a
good point in that all other parcels in this neighborhood are Medium Density. Turning this parcel
into Conservation would be spot zoning, which leaves the City open to a lawsuit.
Chair Filiault explained to the public that the Committee is not discussing any potential buildings
on this site. What is being is discussed tonight, is whether it would make sense to rezone this site
to Conservation.
Councilor Ellis stated Mr. Ringland kept referring to high-density housing but noted this is a
Medium Density zone and high-density housing would not be permitted here. She also added she
lives at the corner of Cross Street and Carroll Street and talked about wildlife she sees on her
property. She felt some people might be under the impression that the City is proposing to build

Page 39 of 146

right now, but that is not the proposal. She went on to say, the City is selling this property and
the buyer can use it for any permitted use. She further stated if the City owns this property, it is
not on the tax rolls, but once it is sold, the City could be recouping some tax money. As staff had
mentioned this property was also subdivided decades ago, but nothing came of it.
Mr. Kost stated there were good comments made about the quality of the land, animals and their
habitat, which he stated was great. With respect to the engineering issues, he noted this would be
up to the developer to decide if it could be done and how it would be done. He stated he often
hears about Keene not having areas to build houses and Keene has a housing crisis and felt
taking a piece of land and changing its zoning so houses cannot be built is against the core
concept of the pillar of the Master Plan and hence he would not approve of this zoning change
request.
The motion made by Chair Farrington carried on a unanimous vote by the Planning Board.
A motion was made by Councilor Jones that the Joint Committee request the City Council
schedule a public hearing on Ordinance 0-2026-13. The motion was seconded by Councilor
Williams and unanimously approved.
Councilor Haas asked when the public hearing will be scheduled. Ms. Brunner stated the request
will be sent to the City Clerk’s Office who would schedule the hearing, abutters will be noticed
and there will be a posting in The Keene Sentinel.
Councilor Ruttle-Miller asked with conservation land whether there was stricter definition as to
sale of land. Ms. Brunner stated if it is zoned conservation the value of the land would be lower
because nothing can be built on it.
The motion made by Councilor Jones carried on a unanimous vote by the PLD Committee.

Page 40 of 146

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Joint Planning Board & PLD Committee (PB-PLD)

FROM:

Evan J. Clements, AICP – Planner/Zoning Administrator

THROUGH:

Mari Brunner, Senior Planner

DATE:

September 4, 2026

SUBJECT:

Ordinance O-2026-13 – Relating to Map Amendment 0 Howard Street,
Medium Density to Conservation

Recommendations:
Planning Board:

“To find that Ordinance O-2026-13 is inconsistent with the 2025 Comprehensive Master
Plan.”
Planning, Licenses, & Development Committee:

“To recommend that the City Council hold a public hearing.”
Background:
Petitioner, Steven Ringland, proposes to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Keene
by changing the zoning designation of the parcel located at 0 Howard St, TMP# 536-034-000,
from Medium Density to Conservation. The total area of land that would be impacted by this
request is ~.91 acres. The applicant is owner of 104 Howard St which is located approximately
350 ft from, and does not abut, the subject parcel.
The subject parcel is located on the western side of Howard St approximately 200 ft from the
intersection with Spruce St with 33 ft of frontage on Howard St. The parcel is characterized as
relatively flat and was originally several small lots that were part of an old subdivision that was
never developed. The City took the parcels as part of a tax deed process and merged the separate
parcels into the current subject parcel. The merger was done in preparation to market the property
through a Request for Proposal (RFP) and development agreement, issued on October 10, 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, PLLC to perform a
wetland delineation of the parcel. The wetland report dated June 20, 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 open in the past and has since become forested with trees and
underbrush. The vegetation identified in the report included Black Cherry and Norway Maple trees
and invasive shrubs such as Burning Bush, Oriental bittersweet and Japanese Knotweed. The

Page 41 of 146

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 wetlands were observed
on the parcel.
The purpose of the Conservation zoning district, per section 7.3.1 of the Land Development Code,
states, “The Conservation (C) District is intended to provide for those 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 NH Wildlife Action Plan, as
shown on the City GIS mapping tool and 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, 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, there does not appear to be critical or delicate natural
resources located on site that would warrant 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, that 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 Comprehensive Master Plan and public goals.
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 and review:
• Surrounding land use and zoning patterns;
• The consistency of the proposed rezoning request with the Master Plan;
• Existing and proposed zoning requirements; and,
• Possible resulting impacts.

Page 42 of 146

Figure 1. Area proposed to be rezoned from Medium Density to Conservation.

Master Plan Consistency:
The 2025 Comprehensive Master Plan was endorsed by City Council on September 18th with the
adoption of Resolution R-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 1: 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 address the identified housing need, the plan states the following goals
that are in conflict with this proposal.
•
•
•

Goal 1: Boost Infill Development and Redevelopment
Goal 2: Remove Barriers to Housing Development
Goal 4: Increase the Diversity of Housing Options and Price Points

The subject parcel is a prime example of infill housing opportunity as it is 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 was 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

Page 43 of 146

utilizing the Cottage Court Overlay, which would allow for a mix of single unit, duplex, and
townhouse style building types.

Pillar 6: Flourishing Environment
This pillar discusses the importance of environmental stewardship and climate adaptation
through renewable energy sources, 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 are in conflict with
this proposal.
•
•
•

Goal 1: Promote Smart Land Use and Development
Goal 2: Prioritize Environmental Protection and Sustainability
Goal 3: Integrate Green Technologies and Best Practices in Keene’s Built Environment

The City’s Site Development Standards promote low impact site design that utilize green
infrastructure practices to manage development impacts such as stormwater runoff. The existing
site does not provide for much water detention as the existing soils are poorly drained and do not
allow for infiltration of water. 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.
Future Land Use Map:
The area proposed to be re-zoned 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 orientated 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 are located to the east and west of the Residential
Neighborhood area that the subject parcel is located in. The Conservation and Low-Impact
Recreation areas are described as areas with, “…lots of steep slopes, wetlands, vernal pools,
streams, 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 will need to determine if the proposed zone change and the subject parcel reflects
the intent of the adopted Future Land Use Map.

Page 44 of 146

Intent of the Zoning Districts:
The proposal is to rezone an existing .91-acre parcel from the Medium Density district to the
Conservation district. A description of each of these districts from the Zoning Ordinance is
included below.
• Current Zoning – Medium Density: The Medium Density (MD) District is intended to
provide for medium intensity residential development and associated uses. All uses in this
district shall have city water and sewer service.
•

Proposed Zoning – Conservation: The Conservation (C) District is intended to provide for
those lands which have been identified as necessary to preserve as open space because
of their critical or 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.
District Uses: The permitted uses of the Medium Density (existing) and Conservation (proposed)
differ significantly. Medium Density allows for the residential development of single-family,
duplex, and multifamily up to six dwelling units as well as modest commercial uses with
limitations through a Conditional Use Permit process. The Conservation district only allows for
conservation areas and cemeteries. Table 1 shows the permitted uses for Medium Density and
Table 2 shows the permitted uses for Conservation.

Table 2: Conservation Uses

Table 1: Medium Density Uses

Page 45 of 146

Dimensional Requirements:
Table 3 highlights the dimensional requirements for the Medium Density and Conservation
districts. The height and frontage requirements for both districts are the same, however, lot area,
width at building line, and the setbacks differ significantly. Additionally the lot coverage
requirements are also notably different and reflect the intended uses in each district. It is worth
noting that the proposed zone change to Conservation would render the subject parcel legal nonconforming in terms of lot size and width at building line as the required lot area in Conservation
is 5 acres with a 200 ft width at building line requirement. The subject parcel is .91 acres and
approximately 170 ft at its widest.

Table 3: Dimensional Regulations for the Medium Density & Conservation Districts

Dimensional Standard

Medium Density

Minimum Lot Area
8,000-sf (~0.18-ac)
Minimum Lot Width at Building
60’
Line
Minimum Road Frontage
50’
Minimum Front Setback
15’
Minimum Rear Setback
15
Minimum Side Setback
10’
Maximum Building Coverage
45%
Maximum Impervious Coverage 60%
Minimum Green / Open Space
40%
Maximum Stories Above Grade 2
Maximum Building Height

35’

Conservation
5 ac
200’
50’
50’
50’
50’
10%
20%
2
35

Page 46 of 146

Page 47 of 146

----------- 09/14/2026
--------- 10/1/2026

Page 48 of 146

Page 49 of 146

Page 50 of 146

®

City of Keene, NH
1 inch = 138 Feet

July 1, 2026

0

138

276

414

Addresses

Public Road

Property TIC

Buildings 2025

Condo

Private Road ROW

TaxmapText_Arrowheads

Right of Ways

Property Line

PropNotPar

TaxmapText_Leaders

MEDIUM DENSITY

www.cai-tech.com

Data shown on this map is provided for planning and informational purposes only. The municipality and CAI Technologies are not responsible for any use for other purposes or misuse or misrepresentation of this map.

Page 51 of 146

ORDINANCE

O-2026-13

CITY OF KEENE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and
AN ORDINANCE

Twenty Six

Relating to an Amendment to the City of Keene Zoning Map - 0 Howard Street –
Medium Density to Conservation

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Keene, as follows:

That the Zoning Map of the City of Keene, as amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zoning designation of property located at 0 Howard Street (Tax Map Parcel
Number 536-034-000) from Medium Density (MD) to Conservation.

_________________________________

Jay V. Kahn, Mayor
In City Council July 2, 2026.
Referred to the Joint Planning Board/
Planning, Licenses and Development Committee.
City Clerk

Page 52 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Mayor Jay V. Kahn

Through:

Terri Hood, City Clerk

Subject:

Nomination - Human Rights Committee

ITEM #B.1.

Recommendation:
Attachments:
1.
Perkins, Mackenzie_redacted

Background:
I hereby nominate the following individuals to serve on the designated Board or Commission:
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
Mackenzie Perkins

December 31, 2028

Alternate Member
Slot 13

2026-474
Page 53 of 146

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

City of Keene <[email protected]>
Monday, June 22, 2026 12:01 AM
Meagan McLaughlin; Terri Hood; Heather Fitz-Simon
New submission from City Board or Commission Volunteer Form

Submitted on 06/22/2026
Submitted fields are:
Name
Mackenzie Perkins
Email

Phone

Address
keene, New Hampshire 03431
United States
Map It
How long have you resided in Keene?
15yrs
Employer
Father bills
Occupation
Case manager
Retired?
No
Please list any organizations, groups, or other committees you are involved in
n/a
Have you ever served on a public body before?
Yes
Please select the Boards or Commissions you would be most interested in serving on.

•

Human Rights Committee

Please let us know the Board or Commission that you are most interested in serving on.
Human Rights Committee

Page 54 of 146

Please share what your interests are and your background or any skill sets that may apply.
My interest are open to a wide array of cultures and understanding them better to build a good community. My
social awareness and emotional intelligence are fine tuned and a great skill I have found in life.
Suggest other public bodies of interest
energy and climate committee

Please provide two personal references:
Name
Katy kuehl
Email

Phone

Name
ben albert
Email

Phone

Page 55 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #C.1.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Councilor Randy Filiault

Through:

Terri Hood, City Clerk

Subject:

Councilor Filiault - Request to Review Planned Traffic Lane Configuration
Around Central Square

Recommendation:
Attachments:
1.
Filiault_Communication

Background:
Councilor Filiault is requesting to review the planned single travel lane around the northern section of
the Common in Central Square and consider retaining two travel lanes. He mentions concerns
regarding traffic patterns and congestion during peak travel hours and states that the proposed
change could be made without additional construction or cost.

2026-459
Page 56 of 146

Page 57 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #C.2.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Kenneth Kost

Through:

Terri Hood, City Clerk

Subject:

Kenneth Kost - In Opposition to Solar Pavilion Conceptual Design
Recommendations

Recommendation:
Attachments:
1.
Communication_Kost_redacted

Background:
Mr. Kost submitted a communication opposing the current solar pavilion conceptual design
recommendations, stating that the design will reduce the potential for use as housing and commercial
buildings and will not achieve the vision for this site as defined in the land development code and
master plan.

2026-467
Page 58 of 146

Subject: Please consider the full value of this site before building the solar pavilion in
the parking lot
October 1, 2026
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
The image below shows how the pavilion, if built in the parking lot, reduces the potential
for use as housing and commercial buildings and will not achieve the vision for this site
as defined in our land development code and our master plan. A 5 story building located
50’ from the pavilion will shade the solar panels from September through March.

Conflict with Form-Based Code
Our Land Development Code explicitly designates this site for Form-Based Code
development aiming to build a vibrant, walkable, street-focused downtown. Siting a
pavilion here prevents that vision:

Page 59 of 146

•

A 5-story building needs to be located far from the pavilion so it does not shade
the panels. This distance essentially eliminates the development potential of the
site.

•

A 7-story building (permitted in this zone) needs an even larger distance from the
pavilion, and cannot be built here without shading the panels.

Unmatched Potential & Municipal Control
Because Keene owns this land, the city possesses complete leverage—greater than on
any private property along Gilbo Avenue—to shape development as envisioned in our
master plan and Land Development Code.
As example, Lancaster, Massachusetts is maximizing public land to solve critical
housing needs. They hired an urban designer (Jeff Speck) to craft a master plan for
vacant government owned land and released an RFP to developers to realize that plan.
That project will yield hundreds of new homes in a walkable neighborhood.
•

Read about the Lancaster Framework Plan

•

View the Lancaster RFP

Conclusion
A fully realized downtown neighborhood with housing, local retail, outdoor dining, and
sustained tax generation is a far higher-and-better use of this valuable property than a
solar pavilion. I ask the Council to vote against this MSFI recommendation and protect
the site's long-term value.

Ken Kost
Calculation note: Standard Industry Solar Buffer Standard: In commercial solar design,
engineers generally target zero-shading between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM year-round or
focus on protecting spring-to-autumn production (where 75%+ of annual kWh yield
occurs). A 125-foot buffer provides near-complete winter protection from a 5 story
building.

Page 60 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #C.3.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Martin Wyman

Through:

Terri Hood, City Clerk

Subject:

Martin Wyman - Request for Enforcement of City Ordinance Regarding
Barking Dogs

Recommendation:
Attachments:
1.
Communication_Wyman

Background:
Martin Wyman is requesting the City enforce the City Ordinance relating to nuisance dogs (Chapter
10, Section 10-35(b)(1)) as it relates to what he describes as ongoing excessive dog barking coming
from an an adjacent property in his neighborhood.

2026-471
Page 61 of 146

Page 62 of 146

Page 63 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #C.4.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Elizabeth Sayre

Through:

Terri Hood, City Clerk

Subject:

Kiwanis Club of Keene - Request to Use City Property - Tree Lighting
Ceremony

Recommendation:
Attachments:
1.
KKF 2026 Letter to Mayor and CIty Council

Background:
The Kiwanis Club of Keene is requesting their annual license to conduct the Tree Lighting Ceremony
on Central Square on Friday, November 27, 2026.

2026-472
Page 64 of 146

Page 65 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #D.1.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee, Standing Committee

Through:
Subject:

Duncan Hilchey and Amy Christian - Request for a Traffic Study and Safety
Assessment of School Street

Recommendation:
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends
referring the request for a traffic study and safety assessment of School St. to staff for a report back.
Attachments:
None
Background:
Duncan Hilchey (of 45 School St.) stated that he appreciates the opportunity to speak here and he
has a statement on behalf of himself, his wife, and a few residents of the Ashuelot neighborhood he
and his wife have spoken to regarding traffic speeds and related noise on School, Winter, and
Summer Streets. He continued that he thanks the Public Works Department for installing a speed
radar sign this summer. Whether it has made a difference is unclear, but they are grateful for the
effort. School St. serves as a bypass to Keene’s central business district. Residents he spoke with
understand that reality and accept it to one degree or another. School St. issues have been an
ongoing concern for neighborhood residents for decades. The concerns flare up when something bad
happens. For example, a pedestrian was hit years ago and the City added a stop sign at the
intersection of School and Summer Streets. The school zone there now has somewhat established a
control of traffic.
Mr. Hilchey continued that he observes that people generally drive the 30-mph speed limit, but they
do not seem to slow to 20 mph when the schools let in or out, which is an issue. Some of the traffic
noise and speed level might be seasonal or temporary due to construction around Central Square. In
any case, neighborhood residents have, over the years, suggested speed bumps and raised
crosswalks to reduce speeds and possibly lower the noise from revving engines and motorcycles.
However, what they know is anecdotal. They do not know the problem’s scale and scope or how to
mitigate it. They respectfully request that the City consider conducting a study that examines:
• Vehicle traffic volumes and patterns on School St.
2026-398
Page 66 of 146

• Vehicle speeds and the prevalence of speeding when the 20-mph speed limit should be
enforced
• The extent to which School St. functions as a cut-through route for drivers seeking to avoid
Central Square and other downtown congestion
• Pedestrian- and school-related safety conditions, such as how safe it is for bicyclists
• Traffic noise, particularly from motorcycles and vehicles with missing or modified mufflers
• Potential opportunities for traffic calming, safety improvements, and other appropriate
measures, such as adding a “School Zone” sign closer to the intersection of West St. and
School St.
Mr. Hilchey continued that he, his wife, and other neighbors believe a careful, data-informed
assessment would provide a clearer understanding of the current conditions and help identify
whether changes are warranted. Keene’s downtown and surrounding neighborhoods are closely
interconnected. The downtown revitalization program is critical to the city, but maintaining a vibrant
central business district should not come at the expense of the safety, livability, and residential
character of nearby streets. They respectfully ask the City to consider this and to work with the
neighborhood residents to evaluate possible next steps.
Chair Greenwald thanked Mr. Hilchey for his clear, well-written presentation.
City Manager Elizabeth Ferland stated that she knows School St. is a cut-through, and currently it is
a detour, depending on where the construction is happening around Central Square. The street is
seeing increased traffic, which will happen throughout the downtown project. As the construction
work continues to move, the side streets nearby will be used as detours. This will be a continued
concern for several years. She noticed that Public Works put up a speed sign on School St., so they
were already gathering some information when Mr. Hilchey’s letter came in. Public Works can get a
good sense of traffic counts and speeds. Regarding the letter’s other suggestions, traffic concerns
are an issue throughout the city, especially in neighborhoods. Staff have heard that many times and
they try to take actions to mitigate that. It is somewhat limited in nature, but they are happy to
continue the conversations. She asks the MSFI Committee to refer Mr. Hilchey’s letter to staff, so
staff can look at it and then report back.
Chair Greenwald asked for public comments.
Sunny Art (of 150 Court St.) stated that her house is on the corner of School St. She continued that
she also emailed this week, because the corner is “a nightmare” and has only gotten worse with the
new traffic. People are aggressive, especially when people on School St. are trying to turn left on
Court St. and there are drivers, cyclists, pedestrians crossing, the school, and the bus stop. Traffic
and problems have increased. They need to figure something out.\
Mr. Hilchey stated that he and his wife have to do what they call “budging,” nudging their car out a
little bit into the intersection on Court St. just to get enough attention to get into the flow of traffic. He
continued that otherwise, you could sit for five or ten minutes, trying to get in. He does not know
whether the location needs traffic control devices. Maybe it needs temporary alternatives. They
cannot just rely on citizen friendliness to make that easier. Budging could lead to accidents.
Ms. Art replied that she, too, wondered about a traffic light and then thought that would probably
make it worse. She continued that maybe not allowing left turns onto Court St., or something like that,
2026-398
Page 67 of 146

would help.
Chair Greenwald replied that staff will think about everything possible. He continued that he does not
know whether it is legal, but he would like to see an individual flagger assisting.
Nancy Ancharski (of 60 School St.) stated that she has lived on School St. since 1993. She
continued that the traffic problems, especially the speeds, have increased dramatically. She is glad to
not have young children at home anymore, because the speeds are sometimes scary. People stop at
the stop sign but then speed up to make up the difference. Mr. Hilchey replied that he can confirm
that people are regularly speeding ten miles per hour beyond the limit in the mornings and afternoons
when it is supposed to be 20 mph.
Councilor Tobin stated that while walking on School St., she noticed that only about two out of ten
drivers stopped at the stop signs. She continued that at the turn onto Court St. near Leverett St., you
cannot see around the corner if you stop where the line is. That might be a problem. Chair
Greenwald agreed that drivers “pause” at the stop signs.
Councilor Workman stated that she thinks it is well-known that she is always pushing for more
speeding enforcement and solutions to traffic problems, but as a Colorado St. resident, she
understands what Mr. Hilchey and the neighbors are saying. She, too, regularly sees what they are
describing. She is sure the City Manager will have some creative options for the Committee.
The following motion by Councilor Favolise was duly seconded by Councilor Tobin.
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends
referring the request for a traffic study and safety assessment of School St. to staff for a report back.

2026-398
Page 68 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #D.2.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee, Standing Committee

Through:
Subject:

Michael Guitard/Guitard Homes LLC - Petition for City Ownership of Water
and Sewer Infrastructure - Cottage Court Community on Court Street

Recommendation:
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities, and Infrastructure Committee recommends
accepting the water and sewer infrastructure proposed to be constructed as part of the proposed
Cottage Court Development on Court St. (Parcel No. 228-016), including valves, hydrants, manholes
and other appurtenances, but excluding individual dwelling unit service connections, be accepted as
Public Infrastructure. Approval and final acceptance shall be subject to the conditions and
requirements listed in Article 23.2.2, 23.2.3 and 23.2.4 of the Land Development Code.
Attachments:
None
Background:
Michael Guitard of Guitard Homes LLC stated that this application’s benefit to the City is that
maintenance of the water lines tied to the City infrastructure would ensure that water quality was
maintained. He continued that there will be an additional hydrant adjacent to Genesis Healthcare. A
looped water line will maintain the pressure in the neighborhood.
Chair Greenwald added that for those unaware, this is on Court St. by Genesis Healthcare. He
continued that the big, cleared area is about to be housing.
Don Lussier, Public Works Director, stated that as Mr. Guitard explained, this is a petition to accept
infrastructure as public infrastructure. He continued that Chapter 23 of the Land Development Code
(LDC) spells out that process. The additional documents in the agenda packet are all the items the
LDC requires for a petition of this nature. The design for the water distribution system on site meets
the public infrastructure standards, regarding the size of mains, standard hydrants, valves, and so on
and so forth. Public mains would supply individual services lines to each dwelling unit. The valves
and hydrants would be owned and maintained by the City. City staff could flush the water mains as
part of their biannual program and ensure the water quality in the mains is maintained. The City
would own and operate the individual curb stops serving the dwelling units. Thus, if City staff turns
and breaks a valve, fixing it would be the City’s responsibility, since the City would be maintaining
2026-396
Page 69 of 146

them. Since the City would be maintaining them, the City would have reasonable expectations that
they be working when they need them.
Mr. Lussier continued that the individual dwelling units will be owned by the tenants as
condominiums. There is a plan, included in the agenda packet, to create a condominium for this
property. That allows the City to use a state law element to attach liens to real property in order to
collect water and sewer utility debt. Without encumbering the entire development, the City could
attach a lien to just a single tenant space.
Mr. Lussier continued that regarding Mr. Guitard’s request, staff does not have a preference. It is a
City Council decision. The City would be responsible for the care and maintenance of an additional
1,200 linear feet of water mains and sewer lines. That adds cost to annual maintenance. On the other
hand, it would be public infrastructure, and the City could maintain it, ensure water quality, ensure the
sewer lines were cleaned regularly, and provide reliable service to those homes.
Chair Greenwald asked if there would be any reason to not approve this. Mr. Lussier replied that as
he said, staff does not have a strong opinion. He continued that the only reason to not approve it
would be the additional maintenance costs and liability the City would be taking on. He continued that
eventually, many years from now, the City would have to replace the mains.
Councilor Favolise asked Mr. Lussier to explain the rationale for why there is a different approach for
condominium-style developments as opposed to other residential uses. Mr. Lussier replied that water
quality will always be the primary concern. He continued that with public infrastructure City staff can
take actions to ensure water quality. If they have a problem with the water quality, they can flush it
through a standard-sized hydrant. The six-inch barrel hydrant allows them to get proper flushing
velocities and clean that line, whereas a two-inch blow-off would not. A smaller line is fine for
bleeding the air out, but it would not allow them to flush the main and get the needed velocity of water
in the pipe to mobilize the sediment. The other issue is related to collections and revenue. It would be
difficult to justify turning off water to an entire development because a single tenant did not pay their
bill, but if there is a real property that is defined as part of a condominium, the City can attach the lien
to the condo owner.
Chair Greenwald asked for public comments or questions. Hearing none, he asked if the Committee
had further comments.
Councilor Workman stated that she thinks this is a normal tradeoff for the City, as far as encouraging
housing development. She continued that as new housing is built, she is sure the City Council will
continue to run into these types of issues. She is in favor of approving this.
Chair Greenwald stated that most importantly, this is being constructed to City standards. He
continued that that is very important, because they might hear about the City taking over the road,
too, in the future. Mr. Lussier replied that that is not a conversation at this point.
The following motion by Councilor Workman was duly seconded by Councilor Tobin.
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities, and Infrastructure Committee recommends
accepting the water and sewer infrastructure proposed to be constructed as part of the proposed
Cottage Court Development on Court St. (Parcel No. 228-016), including valves, hydrants, manholes
and other appurtenances, but excluding individual dwelling unit service connections, be accepted as
2026-396
Page 70 of 146

Public Infrastructure. Approval and final acceptance shall be subject to the conditions and
requirements listed in Article 23.2.2, 23.2.3 and 23.2.4 of the Land Development Code.

2026-396
Page 71 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #D.3.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee, Standing Committee

Through:
Subject:

Shawn Voisine/Elmside LLC - Request for Waiver of City Public Utilities
Standards for Water Metering Infrastructure - Elmside Cottage Court

Recommendation:
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities, and Infrastructure Committee recommends
denying the Petitioner’s request to waive City of Keene Public Works standards for the referenced
project.
Attachments:
None
Background:
Chair Greenwald stated that previously, he had stated he felt he had a conflict, since his office was
possibly involved in the project, which it is no longer. Therefore, he has no conflict. He asked to hear
from Shawn Voisine.
Shawn Voisine (of Surry) stated that Fieldstone designed Elmside Cottage Court, and they were all
under the impression that it was public. He continued that there is a lot of confusion. He is not
pointing fingers, but they thought it was public, and then it came up that it is private. They were asked
to put a heated shed in for a main water meter. They are looking to have that waived for a few
reasons. If there is a power outage, it could freeze, disrupting water to all 18 homes. The other issues
are accurate and fair billing, and increased costs for residents. They want to have it set up the way it
is for normal people. His request is a little different than the prior item. Initially, he was going to go
with the request for the City to accept the infrastructure as public, but because of where they are at,
he figured this would be an easier avenue. The easement is already drawn in, if the City needed to
come do a shut off. Each home would have a curb stop and individual meter, and easements would
be in place.
Mr. Lussier stated that for this request, unfortunately, the answer is different. As Mr. Voisine
explained, they are requesting a waiver to public infrastructure standards. The standard is in Section
23.3.11.e of the LDC. It says, “The owner of water service into a commercial, industrial, or
institutional building or use shall install, maintain, and inspect, at their own expense, a backflow
prevention device approved by the Public Works Director.” In this instance, a property with 18
2026-440
Page 72 of 146

dwelling units qualifies as commercial use. Staff interprets it as the property needing a backflow
prevention system. The backflow prevention, as the developer explained, has to be above ground in
an enclosed structure that protects it from freezing. The meter would also go in that same building.
The differences are related to ownership and responsibility for the infrastructure. This project meets
the definition of a commercial project because it is three or more dwelling units on a single parcel.
The distribution system is not under City control, so the City cannot ensure the water quality to the
individual tenants. The valves and blowoffs on the property are not owned or operated by the City.
Mr. Voisine expressed willingness to give the City an easement so City staff could operate individual
valves to turn off tenant spaces if need be, but they would still be owned by the property owner.
Thus, if City staff breaks something or something is not functioning, who is responsible for repairing it
at that point is a concern. The other piece is the state law about collections. The City is allowed to
attach a lien to real property for an unpaid bill, but he does not believe the City would be able to
attach a lien to the entirety of this parcel if one individual tenant had not paid their bill.
Mr. Lussier continued that he understands that this agenda item seems similar to the previous one,
but there are differences. The distribution system is not built to City standards, does not have the
features the City would need in order to maintain it and ensure the water quality was maintained, and
will not be operated by the City so City staff cannot ensure the valves were working properly when
needed. For those reasons, staff recommends against this waiver request.
Chair Greenwald stated that he assumes that with some time spent working with the Petitioner, they
could work out solutions to these issues. Mr. Lussier replied that staff have discussed with the
Petitioner the alternative of going the route of the previous item, building the system to Public
Infrastructure Standards, and requesting and petitioning the City Council to accept it as public
infrastructure. Then they would be in the same boat. It is about control of the water mains and water
quality more than anything else.
Councilor Favolise stated that he is still trying to wrap his head around the thrust of his previous
question. He continued that he keeps coming back to the fairness in billing issue. It does not make
sense to him, as someone who has never lived in a condominium complex. Maybe that is normal for
condominiums and people accept that as the community-building aspect, but he is still thinking
through it. The City Engineer’s memorandum to the City Council said none of the conditions that
would lead to a recommendation for granting the waiver seem to be met here. He asked what they
would need to see, for staff to recommend granting a waiver.
Mr. Lussier replied that the waiver process in Section 23 is to make a request to the City Engineer.
That is why the City Engineer wrote a memorandum, as the one responsible for making written
recommendations to the City Council. The changes staff would recommend, if the Committee was
inclined to recommend granting the waiver, would be that the infrastructure be built to Public
Infrastructure Standards. Even if they did not want to request the petition that they accept it for public
maintenance now, it would put the infrastructure in the ground where the City could take over and be
able to maintain the water quality in the future if that became an issue.
City Attorney Amanda Palmeira stated that in the LDC, Section 23.6 – Waivers does not lay out a
very good test. It says, “requests for waivers from this Article are to be made to the City Engineer,
who shall make a written recommendation to the City Council.” She continued that the only
substantive guidance for the MSFI Committee is Section 23.6.C, which says, “In no case shall
financial hardship be used to justify the granting of a waiver.”
2026-440
Page 73 of 146

Mr. Voisine stated that the intent was for it to be public, and it sounds like that is what people want
anyway, but they were told that it is private. He was confused and surprised when he was told that it
had always been private. Chair Greenwald replied that Mr. Voisine will need to figure it out with the
Public Works Director or whoever Mr. Voisine’s consultant might be, the site planner or engineer. Mr.
Voisine replied that if the recommendation is to go public, that would be great. Chair Greenwald
replied that it is different piping and different technology and he does not want to get into those
particulars here. Mr. Voisine replied that he understands they would have to meet the standards.
That would be fine. Fieldstone, the designer, told him it was public, but Public Works staff said no, it
is private. He continued that he was asked for easements in the prints. This has been a series of
confusions. Chair Greenwald replied that Fieldstone can talk with Public Works and figure out what is
going on.
The following motion by Councilor Tobin was duly seconded by Councilor Favolise.
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities, and Infrastructure Committee recommends
denying the Petitioner’s request to waive City of Keene Public Works standards for the referenced
project.
Councilor Favolise asked the City Attorney, for clarity, if it is correct that this action tonight would not
preclude whatever could come out of a future conversation with Public Works.
The City Attorney replied that is correct. She continued that it would just be about the specific waiver
the Petitioner has presented that he is looking for.

2026-440
Page 74 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #D.4.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee, Standing Committee

Through:
Subject:

Kenneth Kost - Request for a Comprehensive Planning Study of the Gilbo
Avenue Site Prior to Solar Pavilion Development

Recommendation:
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends
accepting the request for a Comprehensive Planning Study of the Gilbo Avenue Site Prior to Solar
Pavilion Development as informational.
Attachments:
None
Background:
Chair Greenwald stated that with Ken Kost’s letter is an additional submittal, because Mr. Kost was
not available for tonight’s meeting. He continued that he fully agrees that the City needs a
comprehensive plan for Gilbo Ave. It is a blank slate full of opportunities.
The City Manager stated that staff let Mr. Kost know they are planning to do a Plan NH Charrette for
Gilbo Ave. She continued that they had been waiting for the potential transfer of ownership of a piece
of property on Gilbo Ave., and that is getting close. Plan NH has a rolling process for applications, so
the City could apply at any time. She has asked the Community Development Department to start
that process to apply for a charrette. Staff agree that a charrette would be helpful. There have been
some planning documents for Gilbo Ave. in the past, and a charrette-type process by Arts Alive, but
this is a good time to move forward with a Plan NH Charrette. She is not sure when that would be; it
will take some time for that to happen. She hopes they do not hold up the solar pavilion while that
process is moving forward.
Councilor Tobin stated that her question is how it would work if they were to create a plan for this
space, considering that it would need to be budgeted, probably put into the Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP), and built out. She wonders how that would compare to how long the solar panels would last if
they were to build a solar pavilion now.
The City Manager replied that the difference here is that the Plan NH Charrette would be for all of
Gilbo Ave., not just the small area the solar pavilion is planned for. The Charrette would be a much
2026-366
Page 75 of 146

larger plan, and to go through that process, you have to apply to Plan NH and pay the $6,500 fee,
and then it takes several months to get it ready. Then, Plan NH comes with designers, for about three
days, and produces a result. It would take the City several months to go through that process and get
into the Plan NH team’s schedule. The solar panels should last at least 20 years. Once the City
builds the structure, they have a responsibility to maintain it, because it is being built with federal
funds. The Committee will hear in the next agenda item that staff have awarded the contract for
preliminary design of the solar pavilion design, and the City has spent approximately $60,000 that
they need to get reimbursed by the federal grant. However, if the Council does not want to move
forward with the solar pavilion at all anymore, they would need to find a way to pay for that $60,000
that has been spent.
The City Manager continued that the Public Works Department, since the last Committee meeting,
has looked at other potential solar pavilion locations that have come out of the public workshops and
the last Committee meeting. Maybe hearing Public Works’ presentation about that would help the
Committee so they could think about both things at the same time. She thinks the Plan NH Charrette
is a great idea, and she has asked the Community Development Department to start the process, but
it will take a while, and they are under a timeline to build the solar pavilion according to the federal
grant they accepted.
The following motion by Councilor Favolise was duly seconded by Councilor Workman.
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends
accepting the request for a Comprehensive Planning Study of the Gilbo Avenue Site Prior to Solar
Pavilion Development as informational.

2026-366
Page 76 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #D.5.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee, Standing Committee

Through:
Subject:

Gilbo Ave Solar Pavilion Conceptual Design - City Engineer

Recommendation:
On a vote of 3 to 1, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends
Location Option 2 be selected as the preferred alternative, and that the City Manager be authorized
to do all things necessary to complete the design for the Gilbo Avenue Solar Pavilion Project.
On a vote of 3 to 1, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends
Concept Option 1 with the flat, monoslope roof be selected as the preferred alternative for the Gilbo
Avenue Solar Pavilion.
Attachments:
None
Background:
Mr. Lussier stated that he wanted to clarify something. As he read Mr. Kost’s letter today, it occurred
to him that Mr. Kost was focused on the 1.9-acre site. His concerns about not being able to redevelop
that site for some higher or better use are only applicable for two of the five options that he and the
City Engineer will be presenting tonight for the solar pavilion. That is something to keep in mind. Mr.
Kost’s request would be relevant to Options 2 and 3, but the other options are a separate site and
would not affect the redevelopment of the Commercial St. lot.
Bryan Ruoff, City Engineer, stated that they will go through the status update of where they are with
the Gilbo Ave. Solar Pavilion, based on public feedback, feedback from the MSFI Committee, and
additional options staff looked at based on that feedback. He continued that a slide summarizes what
was included in the Timber for Transit grant application, that the overall intent of the structure/facility
is as an arts and culture corridor. Everyone thinks of it as a solar pavilion, but the solar pavilion is the
“frosting on the cake.” The artistic license on the timber structure is really the draw for this original
idea and grant.
Mr. Ruoff continued that at the public engagement meeting and MSFI Committee meeting in July,
they went over three concept designs. Concept Option 1 – Monoslope Roof is a modest slope, more
typical for a solar pavilion. Concept Option 2 is a Checkmark Roof, and Concept Option 3 is a Gable
2026-361
Page 77 of 146

Roof. Based on all the feedback staff has received today, he would say about 70% of people prefer
Concept Option 1. Almost no one is interested in Concept Option 2; they rightfully have concerns
about it, based on the New England climate. There has been some interest in Concept Option 3, but
not enough to be more than the interest in Concept Option 1. Given the cost increase difference
between Concept Options 1 and 3, the City would need to incorporate the additional costs of Concept
Option 3 into the design. It does not fall within the budget they envisioned and received a grant for.
Mr. Ruoff continued that in the September community engagement session, they incorporated input
from the public and the MSFI Committee. They looked at three locations, with Location Option 1
being the original one described in the grant. Location Option 2 is within the parking area, just on the
other side of the trees. Location Option 3 split the pavilion into two pavilions. That would add costs as
well, so almost no one from the public was interested in that. They disposed of Location Option 3 and
looked at the other options discussed at the community engagement meeting. Staff came out of that
meeting with five options to look at:
• Location Option 1 - the original location as described in the grant.
• Location Option 2 - the location on the northern side of the internal limits of the parking lot
• Location Option 3 - on the southern side across from the other parking area
• Location Option 4 - in the Gilbo West lot immediately adjacent to Syd’s
• Location Option 5 - within the Wilson St. right-of-way
Mr. Ruoff continued that from a solar standpoint, Location Option 5 would be quite difficult to
configure. They would likely need a different structure from the preferred structure. The City does not
own the location, so costs would increase and the City would need to contribute to those unplanned
costs.
Mr. Ruoff continued that Location Option 1 has already been through the extensive, year-long
permitting process through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It checks all the boxes for
federal funding compliance to ensure the site location is acceptable. All the other options would need
the NEPA review. It would cost about $40,000 for any other site, for the engineering and associated
survey.
Mr. Lussier stated that the slide shows what he said earlier very well. He continued that Location
Options 2 and 3 are on the Commercial St. lot, which is a separately defined parcel. Location Options
1 and 4 would not affect that 1.9-acre site. Location Option 1 is part of the Gilbo Ave. right-of-way, so
it would be within the public highway.
Chair Greenwald stated that he appreciates that Public Works looked at Location Options 4 and 5,
which he himself was interested in hearing more about, but for clarification, Location Option 5 was to
look at the adjacent parking spaces, not the skate park itself. Mr. Lussier replied that he apologizes;
he thought they were talking about the old skate park. Chair Greenwald replied that he was not,
because he realizes there is a hope to straighten Wilson St., which would involve the skate park.
Mr. Ruoff continued that they determined pros and cons of each option. Location Option 1 was the
identified one and Stantec created about a dozen conceptual designs. It is located close to the
electrical cabinet they will tie into. The biggest benefit would be utilizing the electricity generated by
the solar panels and putting it directly into the City’s grid, rather than putting it back into the grid and
2026-361
Page 78 of 146

getting the cost of electricity back at a discounted rate. They would be using that direct electricity to
power downtown’s lights and offset those costs. Other pros of Location Option 1 are:
• It is within the NEPA documented and permitted area that has already been surveyed.
• It is close to downtown, not in an isolated area, which was the intent as described in the grant.
• It is immediately adjacent to the Transportation Heritage Trail
• It is within the project budget
• It supports community events and downtown activities well, but if the opening were on the
Gilbo Ave. side, they would need to close Gilbo Ave. to have a concert or event
• It does not develop the existing parking lot, so future potential development of the lot will not
be impacted by the proposed solar pavilion design
Mr. Ruoff continued that Location Option 2 is inside the existing parking lot and aligns generally with
the Timber for Transit grant application with some minor variations. It is not that far from Location
Option 1. It is a high solar efficiency area, probably higher than Location Option 1 because there is
no shading from trees. The Location Option 1 would have about a 30% reduction in efficiency of the
unit, but it would still be enough power for all the lights downtown. Other pros of Location Option 2
are:
• It acts as an extension of downtown Keene
• It is within the project budget
• It supports community events
Mr. Ruoff continued that some cons of Location Option 2, not associated with Location Option 1, are:
• Impacts to traffic and truck circulation within the lot
• The loss of some parking spaces
• Costs associated with additional permitting and surveying that was not done in the preliminary
design for the grant application
• It would preclude development of the parking area
Mr. Ruoff continued that Location Option 3 is similar, except it is the mirror of Location Option 2. With
Location Option 3, the slope would be southern facing, whereas with Location Option 2, the southern
facing would be pointed at the travel lanes/aisle. Location Option 3 is thus better in that aspect. It
would not create that potential hazard of snow falling on people coming out from underneath the
pavilion. Other pros of Location Option 3 are:
• It aligns with the Timber for Transit grant application
• It has high solar efficiency
• It supports community events
• It is within the project budget
Mr. Ruoff continued that the cons are similar to those of Location Option 2. Both have the
disadvantage of precluding future development of the parking lot for anything else.
2026-361
Page 79 of 146

Mr. Ruoff continued that Location Option 4 is across the street in Gilbo West. It has high solar
efficiency. Public Works staff have heard that some groups who are planning on using the solar
pavilion likely would not use it in this location. People also have concerns about how truck
movements would work, as it is a shared access for Syd’s. There are concerns about feasibility or the
need to do a smaller shape because of that. Based on the square footage area, it would generate the
same amount of electricity, so there is no offset in that case. This location is further from the electrical
cabinet, so there would be some road trenching and restoration and associated costs.
Mr. Ruoff continued that for Location Option 5, they looked at Wilson St. but view it as a non-starter.
If the City ever got that property back, they would want to realign Wilson St. to be a straight shot
through and correct the current awkwardness of getting through the parking lot. With solar structures
built on this lot, that Wilson St. realignment would be very difficult or impossible. Mr. Lussier replied
that they could build half of the structure in the parking stalls just to the east of where the slide
shows.
Chair Greenwald replied that he appreciates them considering Location Option 5, but he eliminated it
as an option in his mind, due to not being big enough. He visited Farmer’s Market last week and it
was completely full.
Councilor Favolise stated that he appreciates how Public Works listened to the Committee’s
feedback about the scheduling of the community engagement session and then rescheduled the
session to give as many engagement opportunities as possible. It seems like it was well attended
and went well.
Councilor Favolise continued that Mr. Kost’s letter references 36,000 kilowatt hours of power per
year, and Mr. Kost says that the return on investment would take 62 years. He asked where that
number comes from, versus the numbers staff are showing. Mr. Lussier replied that he is not sure
where Mr. Kost’s number came from. He continued that with Location Option 1, the shading from
trees would affect the panels’ efficiency. He believes it would be 60,000 kilowatt hours per year. It
would be about 90,000 kilowatt hours per year for Location Options 2 or 3. The consultant who
looked at this gave staff a straight-line payback of a little over 20 years. He does not think anyone is
arguing that this is the most lucrative solar project the City will do. That has not been the goal. This
project was inspired by the arts and culture corridor. It was advanced through the grant to meet a
specific goal, which was based on conversations with the Energy and Climate Committee and the
Conservation Commission about the Downtown Infrastructure Project, trying to balance more trees
downtown and advancing the City’s renewable energy goals. The solar pavilion project was the way
for the City to accomplish both of those things, offsetting the use of electricity in the downtown with
renewable energy, while also having good tree cover downtown. This was not created or envisioned
to be like the solar project the City is doing at the Airport, which is clearly lucrative and economically
driven.
Councilor Favolise stated that last time, he spoke about supporting the simplest, least expensive,
monoslope design. He hears that the inception of this was more about activating the space and
pulling people down Gilbo Ave. and spurring some of the development in the area that Mr. Kost is
interested in. He would like to see this pencil out as quickly as possible. His question is about the
impact of the trees in this area, because he has heard a couple different things about that. The
shading is one thing. He asked if Location Option 1 includes looking at cutting trees back. Mr. Lussier
replied no. That was a clearly articulated concern at both community engagement sessions. The
reason Location Option 1 would produce 30% less energy is the shading analysis the consultant did.
2026-361
Page 80 of 146

They might need to trim lower limbs so they do not rub on the panels, but the analysis said they did
not need to remove trees.
Chair Greenwald stated that referencing his observations of the Farmer’s Market in action, he
wonders why Location Option 1 cannot be moved further into the street. If the vendors were informed
that they cannot park their vehicles behind their tents, there would be a lot more room. It would move
the pavilion from the trees and reduce the shading. Mr. Lussier replied that during the first session,
staff heard that people wanted to see the structure’s posts not in the parking spaces. One of the
amendments staff made between the first and second engagement session is a proposal to widen
the sidewalk along Gilbo Ave. The structure will extend over Gilbo Ave. where the vehicles parked,
but sidewalk will surround the posts and allow for the customers to be on the sidewalk while the
vendors are in the parking stalls.
Chair Greenwald replied that sounds good, and it moves the structure away from the trees, which is
also good. Mr. Lussier replied that they might be able to find additional efficiencies as they get further
into the design. He continued that as they have said, this roof is larger than needed just to supply the
downtown. For the economic analysis, they have assumed the same number of panels, but they
have always assumed a portion of them would be “dummy panels,” just clear panels. They might be
able to push the panels that are generating the power further up on the slope, further away from the
trees, and optimize production. The next iteration of the design process would answer that question.
Chair Greenwald asked why there would be dummy panels. Mr. Lussier replied that they scoped this
in the grant for a 75-kilowatt system. That roof could generate a lot more power if it had nothing but
solar panels, but it would also cost a lot more. Based on the funding available through the grant and
the City’s match, the 75-kilowatt system is the size the City could afford.
Councilor Workman asked, regarding Location Option 2, what would happen to the EV chargers that
are currently in that location. She asked staff to go into more detail about the impacts to traffic and
truck circulation and the elimination of existing parking.
Mr. Ruoff replied that the EV charging stations would need to be relocated, which is a con of Location
Option 2. Since this is internal to the parking lot and fits exactly to the depth of the spaces, they
would probably lose a couple of spaces on each end and install something like a raised granite curb
to protect the structure from getting hit from within the site by, say, a vehicle backing into it or a plow
truck running into it. The original location utilized for the grant application is offset from the road.
There is about 1.5 times what they need for that space for the structure, so it provides some
separation and they know the structure would be protected. For both locations inside the parking lot,
it would be right within those stalls and even extending a bit into the aisle, in order to get that
structure in.
Mr. Lussier stated that a surprising amount of truck traffic uses this lot, for restaurant deliveries and
load-in and load-out of Colonial Theatre shows. He continued that one specific corner, where trucks
try to turn from the parking lot onto Gilbo Ave., is the radius staff would have to look carefully at. It
would probably result in a shorter structure.
Councilor Favolise stated that for Location Option 2, he recognizes that there would be additional
cost to go through the NEPA permitting process again. He continued that he hears that the amount of
solar power generated was not how this project was initially conceptualized, but there is such a
significant difference in the estimates for annual solar power generation. Payback would come so
2026-361
Page 81 of 146

much sooner with Location Option 2. He leans towards Location Option 2 despite the challenges staff
have raised.
Councilor Favolise continued that they are hearing tonight about maintaining this structure in
perpetuity. He asked if there is clarification on whether it has to be maintained in perpetuity in this
exact way in this exact location. He is thinking about the potential future development question and
what that might mean. Mr. Lussier replied that he has not seen the restrictive language that they
would need to agree to. He continued that he does not think it would be in perpetuity; it is more likely
for the lifespan of the structure and system.
Chair Greenwald stated that the Committee has two or three decisions to make. He asked if they
wanted to pick a location and a configuration. Whatever they decide, if they go forward, he expects
the design to return to the Committee for final approval, so they know tonight is not their last
opportunity for comments.
Councilor Tobin stated that she is still comfortable with Location Option 1. Especially with the
expanded sidewalk, which would activate the space in the way she thought they had initially
discussed, as an arts corridor. She is also comfortable with Location Option 2. To Councilor
Favolise’s point about the significant difference in electricity, the city’s electricity use is increasing,
and to obtain and maintain the City’s renewable energy goals, it would not hurt to have the surplus as
an option.
Councilor Workman stated that she knows the MSFI Committee is not the FOP Committee, but her
question is whether the $1.5 million cost for Location Option 2 includes the changes such as moving
the EV chargers, or if that is just the cost of constructing the pavilion itself. Mr. Ruoff replied it is just
the cost of the structure. He continued that the added costs, between the additional engineering and
moving the EV charging stations, would be about $75,000 to $80,000. Mr. Lussier stated that the
total grant amount for this project, with the local match, was $2.1 million. He thinks either option is
within the City’s budget. He is fairly confident that if they decided on this other site, relocating the EV
chargers would still be an eligible cost that would be covered by the grant.
The City Manager asked if they could add more panels to bring up the production of Location Option
1. Mr. Lussier replied that they could add more panels, but there would still be efficiency loss caused
by shading.
Chair Greenwald stated that the area called “Location Option 2” is used for Farmer’s Market overflow.
Mr. Lussier replied that both sides are used. Chair Greenwald stated that if they start out with
Location Option 2, they will run out of space quickly, maybe putting Farmer’s Market back into Gilbo
Ave. Mr. Lussier replied that Location Option 1 would still not completely cover all the vendors. About
half of the vendors would be covered, with either option. Chair Greenwald replied that the overflow
would go to the Location Option 2 area. Mr. Lussier agreed. Chair Greenwald replied that if they start
out with only the Location Option 2 area, the overflow would go back into the street, which is not
good. Mr. Lussier replied that every time he has been to Farmer’s Market, both sides have been
nearly full. Chair Greenwald replied that his hesitancy about the location was his hope to see a multistory building with retail on the ground floor and housing on the second and third floors, but he thinks
the timeline would not work to do that. At best, it would have to be advertised, and they would have to
find a developer, and it would take years. By then, the whole solar pavilion concept would be aged
out. Thus, his choice would be Location Option 1. He has come around.
2026-361
Page 82 of 146

The following motion by Councilor Workman was duly seconded by Councilor Tobin.
The Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends Location Option 2 be
selected as the preferred alternative, and that the City Manager be authorized to do all things
necessary to complete the design for the Gilbo Avenue Solar Pavilion Project.
Councilor Favolise stated that he will support the motion, but he would like to continue conversations
with staff around the City Manager’s idea of potentially packing more solar panels on there as
additional eligible costs to maybe get Location Option 1 closer. If they could split the difference here,
he would be interested in that, but as things stand right now and as presented, he cannot vote
against the significant difference in energy generation and the shortened payback time.
The motion passed on a vote of 3 to 1. Chair Greenwald was opposed.
The City Manager stated that Councilor Favolise said he was still interested in what would happen if
they added more panels to Location Option 1 and what those numbers mean. She does not know if it
is possible to have that information before next week’s Council meeting. Once they decide on an
option, they will start the final design process. Mr. Ruoff and Mr. Lussier replied that they will do their
best to have that information before the Council meeting.
Chair Greenwald asked staff to review the roof concepts for the Committee to choose from. Mr.
Lussier listed the three roof concepts again. He continued that he personally prefers the gable roof
(Concept Option 3), but its structural supports would be in the parking stalls and they would get
damaged, so he cannot recommend it.
Councilor Tobin stated that she is struggling. She continued that she loves the look of the gable roof.
The following motion by Councilor Tobin was duly seconded by Councilor Workman.
The Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends Concept Option 1 with
the flat, monoslope roof be selected as the preferred alternative for the Gilbo Avenue Solar Pavilion.
Andy Bohannon, Deputy City Manager, asked if the slope of the roof will need to be changed if they
switch it to the other side. He continued that right now, the angle is going up into the street. Mr.
Lussier replied that it would still be angled to the south. He continued that they would just pick up the
structure and move it 40 feet south. Mr. Bohannon replied that he is asking because vehicles coming
in will be at the shallower end. Mr. Lussier replied that the structure will be tall enough so that normal
vehicles will still be able to park there.
Chair Greenwald stated that he prefers the gable roof.
The motion passed on a vote of 3 to 1. Chair Greenwald was opposed.

2026-361
Page 83 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #D.6.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee, Standing Committee

Through:
Subject:

Partner City Committee - Annual Report

Recommendation:
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends
accepting the Partner City Committee’s presentation as informational.
Attachments:
None
Background:
John Mitchell (of 6 Hilltop Dr.) stated that he is the Chair of the PCC. He continued that the
Einbeck/Keene partnership started about 25 years ago among some friends who worked at
Schleicher and Schuell and occasionally traveled to Einbeck, Germany. Some German people
traveled to Keene, and friendships quickly built. It was soon picked up by the City of Keene. As soon
as some of the politicians talked with each other, a formal agreement to become sister cities was
formed. Since then, the PCC’s activities have grown exponentially. Last year, they had 65 German
guests, just in October. That does not reflect the other exchanges that came throughout the year as
well. The PCC helps foster the development of private exchanges that include schools, sport groups,
and social groups. They are working on Rotary, golf, and pickleball, for example. The PCC, through
the City, works to help build connections and friendships between Keene and Einbeck. It has been
hugely successful, and it is growing all the time.
Mr. Mitchell continued that he would like to clarify something people frequently ask him. All of the
money the City provides to the PCC is used to host groups that come from Germany or to help foster
the development of exchanges from Keene. The PCC gave support to groups of singers, dancers,
and students. As hard as the PCC works, the $5,000 does not go as far as it did 20 years ago. They
also fundraise as much as they can. Just like every other group, they are short of funds, but again,
they have been successful and they are growing. At the first PCC meeting this year, he said they
have to be careful about their success because they are getting much bigger. That is what is
happening now. For example, last year, the German Consulate General from Boston found the PCC
on the internet, communicated with them, and came up to visit, because she was shocked the PCC
had kept such a long exchange. In her experience, these types of exchanges do not last this long.
The Mayor informed him that the new German Consulate General is also interested in meeting with
2026-367
Page 84 of 146

the PCC. His latest communication with their community in Einbeck is that they are now in contact
with the US Consulate for Einbeck. This is something the City should be proud of. He hopes the PCC
maintains the City Council’s support.
Chair Greenwald thanked Mr. Mitchell for his great presentation.
Mayor Kahn stated that to add to what Mr. Mitchell said, the German Consulate visited Keene three
times. He continued that one time was in support of the Cohen Institute’s Kristallnacht remembrance
at the Colonial Theatre where she was invited as a speaker. She spoke of how Germany addresses
Kristallnacht remembrance. Another time was for the Radically Rural event, as she was interested in
how they might participate in the future. The Consulate General rotates every four years, and the
new Consulate General is coming next Friday. MSFI Committee members are welcome to be
present. The Consulate General was interested in doing a briefing and exchanging ideas as to how to
further these kinds of relationships, with Keene or other cities in New England. He is coming to brief
the 18 people who will be traveling to Einbeck in two weeks. This is an accomplishment of what Mr.
Mitchell was describing, a 24-year relationship.
Chair Greenwald stated that he himself, the Mayor, and former Councilor Andrew Madison are
among those who are making the journey.
The following motion by Councilor Favolise was duly seconded by Councilor Workman.
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends
accepting the Partner City Committee’s presentation as informational.

2026-367
Page 85 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #D.7.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee, Standing Committee

Through:
Subject:

Continued Discussion: Erik Murphy - Petition - Safety Improvements at the
South Lincoln Street and Roxbury Street Intersection

Recommendation:
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends the
City Manager be authorized to do all things necessary to negotiate and obtain sight distance
easements, and that City staff reassess intersection conditions in six months to confirm improved
conditions.
Attachments:
None
Background:
Chair Greenwald stated that this agenda item goes with the next one, which is an ordinance for the
MSFI Committee to consider. During the Committee’s last discussion, they asked the City Attorney to
give them a potential ordinance for consideration, if the Committee wants to go the route of the two
stop signs. He asked to hear from the Petitioner.
Joan Murphy (of 287 Roxbury St.) stated that she wants to thank the Committee for understanding
how serious the concern is on the East Side regarding this intersection, and for their willingness to
move forward. She reminds the Committee that a school bus stop is on Roxbury St.’s corners. Many
factors impact how challenging the intersection is, including vehicle speeds up and down Roxbury St.
and the difficulty in seeing the stop signs on the North Lincoln St. and South Lincoln St. sides. She
thanked Public Works for their attempted adjustments to those signs. Maybe Public Works can
improve the line of sight. The Murphys might be part of that. She thanked the Committee and hopes
they consider the idea of a four-way stop.
Mr. Ruoff stated that Public Works has reviewed and done engineering studies on this intersection a
couple of times. He continued that requests come up approximately every six months. They have
implemented some safety-related signs. The area in question is the intersection of Roxbury St.,
which runs east/west, and South Lincoln St. and North Lincoln St. Under the current conditions,
Roxbury St. is the major street, while North and South Lincoln St. are the minor streets, based on
traffic volume. Roxbury St. does not have any stop signs. Prior to the turn in either direction, there
2026-312
Page 86 of 146

are warning signs to slow down. North and South Lincoln St. are in a stop condition at the
intersection.
Mr. Ruoff continued that Public Works previously looked at this with the East Keene Traffic Study
Report and reported earlier this year about this intersection not meeting warrants for recommended
changes. Conditions have changed since then. The five or six major accidents within the last year
have triggered a warrant for these conditions. Anyone who has been at the intersection will agree
that one of the limiting factors is sight distance. There are two types of sight distance, required
stopping sight distance and the intersection sight distance. The latter is your ability to see onto the
road that you want to turn onto. Stopping sight distance is the car that is in the street making sure
they have enough time to stop if something comes out on the street. The only place currently with
sufficient sight distance is on North Lincoln St. looking at eastbound traffic. At all other locations at
this intersection, maybe if you are lucky on a perfect day with no solar glare, you might get 80 to 100
feet of sight distance. There is not enough sight distance to be able to judge whether a car is coming,
how fast, or whether you have time to make it across the intersection.
Mr. Ruoff continued that Public Works thanks the KPD for the summary of accidents. Public Works
staff looked at the “conditional accidents,” which are based on the conditions of the intersection, such
as being unable to see a car in one direction or the other. Staff noticed that it is almost always a case
of a car on North or South Lincoln St. crossing Roxbury St., every time getting hit by a car in Roxbury
St. that they were unable to see. This shows how sight distance is an issue nearly every time.
Mr. Ruoff continued that Public Works staff looked at a few corrective actions. Some were nonstarters based on the associated costs. A four-way stop is a possibility, but it would create some
conditions where they would now be putting themselves in non-compliance. From Roxbury St.
approaching Lincoln St., the amount of stopping sight distance is less than what is required for that.
Thus, for a driver coming that direction to see the stop sign and be able to have enough to stop, the
City would be creating a condition that they would not be meeting that required stop distance there.
There would also be some issues with driver familiarity, putting a stop sign where it has not been
prevalent and having that be performed correctly. Thus, Public Works has concerns about the fourway stop option.
Mr. Ruoff continued that another option would be a raised intersection. It would slow down cars, but
of course, if your muscle memory going through that area is driving a certain speed, not slowing
down or stopping, there is potential for launching off that raised intersection. Increased costs would
also be associated with it. Flashing traffic lights, while another option, would not be telling anyone
anything new. People creep out at North and South Lincoln St. because they know they cannot see.
They get out into Roxbury St. before they make that turn. It is already a yield condition based on how
people are acting, so there would not be a lot of benefit for the cost there. The option of a roundabout
is a non-starter, given the cost. The other option, based on how bad staff noticed the lines of sight
were, would be to clear those lines of sight so they can get the required line of sight distance. To do
so, the City would need easements and cooperation from the property owners on all four corners.
The Public Works Director has met with all the property owners within this intersection and could
speak to that.
Mr. Lussier stated that staff has met with four of the five property owners that are identified here. The
fifth one is a rental unit, and they have not been able to make contact with them yet. Staff spoke with
the owners of the four properties immediately adjacent to the intersection. He is encouraged. It
reaffirms his faith in human nature to report that all four have been amenable and receptive to the
2026-312
Page 87 of 146

idea of granting the City these easements. There are obviously still details to work out. These
easements would have impacts to their properties. The property owners have recognized the
concern, and they are willing to work with the City to try and fix it. A slide shows how the sight lines
are encumbered by a fence on one of the properties. They would remove the fence. They do not plan
to remove the large tree on the corner, but the owner would let the City remove some bushes on the
western side of the property.
Mr. Lussier stated the con with the sight distance easement, is it would remain the property owner’s
property, but it would have restrictions as to what could go there. For example, the property owner
could have grass, low-growing shrubs, or plants up to two- or three-feet tall, as long as drivers could
see over it. If something started growing too tall, City staff would have the right to go in and remove
the vegetation or obstruction to maintain the easement. On the northeast corner, there are no visual
obstructions. However, they thought it made sense to document that and create that easement, if the
property owner is amenable, so that some future owner does not put a fence or obstruction there.
The property owner is amenable to that. The issue on the southeast corner is mostly vegetation.
There is no fence, but staff would want to remove a tree on the corner, a few shrubs along the South
Lincoln St. side, and some vegetation on the eastern edge of the property. The property owner is
amenable to that.
Mr. Lussier continued that lastly, he met with the Petitioners to discuss their property. The Murphys
are probably the ones who would be most impacted by this concept. They have a nice privacy hedge
along Roxbury St. and along South Lincoln St. City staff would be requesting to remove all the shrubs
on Roxbury St. and pulling the shrubs on South Lincoln St. back about 14 feet. He discussed
different options with Ms. Murphy today, such as a lower hedge or keeping the hedge in that location
at a lower elevation, but the Murphys would have a significant impact. The Murphys are open to
discussing it and they have not committed to anything at this point, which he thinks is completely
reasonable and fair. He believes, as Mr. Ruoff pointed out, that sight distance is the number one
contributing factor to the safety concerns at this intersection, and staff’s number one recommendation
is to try to get these sight distances improved, before they do anything more expensive or more
invasive.
Mr. Ruoff stated that those sight distance easements and the clearing they have coordinated with the
property owners would essentially quadruple the existing sight distance. It would expand it to nearly
the furthest extent possible. Based on that, staff would recommend that the City Manager be
authorized to do all things necessary to negotiate and obtain these sight distance easements and
that City staff review and assess the improvements and associated conditions with the intersection in
six months to determine if additional measures are then required, or if the conditions at the
intersection have improved significantly.
Mr. Lussier added that in a nutshell, their recommendation is to start with cleaning up the sight
distances, and to not do a four-way stop or anything more extensive until they see what difference
that makes.
Chair Greenwald replied that he thinks cleaning up the sight distances is imperative. Even if they
wanted a four-way stop, they need the sight lines. It makes sense to him.
Councilor Favolise stated that he appreciates the menu of options. It strikes him that this addresses a
significant part of the problem, but not all. He does not drive in this area often. The speed of vehicles
on the road, particularly coming down the hill, is scary. The Committee heard that a lot from
2026-312
Page 88 of 146

neighborhood residents at the last Committee meeting. One reason he really liked the idea of some
sort of speed table or the raised intersection was that although it would rock a couple of drivers’
suspensions, it would only do that for those drivers once. Drivers would soon know that speed bump
was there. Clearing the sight lines feels like part of the solution, and he appreciates the
recommendation to assess it in six months, but it does not address the speed factor. As Councilor
Workman said, the City Manager knows where he, too, is at with wanting directed enforcement, while
recognizing the resource availability. He wants to make sure that the Committee gets this right. He
asked staff to speak to the speed question and the continued concern.
Mr. Lussier replied that speed is a valid concern. He continued that it is part of the reason he has
concerns about the four-way stop. Staff did some speed measurements of drivers coming down the
hill. The 85th percentile speed was around 35 mph, which is 5 mph above the posted speed limit. If
you are coming down that hill and around that corner, if you are looking right in the direction of the
stop sign and you see it right when you come around the corner of that house, you would just barely
have enough time to understand the stop sign, apply the brakes, and come to a controlled stop
before you hit the intersection. That is why he has concerns about the four-way stop. Unless
everything goes perfectly, he could see somebody not being able to stop safely in time and blowing
through the intersection. The drivers on North and South Lincoln St. might think it is their turn and
they are fine to go, but they might not appreciate that someone is coming down the hill at too fast a
speed.
Councilor Tobin stated that she really appreciates the attention to sight distance. Looking at this, she
sees that the sight distance of where the vehicle coming down would need to be, before they could
see there was a vehicle coming. With a stop sign, as staff pointed out, a driver would have to be
looking right in that direction in order to stop in time. As a pedestrian, she feels that concern. Children
cross, as there is a school right there. It is important to find a way to get drivers to slow down before
they get to that point. She always hopes, as a pedestrian, to hear the vehicles coming down, knowing
they might not be able to stop.
Mr. Lussier replied that the City can do things to mitigate that risk. If the Committee and Council were
inclined to do the four-way stop, staff would install advance warning signs before the curve so drivers
on Roxbury St. going down the hill would at least see a sign in advance, warning them of the
upcoming stop. Councilor Tobin replied that to clarify, she was not suggesting they need to put a stop
sign there. She was saying that if people cannot stop for a stop sign, they cannot stop for a child
crossing that, which is a problem.
Joel Lathers (of 305 Roxbury St.) stated that his home has been hit three times by drivers coming
down the hill too fast and trying to dodge the house on the opposite side of the street. Not only do
drivers come down fast, but it is a short distance, due to the curve. He and his wife thought rumble
strips installed for drivers coming down the hill might help. He does not know how much maintenance
would be involved but he thinks it would be okay for plow trucks. He and his wife also suggest
reducing the speed there to 25 mph. This spring, a driver hit the tree on his property that the City
proposes removing. It would be fine with him and his wife if they removed the tree, which has limited
time due to the hit. He does not think a four-way stop is the answer, due to drivers’ muscle memory.
It might make things worse. Regarding Councilor Tobin’s comments about the bus stop, rumble strips
would alert drivers who were driving too fast down the hill.
Mr. Lussier stated that transverse rumble strips, which are not along the edges of the road but go
across the roadway, are a possibility. He continued that Mr. Lathers is correct that the rumble strips
2026-312
Page 89 of 146

would not impact plowing or maintenance operations. He would have to research how to install
transverse rumble strips, because the City does not have those.
Ms. Murphy stated that she thinks they would not be considering the whole situation if they did not
think about the speed of traffic on Roxbury St. It is an issue with drivers going up the hill as well as
down. She is grateful there have not been accidents involving children at the bus stop. That bus stop
and the speeds need to be taken into consideration. She and her husband are good citizens and are
willing to be part of reasonable solutions that improve the line of sight. However, the line of sight is a
contributing problem, not the only problem.
Chair Greenwald stated that he hopes Public Works can look into the transverse rumble strips idea.
Councilor Favolise asked what signage exists at this intersection. He asked if they could install one
saying “dangerous intersection ahead.” Mr. Lussier replied that there are intersection advance
warning signs on Roxbury St. They do not say “dangerous intersection;” they just warn that an
intersection is ahead. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) no longer recognizes
the “dangerous intersection ahead” sign. Their logic is that if a municipality knows an intersection is
dangerous, they should fix the intersection. There is also a stop sign advanced warning on South
Lincoln St. One of the issues has been the stop sign on the South Lincoln St. approach is for
northbound traffic, and it was behind a tree, difficult to see until you were close to the intersection.
Staff pushed it out about a foot. That improved the sight distance. They also moved the advanced
warning sign back about 100 feet, so it is more visible and gives drivers an earlier warning.
Councilor Favolise stated that he is not sure reducing the speed limit here would be the solution. He
asked about having one of those yellow signs that gives a suggested speed limit, although not the
official speed limit, for turning around a curve or approaching an intersection. Mr. Lussier replied that
he does not think there is one there. That might be appropriate. He continued that to Mr. Lather’s
comment, just reducing a posted speed limit without other changes to make the driver want to drive
at a slower speed is not effective.
Councilor Workman stated that she knows they will get comments from the public about the City
removing a tree. She asked staff to talk about the tree’s status and plans for that. She continued that
she also wants to second what others have said about the sight line clearing just being part of the
solution. She hopes that if they move forward with this and reassess in six months, they also have
some additional traffic calming or speeding calming measures or options. When they last heard about
this, there was a lot of good conversation about Reservoir St. and that bend coming around Roxbury
St., and as Ms. Murphy pointed out, coming straight up from Roxbury St. Since that is such a
straightaway, it is used like a drag strip. She would like ongoing conversations around those issues.
Mr. Lussier stated that he does not have all of the details about the tree, but it is about six inches in
diameter, so he would not call it a mature tree. Its health has probably been compromised, as Mr.
Lathers said, due to having been struck by a vehicle, but it is not a dead tree.
Councilor Tobin stated that to Councilor Workman’s point, they should talk about where else people
should be stopping. If they do not want people treating this as a highway, they would need to set the
expectation of stops. Parks are in the area. Making the entrances safer, where there is the
expectation of stopping, could impact the speeds over time. She is not suggesting a four-way stop
here, but when the City made the Grove St. intersection a four-way stop, it became much easier to
cross at the nearby bike path because drivers were already going slow, not escalating.
2026-312
Page 90 of 146

The following motion by Councilor Workman was duly seconded by Councilor Tobin.
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends the
City Manager be authorized to do all things necessary to negotiate and obtain sight distance
easements, and that City staff reassess intersection conditions in six months to confirm improved
conditions.

2026-312
Page 91 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #D.8.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee, Standing Committee

Through:
Subject:

Roadway Safety Action Plan Update - Public Works Director

Recommendation:
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends
accepting the Roadway Safety Action Plan Update as informational.
Attachments:
None
Background:
Mr. Lussier stated that he apologizes for not bringing the Roadway Safety Action Plan (RSAP)
Update to the Committee earlier in the year. He continued that the KPD did their part and gave him
all of the data in December 2025.
Tonight, he and Mr. Ruoff will talk about what they observed in 2025, what actions Public Works has
completed based on the plan, and what the coming attractions are for 2026 and the future. Councilor
Tobin was closely involved in the development of the plan. The Council adopted it in January 2025,
and the stated goal is to reduce Keene’s roadway fatalities and serious injuries by 50% by 2035 and
to 0 by 2045. That is an ambitious, aspirational goal they are working toward.
Mr. Lussier stated that the 2025 accident data was summarized for the Public Works Department by
the KPD. In New Hampshire, they cannot actually get police reports about accidents and understand
all of the details of what caused the accident and what they could do to fix it, which frustrates him, but
Public Works at least has summarized data. In 2025, there were a total of one “K” (fatal) and nine “A”
(serious bodily injury) crashes. Public Works tracks this on a five-year rolling average. Thus, even
though the raw number of crashes in 2025 was less than 2024, the rolling five-year average went up.
This is because 2020, which had a much lower number, dropped off the rolling average. When he
gives the next update in about four or five months, the 17 they had in 2021 drops off and the number
will drop dramatically. The rolling average went from 11.6 in 2024 when the City adopted the plan to
12 at the end of 2025. The goal is 0 by 2045, and the trend line is heading in the right direction.
Mr. Lussier continued that he spoke with Lieutenant Chidester at the KPD, who leads the Accident
Investigation Team. The RSAP has emphasis areas, categories and factors that affect the
2026-419
Page 92 of 146

prevalence and severity of accidents. He asked Lieutenant Chidester if he has seen any trends or
anything that concerns him within the emphasis areas. Lieutenant Chidester’s comments were
related to the “vulnerable roadway user – motorized” emphasis area. The prevalence of e-bikes,
scooters, and electronic personal assistive mobility devices is increasing, and the rules are not welldefined. They are not saying e-bikes, scooters, or electronic mobility devices were implicated in any
of the 2025 accidents, but it is an area of concern for the KPD. Lieutenant Chidester’s other comment
was that the “vulnerable roadway user – non-motorized” category’s one fatality in 2025 was
unfortunately a pedestrian. Lieutenant Chidester suggested they not read too much into that. The
pedestrian was inebriated or impaired, standing in the middle of Rt. 101 at night during a snowstorm
when he was struck by a vehicle. Thus, there were mitigating factors beyond just the fact that he was
a pedestrian.
Regarding what Public Works has accomplished, staff ran all of the recommendations and
suggestions for infrastructure improvements through a scoring rubric to determine the top 25 highest
priority recommendations. They filtered out ones that are already planned through, say, the
Downtown Infrastructure Project or the Winchester St. Project, so you will not see those on the top 25
list. He is happy to report that seven of the 25 were completed in 2025. They are as follows:
• Island St. - the recommendation in the RSAP was to add speed bumps, which staff did not do,
but they did some traffic calming measures in the form of narrowing lanes down to 10 feet and
widening the shoulders to create more space for bicyclists
• Roxbury St. - Sidewalk Overlay, thanks in large part to the Committee allowing staff to use
asphalt overlays as part of their suite of tools
• Washington St. at Spring St. – the issue was traffic queuing during school pickup and dropoff
for the Gathering Waters School. Staff worked with the school administration to change their
pickup pattern, and parents are now cueing within the property
• Water St. at Eastern Ave. - they added advanced warnings for westbound traffic
• Water St. and Grove St. - they added lighting to the intersection
• Winchester St. at Island St. - there were too many signs at the roundabout and it was causing
confusion. They removed the redundant signs and that seemed to help
• Winchester St. at Foundry St., where the Ashuelot Rail Trail crosses Winchester St. - they
installed RRFBs with extra parts they scavenged from the roundabout project
Mr. Lussier continued that work completed in 2025 also included restriping the approaches to the
Grove St. and Water St. intersection, installation of a new crosswalk at Pearl St.’s intersection with
West St., and an RRFP signal system, based on a resident request. Staff worked with the NH
Department of Transportation (NHDOT) to get the Rt. 101/Winchester St. roundabout markings
refreshed. That will be an annual item, so the City might have to occasionally remind NHDOT to do
that. The intersections of School St. and Winter St., and Forest St. and Chestnut St., got new stop
signs authorized in 2025. Staff completed the Roadway Safety Audit Rt. 9 at Whitcomb’s Mill Rd.,
which lines them up for funding in the future for safety projects. On Maple Ave., staff restriped the
lanes when they repaved it to narrow the lanes and create more space for bicyclists. Arch St. at
Chesterfield Rd. had a request for advanced warning signs approaching the tunnel, and clarification
at the tunnel for who has the right of way. Approaching from the Arch St. end, you will see a “Yield to
oncoming traffic” sign.
Mr. Lussier continued that finally, it is not a specific recommendation in the plan, but one of staff’s
ongoing tasks is vegetation management at intersections. They trim back the bushes in the public
2026-419
Page 93 of 146

right-of-way to maintain sight lines, and trim vegetation that obscures signs. A Public Works staff
member spends a lot of time driving around the city looking for obscured signs and finds many on his
own, but he cannot see them all, so if anyone sees bushes and trees obscuring signs, they can alert
Public Works through “See, Click, Fix” or a phone call.
Mr. Lussier continued that regarding projects that are underway, of course the Downtown
Infrastructure Project is the biggest one. That project will address many specific recommendations of
the RSAP. Similarly, the Marlboro St. Project will address many issues with crosswalks, traffic
calming to slow the speeds, additional bike lanes, and more. Those projects are well underway. The
Transportation Heritage Trail Project is also underway. That adds a new crosswalk across Eastern
Ave. with flashing beacons to allow trail users to safely cross.
Mr. Lussier continued that looking ahead to what is coming up, tonight they talked extensively about
Roxbury St. and Lincoln St. That work will be implemented this fall. Other projects include:
• Route 101 Reconstruction - a NHDOT-administered project that will address roadway safety
and pedestrian safety, and intersection safety at Swanzey Factory Rd.
• The Reconstruction of Lower Winchester St. – this will add sidewalks, addressing pedestrian
access through that corridor. The biggest safety concern addressed in the project design was
left turns and access to left turns, with drivers trying to cut across two lanes of traffic to turn left
into traffic going 40 or 45 mph. That is a tough situation, which the project will address
• The Reconstruction of the Rt. 9/10/12 Intersection - a NHDOT-administered project likely to
result in the T intersection and the traffic signal being converted to a roundabout. That will
slow drivers down and avoid T-bone crashes.
• Prowse Bridge over Rt. 101 - they have had issues with pedestrians trying to cross the road.
That is now funded in the state’s Ten Year Plan for 2031
• Reconstruction of West St. - at public engagement sessions for the RSAP, West St. was one
of the biggest concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people making left turns. The most
recent iteration of the Ten Year Plan delayed it to 2033 for construction, but it is an important
project the City wants to see move forward
Mr. Lussier stated that he would like the Committee’s feedback on some funding opportunities. The
Transportation Alternatives Program has been the City’s number one go-to funding for the rail trail
projects. With the Transportation Heritage Trail Phase II, the Prowse Bridge, and the safety railings
over the Stone Arch Bridge being addressed, that series of programs and projects is coming to an
end. He foresees a time when Keene will not have any new rail trails to build, so he would love to
hear thoughts on what they should be looking at this funding source for in the future. Based on a
recent flash vote survey, what staff hear and what he knows the Committee hears, is that sidewalks
need a lot of work. They do not need to decide tonight, but for the next opportunity to apply for a
grant through that program, they will try to put together a package of sidewalk improvements through
that program. Funding in the range of $1 million to $1.5 million would allow them to do a lot of
sidewalk work.
Mr. Lussier continued that the next big one is the Highway Safety Improvement Program. They
anticipate that NHDOT will be looking for applications to that in the fall of 2026. His recommendation
is to implement some of the safety recommendations that came about for Whitcomb’s Mill Rd. at Rt.
9. Some options they looked at did not meet the cost/benefit threshold to be funded through this
program, but there are some options that would be. For example, adding turning lanes to that
2026-419
Page 94 of 146

intersection and some additional lighting. He thinks that would be a good candidate for the Highway
Safety Improvement Program funding, in terms of the cost of the project and meeting those
thresholds.
Mr. Lussier continued that Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality is the program NHDOT is using to
fund the T-intersection conversion to a roundabout. Speaking with Southwest Regional Planning
Commission (SWRPC) staff and NHDOT staff, he thinks the conversion of Rt. 12 to 32 into a
roundabout would address the safety concern at that location, regarding how difficult it is to pull out of
that location. It would be a good fit for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding, which
requires demonstrating an air quality benefit. Roundabouts check that box very nicely. It would be
easy to quantify the air quality improvement, because the math has already been done. He welcomes
the Committee’s thoughts on any of those funding opportunities.
Councilor Favolise stated that he appreciates the focus on both major projects through the RSAP and
smaller items such as getting the crosswalk signs correct and accurate. He continued that so often
when they talk about these long-term strategic plans, they talk about what big thing they can do.
Correcting crosswalk signs is a big thing for people who use the crosswalk on a regular basis, so he
appreciates the mixed focus. He also appreciates the focus across the city. He heard Mr. Lussier
talking about projects in various wards, and it is important that they take a whole city approach like
that.
Councilor Favolise asked about the status of the Rt. 9/Whitcomb’s Mill Rd. project. He knows
NHDOT was at a Committee meeting about that. As he recalls, there was some confusion with the
motion around whether to accept the presentation as informational or endorse a specific option. He
thought the Committee really liked the idea of left turn lanes. He thought that since the Committee
had the presentation from NHDOT, the project would be moving forward.
Mr. Lussier replied that it does not happen automatically. The Roadway Safety Audit identifies
potential solutions or approaches that meet NHDOT’s threshold for more benefit than cost. Because
they did meet that threshold on the left turn lane option, that would be eligible to apply for funding
through this other program. It is not automatically put in the queue, but it gives them the ammunition
they need to submit a competitive application.
Councilor Favolise stated that it is a high-traffic intersection and an intersection for interstate travel
and commerce, so he is totally fine with that being a priority area for the grant. He knows it is not the
exact same dimensions and geometry and situation, but the left turn lane works well for Chesterfield
Rd., and he imagines it would work well for Whitcomb’s Mill Rd. Some West Keene residents use
those side roads as their main access point to Rt. 9. That would be a reasonable priority to continue
to pursue.
Mr. Lussier stated that as much as he loves roundabouts, he does not think it would be competitive if
Keene tried to get a roundabout there. He does not think it would be able to be funded through the
Highway Safety Improvement Program because of the cost, and he does not think it would be
competitive competing for a Ten Year Plan project with other regional priorities.
Councilor Tobin thanked Mr. Lussier for bringing the report to the Committee and taking the time to
collect the data. It was very important to the people on the RSAP committee that the RSAP be a
living document that was maintained and evolved; that trends in terms of safety were addressed over
time; that projects were added to the list, not just addressed, so that it becomes a running list; and
2026-419
Page 95 of 146

that the City responds to things that are actually happening. The plan addressed a couple of
emphasis areas: intersections, vulnerable road users – motorized, vulnerable road users – nonmotorized, older drivers, occupant protection, speed and aggressive driving, and a few more. She is
interested in what overall policies or areas the City should be looking at, not just specific projects.
She thinks the projects come from the trends and initiatives. Mr. Lussier heard from the KPD about
“vulnerable road users – motorized.” Maybe the City should be creating additional policies in
response to that. Another is vegetation management; maybe there are things the City should be
doing to address some of that. Mr. Lussier also mentioned that some of the data was hard to collect.
She wonders if they could create a way for people to submit intersections where there was an
accident. She would say the same thing about suggested projects. Instead of coming to the Council
to say a stop sign is needed at a certain intersection, someone could submit that as a “problematic
intersection,” which would somehow make it onto a list that staff then reviews and prioritizes.
Mr. Lussier replied that he thinks that last one is a great idea. He continued that the project website
for the RSAP is still live and all the background information is still there. He thinks it would be a light
lift to work with Deputy City Manager Rebecca Landry to update that and make it more of a “project
request” interface. Then they could advertise that, in a “If you know of a safety concern that you’d like
reviewed, here’s how to submit it” way. Staff could incorporate this into their presentations going
forward, talking to the Committee about the suggestions they received over the year.
The following motion by Councilor Tobin was duly seconded by Councilor Workman.
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends
accepting the Roadway Safety Action Plan Update as informational.

2026-419
Page 96 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #D.9.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee, Standing Committee

Through:
Subject:

Downtown Infrastructure Project Update - Public Works Director

Recommendation:
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends
accepting the Downtown Infrastructure Project Update as informational.
Attachments:
None
Background:
Mr. Lussier stated that after he gives a brief update, he will ask Casella to present their plans for the
rest of the fall and ideas they have for accelerating construction and getting more work done. He
continued that during the last couple of weeks, Casella has been working on water main installations,
which is going well. They expect by next Thursday, all the new mains in Central Square will be in the
ground, and Casella will make the first connection from the old system to the new system. They have
to connect it at one point, fill the pipe, disinfect it, and do pressure testing. Once all that is done, they
will start moving individual service connections. Buildings will get connected from the old pipe to the
new pipe. They are making great progress. It is nothing they did not expect to find, but they have
found utilities that were not mapped. Casella has been doing a great job working around the telecom
conduits and unexpected things that they found and being productive at the same time.
Mr. Lussier continued that the Project Ombudsman is here and could answer specific questions the
Committee has about engagement with business owners and residents. He invited Casella to
present.
Jeff Chase and Brian Rossier from Casella provided an update on the project. A graphic of Central
Square, with their progress highlighted and color coded. Mr. Chase stated that their intent is to
continue working well into early winter. As Mr. Lussier mentioned, they hope to finish the water in a
week and a half, pending any other surprises. There are many communication duct banks in the
ground, which make it hard to needle the pipe underneath. However, they are progressing, so the
next step is to begin work on the sewer. It is hard to, given the logistics with the amount of real
estate, open up too much at once in Central Square without totally locking down traffic. After the
sewer work comes the drainage work. They would like to continue working into December, barring
2026-420
Page 97 of 146

the weather, of course. Then in the spring, they want to start getting the signals in, approximately in
mid-March if the frost is not too bad, before they can do the road work. They want to hit the ground
running doing road work around April 15. That means removing all the existing asphalt, fine grading,
then paving. That will start establishing the new limits of the roadway. Once the paving is done, the
curbing will go in rather quickly. Then they will start indexing, starting over on the west side of Central
Square, working on sidewalk and working in a clockwise method.
Chair Greenwald asked at what point they would be taking out sidewalks. Mr. Chase replied that they
will take out sidewalks in segments. They will not remove all the sidewalks at once. With new
sidewalks, the alignment of the curb changes significantly. They will try to rip out the old sidewalks in
the shaded area/segment within a two- to three-week period then put it back together before they go
on to the next segment. There might be some overlap, because as they get going, they can gain
efficiencies. Chair Greenwald asked if they mean in the spring, or soon. Mr. Chase replied in the
spring. Mr. Rossier added that there will be a six-foot walkway between the buildings. They will do
the sidewalk for the main priority of it and then the last six feet after; that way, they can keep
pedestrian access to all the buildings. They will install bridges the day that they are working right in
front of a business’s door, so the business still can operate.
Mr. Rossier explained that paving would be mid-April to May 1. Curbing would be the first week in
May. Sidewalks in small segments would be done in late May, June, and July. The center gazebo
area would be at the end. The effort is to try to keep things open as much as possible and work in
segments. The pavement date is a little fluid, dependent on temperature. This is what they have dealt
with in recent projects like the one at the Keene Airport. They need the right temperature in order to
get the asphalt in. April 15 is about when the local asphalt plant opens. That paving would be the
base course. Mr. Chase added they would not top the road until the fall, at least for whatever phases
they have completed by then.
Mr. Chase continued that they think it would be beneficial if they could press forward in another
phase, doing underground work. The slide shows Phase I on the southern end of the project. They
would work in small segments at any given point. The segments could be viewed as weeks, such as
Week 1 is Segment 1, Week 2 is Segment 2, and so forth. They would start that right after Pumpkin
Fest. Mr. Rossier explained the reasoning is that while they are doing work above ground, other team
members are doing work to get that underground work going, which takes time. The unknown
conflicts they have been finding here will also happen in other places. They could get the jumpstart
on the underground sewer work while the other work is being finished, so it is just “a rolling machine”
coming up. Mr. Chase commended that a lot of the pipelines are off the side of the road. They would
close one lane of traffic. It is two lanes in each direction. There would not be any more than a lane
closure and funneling them down to one lane for a couple of days per side.
Councilor Tobin stated that it is hard to follow what they are saying because she cannot read any of
the labels on the graphic as they move from section to section, and she does not know what the
colors mean. She asked if they could identify the areas. Mr. Chase indicated Water St., Main St.,
Cumberland Farms, and Dunbar St. Mr. Lussier stated that in general terms, the area Mr. Chase and
Mr. Rossier are talking about is the section from Water St. to Emerald St. That is the area they would
like to continue working in into the winter.
Chair Greenwald asked what happened to the plan for Central Square to Water St., the middle
section. Mr. Rossier replied that they could do that; there are a couple of options. They continued that
most of the sewer utilities are coming from “that way,” and when they build this stuff, they like to build
2026-420
Page 98 of 146

it uphill. That is one reason why they wanted to start at the far end and bring the pipes uphill. Mr.
Chase added another reason is that if they put everybody on one side of the project, traffic impacts
would be greater, but if they could spread the team out a bit, it would minimize delays with car
movements.
Chair Greenwald stated that he is not objecting or disagreeing, but this is very different from what
people were told. Mr. Lussier replied that is right, and that is why he asked Casella to come talk
about it tonight. He continued that City staff are not asking the Committee for any specific motion or
authorization tonight. All of this falls under “construction administration” and it is part of Public
Works’s work to do. That said, it is very different from what they have been talking about for the past
eight years. He wanted feedback from the Committee about what Casella is doing and planning. He
thinks it makes sense to try to advance the project as much as possible, especially during the colder
months when construction will have less of an impact on businesses. Obviously, they had hoped to
start this project in April or May. By the time it went through the DES review and the rigamarole of
contracting and rebidding, it was the first week of August when the City had the contract in place and
gave Casella a notice to proceed. They hope to still finish this by the end of 2028. What Mr. Chase
and Mr. Rossier are presenting tonight is a way to give them a fighting chance of meeting that goal,
to jumpstart the construction next year by doing it this way.
Mr. Chase stated that if they can start a second phase prior to wrapping up the first phase, it gives
them a good sequencing to move at the speed that they want to. Chair Greenwald replied that again,
he is not objecting. He is just thinking about how the downtown community has been thinking in a
certain timeline, and this scrambles it. It will take a good deal of public information to communicate
this, regarding the timing of when people should expect this to happen. He personnaly is confused.
Mr. Chase replied that what people are seeing out there now, when the team is out there doing the
water pipe, is essentially what they are describing they would be doing down there. They would not
be completely blowing apart the road. They would just be surgically going in and getting that sewer
pipe done. Chair Greenwald replied that he gives the team tremendous compliments for the work
they have been doing to dig a hole, fill it in, and move on. He continued that Casella has absolutely
been minimizing the chaos, but there is chaos. His concern now is to try and clarify the timeline, for
when a Main St. business asks him when the digging will be. It sounds like it would not be two years
from now; it would be a lot sooner.
Mr. Rossier replied that this method of working would give Casella a better fighting chance that what
they are doing now would be closer to being wrapped up, where the last year is just a lot of finish
work. It is small spots, and then it is finished, and everyone likes it. Chair Greenwald replied that he
understands the philosophy. Mr. Rossier replied that they understand that it is completely different
from what they had been telling people. They understand how people feel. They have been trying
hard to work with business owners, and people have been receptive. Chair Greenwald gave kudos to
Casella for their efforts so far to move the project forward.
Councilor Favolise stated that he is not objecting to the plan. He continued that it is not what he was
expecting to see tonight. To Councilor Tobin’s point, he cannot see the graphic well enough on the
screen to understand it, either. He thinks for future meetings, the Committee needs to get the
graphics in advance or get handouts during the meeting so they can follow along.
Councilor Favolise stated that tonight, the Committee heard about the impact of downtown traffic
being detoured to School St. He thought they would have more time to plan for the potential impacts
2026-420
Page 99 of 146

to side streets in this area, like Water St. and Davis St. He asked if Public Works has thoughts about
this. Mr. Lussier replied that Central Square is the most difficult part of this project, from a traffic
control perspective, with those five streets coming into one location. Once the team is on Main St., a
lot of the work is on the road’s edges, so they will be able to keep the northbound lane going and
have traffic bypassing their work area, without having to do a lot of detours. There will be some, such
as a detour around Davis St. the day the team is crossing there, but the detours will not be nearly as
extensive or continuous as they have been with the work in Central Square.
The Mayor stated that he totally understands that they need to do this and have two teams working. It
makes absolute sense to do the piping in the way that they just described. Having seen similar work
many times at KSC, he thinks this is a good approach. He endorses what Casella is proposing. He
wants to understand that the scope of the work between Water St. and Emerald St. is in fact just
sewer replacement, and that they were not intending to do water supply and storm water
replacement.
Mr. Chase replied that the intent would be to do the sewer first, then water, then drainage. They
would do the whole setup, but not all at once. They would finish one utility and then move to the next
utility. The Mayor asked if that is what would occur over the one-year period. Mr. Chase replied that
at some point, the frost will be deep in the pavement. If they can get the sewer work done, in that
phase, there are only about 600 feet of water mains, 16-inch, a straight run of pipe that comes off of
Water St. and then heads down the west side of the road in the parking areas, which are ultimately
future walking areas. If time permits and the weather is conducive to going on to water, they would
like to.
Chair Greenwald stated that maybe he is missing this, but nothing is shown now from Davis St. to
West St. He asked if that would be the last phase. Mr. Chase replied that is what is labeled as Phase
III on the drawing. They could go back and forth about the wording in the contract. At the
preconstruction meeting, it was brought up that if Casella had a better way to approach the project,
they could speak up. There are milestones, and a general phasing plan presented in the contract, but
they have to consider not just the downtown businesses, which they are respectful to, but keeping
traffic moving and not shutting the city down. They have been hearing about traffic issues throughout
the town. Spreading out with multiple crews, not having them all in one spot, will help the general
project flow and not shut the city down. Cramming two or three crews into one area would not work
well.
Chair Greenwald replied that he understands. He just wants to know what he and Mr. Downing
should be telling the downtown community. Mr. Chase replied that they have brought the topic up at
the weekly meetings, and before they came to the Committee, they talked to Mr. Lussier and Mr.
Downing. Mr. Downing has talked to some people, and they think the changes will be received if the
reasons can be explained.
Councilor Tobin stated that she wants to echo Chair Greenwald’s point, because this is a big deal.
She continued that no one here is saying there is no room to change the plan. But people need to
understand what is happening, and they need the opportunity to ask questions, to get on board. From
her perspective, that takes months. Initially, the expectation was that Phase I would be complete year
one. She understands that things happen. She understands that it was delayed. However, they need
to have the information to communicate, and in a way that allows people to participate in the
conversation. For example, the solar pavilion project was initially delayed due to insufficient public
engagement. People had a response, and they needed more time, to understand and get on board
2026-420
Page 100 of 146

with the project. She does not want to underestimate the importance of getting people on board with
these changes to the Downtown Infrastructure Project.
Chair Greenwald stated that he urges everyone from the downtown community to attend the
upcoming Coffee and Hard Hats meeting.
Councilor Workman asked how much notice the City gives a business when a project will impact the
business’s hours of operation, deliveries, and so forth. She asked if it is 24 hours or 48 hours. Mr.
Lussier replied that if a project will impact a business’s water supply, for example, they give a threeday notice, because that is a major effect and some business would have to shut down for the day. If
the impact is smaller, such as work happening in a business’s section of the street, there is no
specific notice for that. It is just general knowledge that they are working on the project. Councilor
Workman asked if he is saying that if services and utilities will be interrupted, the City gives 72 hours’
notice. Mr. Lussier replied yes.
The Mayor stated that one thing that has made Casella’s process so smooth is the repaving they
have been able to do. He continued that winter carries its own repaving issues as to where they
could source asphalt from. For the success of having this new strip the length of 600 feet, he asked if
they would be able to patch in the manner they have been able to do on Central Square. Mr. Chase
replied that most of that patching will be sidewalk. Yes, they know they would have to patch it back
up at the end of the week, just like they are doing. Past late November, they would have to go further
towards Massachusetts to get hot mix asphalt. They use about 20 to 30 tons per week, so it would be
a load or two, but it would be worth it. Casella is willing to take on the burden of the extra cost in
order to gain on the project. Not as many people will be outside at that time of year. They think
businesses would rather be impacted at this time of year rather than summer. They are trying to be
respectful to businesses, especially those with outdoor seating, and to have those conversations with
businesses themselves or through Mr. Downing. They are making sure to get businesses’ input. If
Casella needs to push off a week or two or make adjustments, they will. Once they start doing
sidewalks, they can have better conversations and figure out if there are ways to not impact even
three weeks.
Councilor Filiault stated that he was on the MSFI Committee for the first four years of this project, and
he agrees with Chair Greenwald’s point. He understands there are changes, but tomorrow, he and
other Councilors will bear the brunt of the public’s frustrations and confusion. When Councilors go out
there and give dates to the business owners to the best of their ability, all they have is their word.
Then changes like this come out of the blue. The response from the public “will not be pretty.” People
will feel that the City Council broke its word.
Councilor Filiault continued that towards the end when they were finalizing the project, around
Central Square there was originally going to be 20 feet. They widened it to 22 feet so it could handle
two lanes of traffic. At this point, he thinks it is still scheduled to be one lane of traffic going around
the square. One of the reasons they went to 22 feet, which the Mayor was behind, was so they could
have two 11-foot lanes going around the square. He still feels that one lane would bottleneck during
heavy traffic at certain times of day. He does not expect to change that right now, but he will make a
formal request to change that to two lanes.
The City Manager replied that the City Council decided that it starts as two lanes, changes to one,
and goes back to two lanes. The compromise was that the 22 feet would provide for the possibility of
having two lanes if that does not work. That is what has been planned for.
2026-420
Page 101 of 146

The Mayor stated that the college link to the downtown is the pathway that they are talking about.
The question Public Works gets, from all around the city once the snow starts to fly, is whether they
can plow the sidewalks. That will have to occur in this area. The flow that comes from the college is
what sustains the downtown businesses during the winter months. He wants to make sure Casella is
aware of this.
Councilor Favolise asked what downtown business owners and residents can expect in terms of
changes or interruptions or what will be happening in their buildings when Casella is hooking up the
new water mains and getting those flushed and tested. Mr. Chase replied that the system they are
building is independent of the old system, so there will but a cutover period at a certain point. It will
probably be a couple of hours. Like Mr. Lussier said, they need to notify people a certain amount of
time ahead. It should have minimal impact. Many times, when they hook people up to new water
lines, people have to clean the faucet screens in their kitchen sinks, their toilets, and so forth. With
multi-story buildings on Central Square, they will probably have a few calls on that, but they are
usually simple fixes.
Mr. Lussier added that when they make the connection between the old system and the new system,
which is tentatively scheduled for next Thursday, several properties will be out of service for four to
six hours. Those are the properties served by the water main they will need to shut down to connect
the new main. Those properties will be notified three days in advance. However, when they are
individually connecting services from the old main to the new main, it is a couple of hours at most.
Councilor Tobin stated that she has heard a lot of positive feedback about how clean the project area
has been at night. In addition, the flaggers are very polite and kind. Many times, in a challenging
situation, that makes all the difference. She appreciates that.
Councilor Workman stated that she had questions for Mr. Downing. She continued that she thinks it
is important for the Committee to hear not just from Public Works, but from the Project Ombudsman
directly, regarding how his outreach is going and what feedback he has been hearing. Otherwise,
Councilors only hear about it from business owners who choose to contact them, or on social media.
Project Ombudsman George Downing stated that he has a lot of work to do over the next week or
two to get this information into a digestible format and start getting it out there. He continued that
there has already been a hunger for more updates outside of the weekly email blast. He thanks
Councilor Haas for bringing him some suggestions from the Keene Downtown Group on what people
want to see. He developed an outline for a bi-weekly update that gets brought out to businesses for
inclusion in their binders. He will have a prototype or actual version of it to share at the next
Committee meeting. The number of visits he has had to make to specific businesses for coordinationtype things has seen a significant uptick, as expected, now that the project has started. He has had
to coordinate some on-site property visits for documentation of existing conditions. They have gone
through Central Square and are working their way down Main St.
Mr. Downing continued that business owners are starting to realize how they can reach out to him
when they have specific issues, so they can utilize the connections he can facilitate for getting
questions answered, especially about immediate frustrations with the construction that is directly
impacting them. He is encouraged that the outreach he and the City did over the months leading up
to this is starting to pay dividends, where people know they can call him and he can put them in touch
with the right person, or sometimes answer the questions himself, such as why certain work is
2026-420
Page 102 of 146

unexpectedly happening right in front of the business that day. If it is a frustration that can be dealt
with, he can put them in touch with the person who can help. More of that has been happening,
which is good. He thinks that is how the City envisioned the Project Ombudsman position, and it is
what he has been trying to explain to people, but when there were not yet trucks in the street, it
became more of an informational thing. He is glad people are now seeing it more as a facilitator
position.
The following motion by Councilor Tobin was duly seconded by Councilor Workman.
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends
accepting the Downtown Infrastructure Project Update as informational.

2026-420
Page 103 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #D.10.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee, Standing Committee

Through:
Subject:

Monadnock View Cemetery Expansion Project Funding Allocation - Parks
and Recreation Director

Recommendation:
On a vote of 5 to 0, the Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee recommends accepting the
Monadnock View Cemetery Expansion Project Funding Allocation Update as informational.
Attachments:
None
Background:
Parks and Recreation Director Carrah Fisk-Hennessey and City Engineer Bryan Ruoff addressed the
Committee. Ms. Fisk-Hennessey stated the City has run out of space at Monadnock View Cemetery.
She stated the expansion project is included in the CIP as a Trustee-funded project. She stated that
staff went before the Trustees last week and presented three funding proposals to the Trustees.
The first option is the current CIP model, which allocates $150,000 a year for the next seven years.
The challenge with that option is the length of time and the ability to secure a contractor for that
period of time, it is likely the costs would increase throughout the entirety of the project. The second
option that staff presented was a a half-project model which was very flexible, but staff is not sure
what half of the project would actually look like. The third and final option that staff presented was a
full project model. The Trustees approved spending up to $1.4 million for the full expansion, which
includes infrastructure, irrigation, lots, and plots.
Ms. Fisk-Hennessey stated this item is informational. She stated this would be treated much like a
grant and up to that $1.4 million would be appropriated. The City would cover the costs and the
Trustees would reimburse those costs on a regular basis based on the construction of the project.
Councilor Chalice clarified cemetery operations are independently funded, similar to other programs
the City has. Ms. Fisk-Hennessey explained there are two trust funds. There is Trust Fund A, which
is operational and there is Trust Fund B, which is capital reserves.
The Councilor asked why the Trustees can’t pay for the project but the City has to front the money
2026-462
Page 104 of 146

and then be reimbursed for it. The City Manager explained this is a Trust Fund; staff received
authorization from the Trustees of the Trust Fund for the full amount. The City will spend the money
and then will submit to be reimbursed from the Trust Fund.
Councilor Lake asked what the term length was on the payback plan. City Engineer Bryan Ruoff
stated the estimate is that the project would take approximately a year to construct. The City would
look at either monthly or bi-monthly payments as they execute the project with the contractor. The
City would be made whole by the Trustees at the end of the project. He added they are planning on
sending the project out to bid this year.
Councilor Lake asked if staff is comfortable about the longevity of the trust; would the fund still
remain healthy when such a large amount has to come out in a single year. Mr. Ruoff stated they
believe it would, but the motion at the last Trustees meeting was just to bid the project as one
complete project instead of a phased-out project to better describe it in the contract documents.
He went on to explain the City would bid out the project. Identify the lowest responsive bidder, then
go back to the Trustees to request permission to award the contract. Mr. Ruoff stated staff is going to
work with the City Attorney’s office to make sure that the language in the approval satisfies the City.
Councilor Roberts felt the City was in a bind because it is unsure if the Trustees would have enough
money over the next seven years. However, if the City waits until there is enough money then the
City runs the risk of not having enough cemetery space.
Ms. Fisk-Hennessey responded by saying that the City was in a crunch time. She noted Trust Fund B
where this money is coming from has sufficient funds to fully reimburse but the money is just being
drawn down. In the meantime, where people can be buried, staff has worked with Engineering and
GIS Coordinators to make sure that there are additional plots in the existing cemetery map. Those
are being exercised right now, as the City has run out of the original setup that existed at Monadnock
View Cemetery.
Councilor Roberts clarified about ten years the City placed restrictions on who can be buried in City
cemeteries or was it open to anybody that wants to be buried in Keene. Ms. Fisk-Hennessey stated it
is still open to all. Councilor Robert stated some communities due to space, have restrictions as to
who can be buried in their cemeteries. He asked due to space issue whether Keene is looking at
such restrictions.
Ms. Fisk-Hennessey stated what staff has learned from the Master Plan for the expansion is that it
should last the City 65 to 100 years and they are confident about what they are going to be building.
Mr. Ruoff stated with the project they are developing, which is around 10 acres, it will be about 9,000
spaces. There is also the potential for an additional 1,000 spaces of cremation in the center area,
and those details are still being worked out and won’t be bid as part of this project. He added by fully
developing this area they are creating many more spaces fast and are working with Parks and Rec.
to lay out additional areas that can be utilized now.
Councilor Chalice asked whether staff knows anything about the demographics; who is being buried
in in our cemeteries? How many people are from Keene or have lived in Keene versus the
Monadnock region. Is Keene paying for people from other communities utilizing our cemetery. Ms.
Fisk-Hennessey stated everyone still has to pay if they are using our cemeteries; there is a different
2026-462
Page 105 of 146

rate for weekly burials compared to weekend burials. There is also a different rate for temperate
burials versus winter burials.
The following motion by Councilor Chalice was duly seconded by Councilor Lake.
On a vote of 5 to 0, the Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee recommends accepting the
Monadnock View Cemetery Expansion Project Funding Allocation Update as informational.

2026-462
Page 106 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #D.11.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee, Standing Committee

Through:
Subject:

2027 Highway Safety Agency Grant - Police Captain

Recommendation:
On a vote of 5 to 0, the Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee recommends that the City
Manager be authorized to do all things necessary to accept and expend the grant from the New
Hampshire Highway Safety Agency to fund Highway Safety Grant- Keene.
Attachments:
None
Background:
Police Captain Tenney addressed the Committee next. Captain Tenney stated he was before the
Committee with another annual grant the Committee has seen over several years. He noted this is
the Highway Safety Grant that is awarded each year. The City was awarded $10,500 this year.
Captain Tenney stated this gives the Department extra money for extra patrols for vehicle
enforcement and pedestrian and bicycle enforcement; speed, DWI enforcement, distracted driving,
pedestrian bicycle and mobilizations, and seat belt enforcement. He stated there is a match to this
grant the City covers through cruiser maintenance and fuel, and the Special Services Lieutenant for
his administrative time to put this grant together in the amount of $2,625.
Councilor Chalice asked whether the extra patrols only run between October 1st through September
30th or is there a public media component as well in order to raise awareness. Captain Tenney stated
this money is specific for overtime reimbursement. It is mostly uniform patrols in a cruiser but at times
it has been used by undercover vehicles for things like distracted driving and seat belt type issues.
He added DWIs are usually easy to enforce whether you are in a marked car or not. He added they
mix it up and use it to get the maximum for the money spent.
The following motion by Councilor Lake was duly seconded by Councilor Chadbourne.
On a vote of 5 to 0, the Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee recommends that the City
Manager be authorized to do all things necessary to accept and expend the grant from the New
Hampshire Highway Safety Agency to fund Highway Safety Grant- Keene.
2026-463
Page 107 of 146

2026-463
Page 108 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #D.12.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee, Standing Committee

Through:
Subject:

In Support of Proposed Amendments to the Keene Community Power
Program — Energy & Climate Committee and
Proposed Amendments to the Keene Community Power Plan – Community
Development Department

Recommendation:
On a vote of 5 to 0, the Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee recommends the report
from Energy and Climate Committee in support of proposed amendments to the Keene Community
Power program be accepted as informational.
On a vote of 5 to 0, the Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee recommends adoption of
the amendments to the Keene Community Power Plan.
Attachments:
None
Background:
Community Development Director Paul Andrus and Planner Megan Fortson were the next two
speakers. Mr. Andrus stated they were before the Committee to propose some changes to the
Community Power Plan and Electric Service Agreement (ESA). He noted the last time this item was
in front of Council, different products and different levels of renewable energy were addressed. There
was a lot of concern raised at that time about the added cost to the consumer. He stated this is an
effort to address those concerns.
Mr. Andrus stated staff is proposing to amend the Community Power Plan and ESA to change the
default product for electric assistance program customers, which there are about 300 in Keene, to
change it from Keene Standard to Keene Basic.
Mr. Andrus explained Keene Basic is the least cost option. Keene Standard would remain the default
product for all other non-EAP customers. He noted the City’s consultants talked to the New
Hampshire Consumer Advocate, and they were very enthusiastic and are in support of this. The
Climate Committee voted unanimously in favor of this.
2026-464
Page 109 of 146

Existing EAP customers on Keene Standard will be moved to Keene Basic at the next available
meter read. EAP customers who have affirmatively opted into Keene10 or Keene 100 will have their
choice honored; the program will not change their product, but they will retain the option to switch to
any other product at any time they wish.
Mr. Andrus indicated the other amendments to this is to reflect this change in the plan. On pages 5
and 6 the Equitable Treatment section is updated; distinguishing between EAP customers and other
customers by assigning each group a separate product default. Page 31, Exhibit 1 - Historical
Overview; there is a new entry documenting being added and there is consultant language which
names the specific consultant.
Mr. Andrus stated the next steps is that Council has the authority to be able to adopt these
amendments to the Community Power Plan. There is no public hearing required. PUC will however,
need to be notified.
Councilor Chalice stated she is glad to see staff taking the initiative to do this and felt as financial
issues continue to become even more constrained, more people would be taking advantage of this.
Mr. Andrus stated Mari Brunner has been the champion from Community Development. She stays
plugged into this issue but could not attend tonight’s meeting and wanted to make sure she was
acknowledged for her efforts as well as the City Manager for work in terms of negotiating rates.
Mr. Gordon Leversee Chairman of the Energy and Climate Committee addressed the Committee and
stated the Energy and Climate Committee had a good discussion on the proposed amendment at
their August meeting and voted unanimously to approve the amendments.
Councilor Favolise stated he would push back on the idea that this is taking some level of initiative.
He noted these conversations happened when the Council reauthorized the Community Power Plan.
Several Councilors made the argument that it was not just the price of the Community Power Plan
going up, but it was the price of groceries, the price of gas, property taxes going up. He noted one of
the reasons used at the time to justify moving everybody up to the higher tier, opt in default was that
it was easy to opt out. However, what staff is saying is that people who are on the EAP have to take
action to get them down to a lower default opt in rate. He questioned how easy it is to opt out and
how effective the education around this has been.
The Councilor stated it is a step in the right direction that 300 ratepayers that are on the EAP would
be getting some relief but felt there are 22,700 others in Keene who would like to get some relief right
now as well. He felt the City raised the cost of living for people when they reauthorized this Power
Plan with a higher opt in default. He hoped the committee could have a discussion tonight or perhaps
the Council could have a discussion as to whether this change goes far enough; but felt it was a step
in the right direction.
The following motion by Councilor Chadbourne was duly seconded by Councilor Roberts.
On a vote of 5 to 0, the Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee recommends the report
from Energy and Climate Committee in support of proposed amendments to the Keene Community
Power program be accepted as informational.
The following motion by Councilor Roberts was duly seconded by Councilor Chalice.
2026-464
Page 110 of 146

On a vote of 5 to 0, the Finance, Organization and Personnel Committee recommends adoption of
the amendments to the Keene Community Power Plan.

2026-464
Page 111 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #F.1.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Paul Andrus, Community Development Director

Through:

Elizabeth Ferland, City Manager

Subject:

Residential Property Revitalization Zone (RPRZ) Application 128-130
School Street - Community Development

Recommendation:
That the Mayor set a public hearing regarding the Residential Property Revitalization Zone (RPRZ)
application submitted by Evan Ray, owner of the property located at 128-130 School Street.
Attachments:
1.
128-130 School full app_redacted
2.
R-2025-35_Adopted (1)

Background:
The City's RSA 79-E Residential Property Revitalization Zone (RPRZ) Committee has completed its
review of the application submitted by Evan Ray, owner of 128-130 School Street, who is seeking
temporary tax relief through the City's RPRZ program.
The Committee has determined that the application is complete and recommends that a public
hearing be scheduled in accordance with NH RSA 79-E:4-b. The proposed project involves
converting the existing barn/garage portion of the residential structure into a new one-bedroom
residential apartment of approximately 646 square feet. The barn/garage is physically connected to
the house by a breezeway. The two existing residential units would remain in their current residential
use.
The property contains an existing two-family residential building constructed in approximately 1880.
The application identifies the property as being served by City water and sewer and indicates that the
property is owner occupied. The proposed project would increase the number of residential units on
the property from two to three.
The application identifies an estimated project cost of $78,750. The contractor's attached quote
itemizes $78,750 in work before a $2,500 discount, resulting in a quoted total of $76,250. Work
2026-460
Page 112 of 146

includes demolition and preparation, flooring, bathroom and kitchen improvements, bedroom
construction, stairs to the second story, heating and cooling, electrical and plumbing work, along with
design, permitting and coordination.
The applicant identifies several public benefits associated with the project, including creation of an
additional housing unit, continued owner occupancy, and improvements intended to support efficient
design, safety and residential use.
At this time, no work has commenced on the project. Consistent with the City's administration of the
RPRZ program, any work completed before City Council approval and execution would not be
included in the value eligible for tax relief.
Based on the physical configuration of the property, the project is being treated as rehabilitation of
the existing residential structure for purposes of RSA 79-E:4-b. The existing two-family home,
constructed in approximately 1880, is physically connected to the barn/garage by a breezeway. The
proposed work would convert this attached portion of the existing structure into a third dwelling unit.
This physical connection supports treating the house, breezeway, and barn/garage as part of the
same structure rather than as a separate detached accessory building. The City Council will make
the final findings required under RSA 79-E, including whether the project involves a qualifying
structure and substantial rehabilitation.
Following the public hearing, the application would be referred to the Finance, Organization and
Personnel Committee for review and recommendation to the City Council. The Council will ultimately
determine whether the structure is a qualifying structure, whether the proposed work constitutes
substantial rehabilitation under the City's adopted criteria, whether the project provides the required
public benefit, and, if approved, the duration of tax relief.

2026-460
Page 113 of 146

Page 114 of 146

Page 115 of 146

Page 116 of 146

Page 117 of 146

Page 118 of 146

Page 119 of 146

Page 120 of 146

Page 121 of 146

Page 122 of 146

Page 123 of 146

Page 124 of 146

Page 125 of 146

Page 126 of 146

R-2025-35

CITY OF KEENE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and

A RESOLUTION

Twenty Five

Relating to Adopting the Provisions of RSA 79-E “Community Revitalization Tax
Relief Incentive”

Resolved by the City Council of the City of Keene, as follows:
WHEREAS, RSA 79-E “Community Revitalization Tax Relief Incentive” (hereinafter “RSA 79E) declares it a public benefit to enhance downtown and town centers with respect to economic
activity, cultural and historic character, sense of community, and in-town residential uses that
contribute to economic and social vitality; and
WHEREAS, RSA 79-E further declares it a public benefit to encourage the rehabilitation of
underutilized structures in urban and town centers as a means of encouraging growth of
economic, residential, and municipal uses in a more compact pattern, in accordance with RSA 9B; and
WHEREAS, RSA 79-E also declares it a public benefit to provide short-term property
assessment tax relief and a related covenant to protect public benefits in order to encourage
substantial rehabilitation and use of qualifying structures, or in certain cases, the replacement of
qualifying structures, as described herein; and
WHEREAS, RSA 79-E:4-b, “Residential Property Revitalization Zone,” further declares it a
public benefit to revitalize and preserve existing housing stock by providing temporary tax relief
for renovation projects that significantly improve the quality, condition, or use of qualifying
residential structures in a designated residential property revitalization zone; and
WHEREAS, RSA 79-E:3 permits municipalities to adopt modifications of the provisions of
RSA 79-E, as set forth within the Statute.
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2017 the City Council adopted RSA 79-E within certain districts
located within the City as defined in R-2017-41; and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2018 the City Council rescinded R-2017-41 and adopted RSA
79-E within certain districts located within the City as defined in R-2018-33; and
WHEREAS, the downtown district map changed when the City adopted in May 2021 with
Ordinance O-2020-10-B the Land Use Code, along with the remapping of the City’s downtown
zoning districts with Ordinance O-2020-11-A;

Page 127 of 146

WHEREAS, on April 17, 2025, the City Council rescinded R-2017-41 and further updated the
downtown district map as defined in R-2025-09;
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby rescinds R-2018-33 and R-2025-09, and readopts RSA 79E in accordance with this Resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Keene that the
Council hereby adopts and implements the provisions of RSA 79-E:4, with certain modifications,
as follows:
RSA 79-E:4 Community Revitalization Tax Relief Incentive
A. For purposes of administering a RSA 79-E program within Keene, the City hereby defines
that a “qualifying structure” shall mean non-residential use building or a mixed use building,
being located within the area depicted on the map labeled “City of Keene Community
Revitalization Tax Relief Incentive (RSA 79-E) District” dated December 4, 2025 attached
hereto and made part of this Resolution.
B. “Substantial Rehabilitation” shall mean rehabilitation of a qualifying structure which costs at
least $75,000 and, in certain cases, replacement of a qualifying structure which costs at least
$75,000;
C. For purposes of administering the RSA 79-E program, the City Council shall ensure that the
proposed substantial rehabilitation provides one or more of the following public benefits, or that
the proposed replacement provides one or more of the public benefits to a greater degree than
would substantial rehabilitation of the same qualifying structure:
I. It enhances the economic vitality of downtown areas;
II. It enhances and improves a structure that is culturally or historically important on a
local, regional, state, or national level, either independently or within the context of an
historic district, town center, or village center in which the building is located;
III. It promotes the preservation and reuse of existing building stock throughout a
municipality by the rehabilitation of historic structures, thereby conserving the embodied
energy in accordance with energy efficiency guidelines established by the U.S. Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation;
IV. It promotes efficient design, safety, and a greater sense of community in a manner
consistent with the Keene Comprehensive Master Plan;
V. It will add to the City’s employment base by creating at least one new, full-time job in
Keene’s downtown area;
VI. It directly supports the integration of public art in the downtown; or
VII. It addresses one or more of the City’s adopted energy and climate goals as outlined
in Resolution R-2018-36 and the Keene Comprehensive Master Plan.

Page 128 of 146

D. “Tax Relief Period” shall mean that for a period of up to five (5) years, the property tax on a
qualifying structure shall not increase as a result of the substantial rehabilitation or
reconstruction thereof, beginning only upon completion of substantial rehabilitation or, in the
case of a replacement structure, upon completion of its construction.
E. In accordance with RSA 79-E:5, the duration of the tax relief period for applications filed in
Keene shall be considered in the context of each specific application and shall only provide that
level of tax relief necessary in the discretion of the City Council to effectuate the specific
targeted public benefit(s) outlined as determined by the City Council. By way of example, a
qualifying project that is deemed by the City Council to provide one or two of the public benefits
listed above may be granted a tax relief period of up to two years, and a qualifying project that
provides three or more public benefits may be granted a tax relief period of up to five years;
provided, however, that in determining what, if any, tax relief duration to provide, the City
Council may consider the impact the proposed substantial rehabilitation will have on existing, or
required, City infrastructure.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Keene that the Council hereby
adopts the provisions of RSA 79-E 4-b, as follows:
RSA 79-E: 4-b Residential Property Revitalization Zone
A. For purposes of administering the RSA 79-E:4-b Residential Property Revitalization program
within Keene, the City hereby defines that a “qualifying structure” shall mean an existing
residential structure which is at least 40 years old and is a one or 2-family home or an attached
multi-family home with not more than 4 units. Parcel(s) must also have both city water and
sewer service.
B. “Significant improvement” shall mean rehabilitation of a qualifying structure which costs at
least 15 percent of the pre-rehabilitation assessed valuation or at least $50,000, whichever is less,
and includes the creation of at least one new housing unit or resolves significant life safety or
health risks, as determined by the Building and Health Official.
C. For purposes of administering a RSA 79-E:4-b Residential Property Revitalization program
within Keene, the City Council shall ensure that the proposed significant improvement provides
one or more of the following public benefits:
I. It results in the creation of at least one new housing unit;
II. It prevents at least one housing unit from falling into obsolescence by addressing a life
safety or health issue that would render the unit unlivable otherwise;
III. It enhances and improves a structure that is culturally or historically important on a
local, regional, state, or national level, either independently or within the context of a
historic district, town center, or village center in which the building is located; or it
preserves a historically significant structure that is listed on or determined eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places or the state register of historic places,
such as existing carriage barns;

Page 129 of 146

IV. It maintains owner occupancy of a residential building or it returns a residential
building to owner occupancy;
V. It increases the livability of the home by flood proofing a structure in a flood hazard
zone, remediating contamination such as lead or asbestos, or significantly improving the
energy performance of a home as determined by the NHSaves Home Heating Index tool
by reducing the home heating index from a score of 9 or above to a score of 4 or below;
VI. It results in a net-zero home that produces as much (or more) energy as it consumes
by minimizing energy use through efficiency and meeting its remaining needs through
renewable energy systems.
D. “Tax Relief Period” shall mean that for a period of up to five (5) years the property tax on a
qualifying structure shall not increase as a result of the significant improvement or reconstruction
thereof, beginning only upon completion of significant improvement. The City Council may, in
its discretion, add up to an additional two (2) years of tax relief for a project that results in new
residential units and add up to an additional four (4) years of tax relief for the substantial
rehabilitation or significant improvement of a qualifying structure that is listed on or determined
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, state register of historic places, or
is located within and important to a locally designated historic district, provided that the
substantial rehabilitation is conducted in accordance with the U.S. Secretary of Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation.
E. In accordance with RSA 79-E:5, the duration of the tax relief period for applications filed in
Keene shall be considered in the context of each specific application and shall only provide that
level of tax relief necessary in the discretion of the City Council to effectuate the specific
targeted public benefit(s) outlined as determined by the City Council. In making a determination
about the duration of tax relief the City Council shall consider the following: a qualifying project
may be granted a base level of tax relief of up to five years and may only receive additional years
as outlined in Section D based on the extent to which the project meets the criteria and public
benefit(s); provided, however, that in determining what, if any, tax relief duration to provide, the
City Council may consider the impact the proposed substantial rehabilitation will have on
existing, or required, City infrastructure.
No property may be granted tax relief under this chapter more than once in a 20-year period.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a property owner, as a condition of being granted such tax
relief, shall
A. Document the proposed public benefit(s) at the time of the application for tax relief under the
Keene RSA 79-E program; and
B. Provide the City promptly with all information and documentation that the City may deem
relevant for review of the application for such tax relief, as well as for review of the
rehabilitation or replacement project under federal, state, and local laws, codes, and regulations,
as may be applicable; and

Page 130 of 146

C. Grant to the City a Covenant ensuring that the structure shall be maintained and used in a
manner that furthers the public benefit(s) for which the property tax relief was granted and shall
require the property owner to obtain casualty insurance, and flood insurance, if appropriate, for
twice the term of the tax relief granted; and
D. Grant to the City a lien against the property for the purpose of ensuring proper restoration or
demolition of damaged structures and property; and
E. Maintain the property as taxable, regardless of whether the property owner is otherwise
subject to property taxes under RSA 72; and
F. The City reserves the right to conduct inspections of the property to ensure compliance with
the covenant at the discretion of Community Development Director; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the Covenant is terminated for any reason, the City shall
assess all current and arrears taxes, with interest, to the property owner as though no tax relief
was granted in accordance with RSA 79-E:9,II; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or their designee is hereby authorized to
execute all documents and undertake all actions as may be required to implement this resolution.
This resolution shall take effect upon approval by City Council.

_______

___

Jay V. Kahn, Mayor

In City Council December 4, 2025.
Referred to the Planning, Licenses and
Development Committee.
City Clerk
A true copy;
Attest:

City Clerk

PASSED: December 18, 2025

Page 131 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Elizabeth Ferland, City Manager

ITEM #F.2.

Through:
Subject:

Let It Shine - 2026 Pumpkin Festival License Amendment - City Manager

Recommendation:
That the City Council suspend its rules and approve an amendment to the license previously granted
to Let It Shine, Inc. for the Keene Pumpkin Festival on October 17, 2026, to authorize City staff, in
coordination with the event sponsor, to make adjustments to the approved event footprint, road
closures, and areas of use based upon the status and conditions of active downtown construction,
including allowing event activities within or adjacent to construction areas when conditions safely
permit, provided such adjustments are consistent with public safety and the general scope of the
approved event, and further, that Let It Shine, Inc. shall not be responsible for City service costs
associated with the 2026 Keene Pumpkin Festival that exceed the amount of Community Event
Funding awarded to the event.
Attachments:
None
Background:
I am requesting that the City Council suspend its rules and take action at its October 1, 2026 meeting
on an amendment to the previously approved license granted to Let It Shine, Inc. for use of City
rights-of-way for the Keene Pumpkin Festival on Saturday, October 17, 2026.
Throughout recent Council and committee discussions regarding the Downtown Infrastructure
Project, the Council has emphasized the importance of supporting downtown businesses and
maintaining activity in the downtown during construction. Consistent with that direction, City staff has
been working with the event organizers to identify opportunities to incorporate Central Square into
the festival footprint and encourage festival activity throughout the downtown.
With active downtown construction expected to continue over the next several years, the areas that
can safely accommodate community events may change as work progresses. Conditions may also
change between the time the Council approves an event license and the day of the event. Including
similar language in future event licenses during the Downtown Infrastructure Project will provide
additional flexibility for both the City and event sponsors to respond to changing construction
conditions and avoid the need to return to the Council for additional amendments as areas become
2026-468
Page 132 of 146

available or unavailable for event use.
For this year’s Pumpkin Festival, the proposed amendment would provide City staff and the event
sponsor with reasonable flexibility to adjust the event footprint, road closures, and areas of use based
on actual construction conditions, while maintaining public safety and minimizing conflicts with
construction. A protocol meeting was held last week and the event sponsor has identified several
activities that can expand into Central Square if the amendment is approved.
Because the festival is scheduled for October 17th, I recommend that the Council suspend its rules
and act on this amendment at its October 1 meeting.

2026-468
Page 133 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #F.3.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Gregory Seymour, Fire Chief

Through:

Elizabeth Ferland, City Manager

Subject:

Fiscal Year 2025 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Award Acceptance - Fire
Chief

Recommendation:
That City Council suspend its rules due to the time-sensitive nature of the federal grant award and
authorize the City Manager to do all things necessary to accept and expend the Fiscal Year 2025
Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) award in the amount of $198,181.81; approve the required
City match of $19,819.19; and approve the reallocation of $10,590.35 in remaining funds from the
FY27 Ventilator Replacement CIP project, account 00000300-534080, to be used toward the
required grant match, with the remaining $9,227.84 of the match to be funded from the Fire
Department operating budget, account 40200000-523110, for a total approved project budget of
$218,000.00. The grant funds and required City match will be used for the purchase of powered
ambulance cots, powered cot loading systems, and powered stair chairs for the Keene Fire
Department’s frontline ambulances.
Attachments:
None
Background:
The Keene Fire Department has been awarded a Fiscal Year 2025 Assistance to Firefighters Grant
(AFG) in the amount of $198,181.81 to support the purchase of powered patient-handling equipment
for the Department’s frontline ambulances. The grant will allow the Department to purchase powered
ambulance cots, powered cot loading systems, and powered stair chairs to replace and enhance
equipment currently used during emergency medical responses.
These systems are intended to improve the Department’s ability to safely move and transport
patients while reducing the amount of manual lifting required of firefighters and paramedics. Patient
movement, particularly during ambulance loading and unloading and while navigating stairs, confined
spaces, and other challenging environments, represents a significant physical demand on emergency
medical personnel. Powered patient-handling equipment provides mechanical assistance during
these operations while supporting safe, efficient, and effective patient care.
2026-473
Page 134 of 146

The equipment will be placed on the Department’s frontline ambulances and will provide a more
standardized patient-handling platform across the primary EMS fleet. Standardization will support
equipment familiarity, training, operational consistency, and continuity of care for Department
personnel working across multiple ambulances.
As a condition of the award, the City is required to provide a local match of $19,819.19, resulting in a
total approved project budget of $218,000.00. The required City match will be funded from existing
Fire Department appropriations as follows:
$10,590.35 from remaining funds in the FY27 Ventilator Replacement CIP project, account
00000300-534080
$9,227.84 from the Fire Department operating budget, account 40200000-523110
No additional appropriation is requested as part of this action.
Because the federal grant award is subject to a time-sensitive acceptance requirement, the
Department is requesting that the City Council suspend its normal rules and take action at its meeting
on Thursday to ensure that the City is able to accept the award within the required 30-day timeframe.
Acceptance of the grant will allow the City to leverage $198,181.81 in federal funding toward a
$218,000 investment in frontline emergency medical equipment. The project will improve patienthandling capabilities, support firefighter and paramedic injury prevention, and enhance the equipment
available for the care and movement of patients served by the Keene Fire Department.

2026-473
Page 135 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #J.1.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee, Standing Committee

Through:
Subject:

Relating to the Installation of Two Stop Signs on Roxbury Street
Ordinance O-2026-15

Recommendation:
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends the
City Council vote against Ordinance O-2026-15.
Attachments:
1.
O-2026-15-Roxbury Street Stop Signs_Referral

Background:
Chair Greenwald asked if they should place this on more time. Mr. Lussier stated that if the
Committee is not looking to do the four-way stop, staff’s recommendation would be for someone to
make a motion to deny the ordinance.
The following motion by Councilor Tobin was duly seconded by Councilor Workman.
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends the
City Council vote against Ordinance O-2026-15.

2026-376
Page 136 of 146

ORDINANCE

O-2026-15

CITY OF KEENE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and
AN ORDINANCE

Twenty Six

Relating to the Installation of Two Stop Signs on Roxbury Street

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Keene, as follows:
That the City Code of the City of Keene, New Hampshire, as amended, is hereby further amended by
adding the bolded underlined text to the provisions of Section 94-321, “Stop Signs” in Division 5,
“Specific Street Regulations”, in Article IV of Chapter 94, entitled “TRAFFIC, PARKING AND PUBLIC
WAYS” as follows:

Roxbury Street for eastbound traffic at South Lincoln Street
Roxbury Street for westbound traffic at North Lincoln Street

_________________________________

Jay V. Kahn, Mayor

In City Council August 6, 2026.
Referred to the Municipal Services,
Facilities and Infrastructure Committee.

Assistant Clerk

Page 137 of 146

CITY OF KEENE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

ITEM #K.1.

Meeting Date:

October 1, 2026

To:

Mayor and Keene City Council

From:

Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee, Standing Committee

Through:
Subject:

Relating to the Alteration of Thompson Road
Resolution R-2026-37

Recommendation:
On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends
adopting Resolution R-2026-37.
Attachments:
1.
R-2026-37 Relating to the Alteration of Thompson Road_Referral
2.
Return of Alteration of the Thomson Road Layout
3.
Thompson Road Boundary Plan

Background:
Mr. Lussier stated that the petition requests four specific actions:
• Add three strips of land to the Thompson Rd. right-of-way, totaling 5,098 square feet in
aggregate
• Grant a waiver from Article 23.2.1 of the LDC, related to whether the City owns the soil
underlying the right-of-way or if the City just has an easement for the usage of the area. Staff
recommends the Council grant the waiver because the City does not own the underlying soil
for the rest of Thompson Rd., so it would be a “legally weird” strip of land that the City owns
• For these three strips of land, authorize the City Manager to accept and record deeds, to use
the land as a public highway, not to own the land
• Authorize payments to the affected property owners as it is described. Those payments were
developed using an independent appraiser to determine estimated value for the land and the
negotiated value of the two trees they had to remove from the one property
Chair Greenwald asked if the Committee had questions, noting that all Committee members present
were at the site visit. Hearing no questions, he asked for a motion.
The following motion by Councilor Favolise was duly seconded by Councilor Workman.
2026-333
Page 138 of 146

On a vote of 4 to 0, the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure Committee recommends
adopting Resolution R-2026-37.
In response to an inaudible question from a member of the public, the City Attorney stated that
Section 32 of the City Council rules say that after they have had a public hearing, which does have a
public comment section, when the item goes down to committee there is no further public comment.
It is just the Committee’s deliberations for a recommendation.
Chair Greenwald declined to hear and address a question from a member of the public, due to the
City Council rules explained by the City Attorney. The City Manager stated that she and the Public
Works Director would be happy to try and answer the person’s question, if she wanted to reach out to
them outside of the meeting.

2026-333
Page 139 of 146

R-2026-37

CITY OF KEENE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and

A RESOLUTION

Twenty Six

Relating to the Alteration of Thompson Road

Resolved by the City Council of the City of Keene, as follows:
WHEREAS: Thompson Road is a public highway in the City of Keene; and
WHEREAS: There is now occasion to alter the location of Thompson Road by widening the
existing Right-of-Way to accommodate the historically traveled roadway plus
improvements constructed as part of the City’s Thompson Road Stabilization
Project;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Keene City Council hereby accepts the following tracts of land, identified as
“Proposed ROW Taking #1, #2 & #3” on a plan entitled “Thompson Road, Keene N.H.,
Right of Way Boundary Plan, Land Located along the Branch River”, prepared for the
City of Keene by Bailey Associates, dated 3/21/2025, to be recorded at the Cheshire
County Registry of Deeds.
Tract No. 1
A certain tract of land situated in Keene, Cheshire County, New Hampshire, bounded and
described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of Thompson Road, said point being the
southernmost point on Tax Map Parcel No. 241-094 and the easternmost point on
Tax Map Parcel No. 241-093;
Thence N 26°12’26” E along the westerly line of said Thompson Road for a
distance of 252.16 feet to a point, said point being a 5/8” diameter iron rod, set
flush with the surrounding pavement;
Thence S 28°38’17” W for a distance of 34.87 feet to a point said point being a
5/8” diameter iron rod, set flush with the surrounding earth;
Thence along a curve to the left whose chord bearing is S 26°21’35”W and whose
radius is 694.63 feet for a distance of 135.86 feet to a point;
Thence S 20°45’24” W for a distance of 82.83 feet to the place of beginning.
Containing one thousand seven hundred ninety-five (1,795) square feet, more or less.

Page 140 of 146

Said tract is depicted as “Proposed ROW Taking #1” on the aforementioned plan.
Tract No. 2
A certain tract of land situated in Keene, Cheshire County, New Hampshire, bounded and
described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of Thompson Road, said point being a 1”
diameter iron pipe set 0.6 feet above the surrounding earth, marking the
southernmost point on Tax Map Parcel No. 241-095 and the easternmost point on
Tax Map Parcel No. 241-094;
Thence N 44°12’34”E along the westerly line of said Thompson Road for a
distance of 115.38 feet to a point;
Thence N 47°28’44” W for a distance of 11.01 feet to a point;
Thence S 39°17’58” W for a distance of 115.48 feet to the place of beginning.
Containing six hundred ninety-nine (699) square feet, more or less.
Said tract is depicted as “Proposed ROW Taking #2” on the aforementioned plan.
Tract No. 3
A certain tract of land situated in Keene, Cheshire County, New Hampshire, bounded and
described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of Thompson Road, said point being the
northeastern most point on Tax Map Parcel No. 241-096;
Thence S 44°12’34” W along the westerly line of said Thompson Road for a
distance of 226.92 feet to a point;
Thence N 47°28’44” W for a distance of 11.01 feet to a point;
Thence N 39°17’58” E for a distance of 29.87 feet to a point;
Thence along a curve to the right whose chord bearing is N 46°18’27” E and
whose radius is 600 feet for a distance of 146.78 feet to a point;
Thence N 53°18’56” E for a distance of 51.82 feet to the place of beginning.
Containing two thousand six hundred four (2,604) square feet, more or less.
Said tract is depicted as “Proposed ROW Taking #3” on the aforementioned plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Petitioner’s request for a waiver to the requirements of Article 23.2.1 of the
Land Development Code to allow conveyance of an easement for highway purposes
rather than fee title is hereby granted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:

Page 141 of 146

That the City Manager be, and hereby is, authorized to accept and record deeds for
highway easements across the above-described tracts of land from the current property
owners, with the final form and content of said easements to be subject to the review and
approval of the City Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the City Manager be, and hereby is, authorized to pay damages to the owners of the
aforementioned tracts as follows;
a. Tract #1 – Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-One Dollars and Thirty Cents
($7,841.30)
b. Tract #2 – One Thousand Ninety Dollars and Forty-Four Cents ($1,090.44)
c. Tract #3 – Four Thousand Sixty-Two Dollars and Twenty-Four Cents ($4,062.24)

_________________________________
Jay V. Kahn, Mayor
In City Council August 6, 2026.
Referred to the Municipal Services,
Facilities and Infrastructure Committee and
the Planning Board. Site visit set
September 17, 2026, at 5:30 PM.
Public Hearing set September 17, 2026, at 7:00 PM.

Assistant Clerk

Page 142 of 146

RETURN OF ALTERATION OF THE THOMPSON ROAD LAYOUT

A petition requesting the alteration of the Thompson Road Layou having come before the Keene
City Council, and their having considered the same, all parties having been heard and the
owners of land over which such highway shall pass having agreed to accept compensation and
waive their right to any additional damages, it is hearby ordered and adjudged that:
I.

Public exigency and convenience require that a highway be and the same hereby is laid
out, taken and appropriated over three tracts of land situated in the City of Keene,
Cheshire County, New Hampshire. Said tracts are more particularly bounded and
described as follows:
Tract No. 1
A certain tract of land situated in Keene, Cheshire County, New Hampshire, bounded and
described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of Thompson Road, said point being the
southernmost point on Tax Map Parcel No. 241-094 and the easternmost point
on Tax Map Parcel No. 241-093;
Thence N 26°12’26” E along the westerly line of said Thompson Road for a
distance of 252.16 feet to a point, said point being a 5/8” diameter iron rod, set
flush with the surrounding pavement;
Thence S 28°38’17” W for a distance of 34.87 feet to a point said point being a
5/8” diameter iron rod, set flush with the surrounding earth;
Thence along a curve to the left whose chord bearing is S 26°21’35”W and whose
radius is 694.63 feet for a distance of 135.86 feet to a point;
Thence S 20°45’24” W for a distance of 82.83 feet to the place of beginning.
Containing one thousand seven hundred ninety five (1,795) square feet, more or less.
Said tract is depicted as “Proposed ROW Taking #1” on a plan entitled “Thompson Road,
Keene N.H., Right of Way Boundary Plan, Land Located along the Branch River”, prepared
for the City of Keene by Bailey Associates, dated 3/21/2025, to be recorded at the
Cheshire County Registry of Deeds.

Page 143 of 146

Tract No. 2
A certain tract of land situated in Keene, Cheshire County, New Hampshire, bounded and
described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of Thompson Road, said point being a 1”
diameter iron pipe set 0.6 feet above the surrounding earth, marking the
southernmost point on Tax Map Parcel No. 241-095 and the easternmost point
on Tax Map Parcel No. 241-094;
Thence N 44°12’34”E along the westerly line of said Thompson Road for a
distance of 115.38 feet to a point;
Thence N 47°28’44” W for a distance of 11.01 feet to a point;
Thence S 39°17’58” W for a distance of 115.48 feet to the place of beginning.
Containing six hundred ninety-nine (699) square feet, more or less.
Said tract is depicted as “Proposed ROW Taking #2” on the aforementioned plan.

Tract No. 3
A certain tract of land situated in Keene, Cheshire County, New Hampshire, bounded and
described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of Thompson Road, said point being the
northeastern most point on Tax Map Parcel No. 241-096;
Thence S 44°12’34” W along the westerly line of said Thompson Road for a
distance of 226.92 feet to a point;
Thence N 47°28’44” W for a distance of 11.01 feet to a point;
Thence N 39°17’58” E for a distance of 29.87 feet to a point;
Thence along a curve to the right whose chord bearing is N 46°18’27” E and
whose radius is 600 feet for a distance of 146.78 feet to a point;
Thence N 53°18’56” E for a distance of 51.82 feet to the place of beginning.
Containing two thousand six hundred four (2,604) square feet, more or less.
Said tract is depicted as “Proposed ROW Taking #3” on the aforementioned plan.

Page 144 of 146

II.

The City Council finds that there is occasion and necessity for such layout.

III.

The tracts of land hereby laid out shall be added to and become part of the Thompson
Road Right-of-Way.

IV.

These findings and orders shall be recorded in the office of the Keene City Clerk.

___________________________________
Jay V. Kahn, Mayor

_______________________________
Date

Approved as to Description:

Approved as to Form:

_________________________________
Bryan Ruoff, P.E.
City Engineer

_________________________________
Amanda Palmiera
City Attorney

Page 145 of 146

S61°
04'16
"W

6 6 .2 5

THIS SURVEY IS ORIENTED TO N.H. STATE PLANE GRID NORTH AS DETERMINED BY UTILIZING BAD
ELF "FLEX 5600" DUAL FREQUENCY GNSS (GPS, GLONASS, GALELIO & BEIDOU) RECEIVERS, RTK,
VIRTUAL NETWORK METHODS. OBSERVATIONS WERE TAKEN ON 11/21/2022
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 UTILIZING (GEOID 18).
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD83(2011) MULTI-YEAR CORS SOLUTION 2 (MYCS2) EPOCH = 2010.000
BEGIN DATE = 01/01/2020.
REFERENCE FRAME: ITRF2014

TA
X

M

'
S59°
57'16
"W

A
NO
RM P
AN 24
BK
.26 C. K 1 L
46 RIS O
PG TO T 9
.20 FF
8

SURVEY DATUM

268.
62'

TAX MAP 241 LOT 97
THOMPSON-CHAPMAN
CONSERVATION ASSOC. INC.
BK.2646 PG.16

TAX MAP 241 LOT 99
NORMAN C. KRISTOFF
BK.2646 PG.20

PROPOSED
ROW Taking #3
2,604 S.F.

H
IG
1 .1

'H

UP 31/4

RB

Δ=4° 12' 28"
R=1004.87'
L=73.80'

44 Rd

60 R

UP

N3

6°40'E

10 Rd

8 Rd

12
Rd

4 Rd

64 R
d

N65
°10
'E 1
0R
d
16 R
d

24

10'

E1

28

UP
N63
°40'E
20 R
68 R
d
d

TAX MAP 241 LOT 105

76 R

d

ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY
BK.2190 PG.411

Rd

80

Rd

THOMPSON ROAD RIGHT OF WAY TAKINGS

L D R
1 ROA DNE
24 ON AR 040
P S . G .1
A MP H PG
M THO REY 265
FF .3
JE BK

UP 31/1

ROW PARCEL
SEGMENTS TABLE

ROW PARCEL
SEGMENTS
TABLE

83

ID
C1

Bearing

Length
135.86

Curve Radius

Chrd Brg:S26°21'35"W

L1

82.83

S20° 45' 24"W

L2

252.16

N26° 12' 26"E

L3

34.87

S38° 38' 17"W

694.63

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
TAKING #3
FOR TAX MAP 241 LOT 96
(27 THOMPSON ROAD)

ID

Length

Bearing

L4

115.48

S39° 17' 58"W

L5

115.38

N44° 12' 34"E

L6

11.01

N47° 28' 44"W

ROW TAKING #2: 699 S.F.

ID

Length

Bearing

88 Rd
UP 31/10

C10

146.78

Chrd Brg:N46°18'27"E

L6

11.01

N47° 28' 44"W

L7

29.87

N39° 17' 58"E

L8

51.82

N53° 18' 56"E

L9

226.92

S44° 12' 34"W

Curve Radius
600.00

TAX MAP 241 LOT 102
SCALE: 1"=50'
5/8
" IR
F -.
1' H
IGH

ROW TAKING #3: 2,604 S.F.

MULTIPLE SHEET RECORDABLE ROW PLAN
85

PLAN CERTIFICATIONS
1.
2.

03/21/2025

PARCEL TABLES RE-ALIGNED

CTB

JOB No. 3673

DATE 3/21/2025

SCALE ; 1"=50'

50

25

0

50

100

03/21/2025

DECIDUOUS TREE
CONIFEROUS TREE
SOIL TYPE
EDGE OF GRAVEL DRIVE

D

S
W

SEWER MAN HOLE
DRAIN MAN HOLE
WELL
HYDRANT
WATER SHUTOFF

GV

GATE VALVE
CATCH BASIN
UTILITY POLE
LIGHT POLE
GUY ANCHOR

TREELINE

U

WETLAND
EXISTING WATER
W
EXISTING SEWER LINE
S
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
D
BUILDING SETBACK LINE

DE

ENG
IN

B
A

IC

DRAWN BY ; CTB

TP

S

Y

SI

GN

NCE
S

CTB

03/21/2025

SC
IE

ROW TAKINGS PARCELS REVISED

TEMPORARY BENCHMARK
PERMANENT BENCHMARK
WETLAND FLAG
WETLAND
TREE STUMP FOUND
MAIL BOX
PERCOLATION TEST
TEST PIT

S

03/07/2025

REBAR FND/SET
REBAR TO BE SET
DRILL HOLE FND/SET
CONCRETE BND.FND/SET
CONC. BND. TO BE SET
GRANITE BND. FND/SET
STONE ERECT FOUND
STAKE & STONES FND.
IRON ROD FOUND
IRON PIPE FOUND
SPIKE FND/SET
MAGNAIL (PK) FND/SET
HUB & TACK FND/SET

E
RV

L AN
D

CTB

STONEWALL

T
SEP

BRYAN L. BAILEY ASSOCIATES, INC.

ASBUILT & PROPOSED EASEMENT ADDED

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF A THEODOLITE /
EDM SURVEY PERFORMED ON THE GROUND AND UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION DURING 2022 &
2024, AND THAT THE ADJUSTED ERROR OF CLOSURE IS NOT GREATER THAN 1 PART IN 10,000.
EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO PROPERLY ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
SUBJECT TRACT. THIS CERTIFICATION DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY GUARANTEE OF TITLE.

DATE:

O

G:\3673_JTC-KEENE\dwg\3673_EXISTING_CONDITIONS.dwg, 3/21/2025 8:02:38 AM

12/30/2024

6.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE FILED A COPY OF THIS PLAN WITH THE PLANNING BOARD OF KEENE,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH RSA 676:18 (IV)

NG

INITIALS

5.

I CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY PLAT IS NOT A SUBDIVISION PURSUANT TO THIS TITLE AND THAT THE
LINES OF STREETS AND WAYS SHOWN ARE THOSE OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREETS OR WAYS
ALREADY ESTABLISHED AND THAT NO NEW WAYS ARE SHOWN.

RI

REVISION

4.

67 THOMPSON ROAD
JESSICA & FRANCIS PIERANNUNZI
BK.2624 PG.361

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY AND SURVEY PLAT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR THOSE UNDER
MY DIRECT SUPERVISION.

EE

DATE

3.

D

3.

AN ASBUILT SURVEY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS
PERFORMED BY THIS OFFICE ON 12/12/2024. THE AS-BUILT
LOCATIONS OF THE RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS
AND ASSOCIATED SLOPES WITH DRAINAGE WAS LOCATED, AND THE
PROPOSED TAKINGS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT WERE MONUMENTED.

S

2.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS TO SHOW THE RIGHT OF WAY OF
4.
THOMPSON ROAD, ACCORDING TO CITY OF KEENE HIGHWAY BOOK
#1, RETURN OF LAYOUT AS DESCRIBED AS BEING 2 RODS IN WIDTH,
100 RODS IN LENGTH, AND DESCRIBED BY NON-CURVILINEAR
POINTS OF INTERSECTION AND DISTANCES ONLY. THE ORIGINAL
RIGHT OF WAY IS SHOWN AS A CENTERLINE USING RODS AS THE
UNIT LENGTH.
IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY, A NUMBER OF NEW
RIGHT-OF-WAY TAKINGS ARE NEEDED TO FACILITATE ON GOING
ROAD MAINTENANCE. THIS PLAN SHOWS THE PROPOSED PARCELS
TO BE ANNEXED TO THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY.
THERE ARE TWO APPARENT LOCATIONS WHERE THE HIGHWAY AS
TRAVELED IS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE ORIGINAL RIGHT OF WAY,
AND PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS MAY HAVE RIPENED OVER TIME.

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PREPARED FOR KAREN B. CURRAN, KEENE NH AS PREPARED BY
DAVID A. MANN ASSOCIATES, DATED 01/03/1987 AND RECORDED AS CCRD PLAN 521.
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT LOTS 241-102-000, 101, 103 & 104, THOMPSON ROAD
KEENE, NH 03431 AS PREPARED BY CARDINAL SURVEYING & LAND PLANNING, DATED
05/22/2023 AND RECORDED AS CCRD PLAN #23049.
EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN, BULK STORAGE FACILITY, TAX MAP PARCEL 68-1-1, 639
MARLBORO ROAD, KEENE, NH. AS PREPARED BY FIELDSTONE LAND CONSULTANTS,
DATED MARCH 16, 2017 AND ON FILE AT THE CITY OF KEENE.
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PLAN PREPARED FOR JEANNETTE L. GARDNER & GREGORY H.
GARDNER 67 THOMPSON ROAD, AS PREPARED BY DAVID A. MANN, LAND SURVEYOR
DATED MARCH 27, 2007 AND RECORDED AS CCRD PLAN #C13-D06-0085
SUBDIVISION PLAT, MAP 199 LOT 01-1, MAP 901 LOTS 21-6 & 21-28, CHAPMAN AND
THOMPSON ROADS KEENE, N.H. AS PREPARED BY RICHARD P. DREW LLC DATED
08/13/2003 AND ON FILE AT THE CITY OF KEENE.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT - PLAN AND PROFILE OF
PROPOSED T.L.R. PROJECT NO. 14117, SOUTH SIDE ROAD, DATED 05/31/1933. ON FILE
AT THE NH DOT ARCHIVES.

W

1.

d

Rd

ROW PARCEL
SEGMENTS TABLE

84

ROW TAKING #1: 1,795 S.F.

84
R

0'E 14
N37°5
92 Rd

4

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
TAKING #2
FOR TAX MAP 241 LOT 95
(27 THOMPSON ROAD)

Rd

10

PC: 80+63.20

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
TAKING #1
FOR TAX MAP 241 LOT 94
(17 THOMPSON ROAD)

'E
8

T

5/8" RBS 1' HIGH 1001

CONCRETE
MASONRY
UNIT
RETAINING
WALLS (TYP.)

°10

O

5/8" RBS -0.4' HIGH 1001

THIS PLANSET CONTAINS A TOTAL OF 8 SHEETS. SHEET NUMBER
8 IS RECORDED AT THE CHESHIRE COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS.
THE REMAINING SHEETS ARE ON FILE AT THE CITY OF KEENE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, WHICH IN ITS ENTIRETY,
CONSTITUTE THE SITE PLAN AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
PT: 85+33.80
BOARD.

N7
5

X

20
Rd

5/8" RBS FLUSH 1001

82

UP 31/8

72 R
d

Rd

0 Rd

S

5/8" RBF .7' HIGH DREW

31
/7

TA

81

6°
N2

d
6R

59 THOMPSON ROAD
MICHAEL R. LAROCHE ET AL
BK.1775 PG.159

d

TBM #3
ELEV=608.93
ARROW BOLT

Rd

33'

TBM #2
ELEV=526.72
TRI-NAIL SET IN 14" OAK

32

/2
31

TAX MAP 241 LOT 101

1' H
IGH

52 Rd

48 Rd

33'

3

40 Rd

d
6R

56 Rd

5/8
" IR
F -.

N44°10'E 22 Rd

WS
O

5/8
" RB
SF
LUS
H1
001

PROPOSED
ROW Taking #1
1,795 S.F.

3/4" IPF 0.2' HIGH

HEIRS OF GEORGE A. LAROCHE
BK.1775 PG.159

F

BM NGS
ELEV=631.51
BRASS DISK

5/8" RBS FLUSH 1001

5/8" RBS FLUSH 1001

TAX MAP 241 LOT 100

8"

5/8" RBS FLUSH 1001

8'
HIG
HD
RE
W

1/ 6

5/
8"
RB
F.

UP 3

PROPOSED
ROW Taking #2
699 S.F.

5 /8 "

UP 31/3

5/

642 MARLBORO RD.
KAREN B. CURRAN
BK.969 PG.152

T
SE ELE
V BM
TI
N U =61 #1
P 1 3 .2 3
'A
GL

TAX MAP 241 LOT 96
OTHER LAND OF BALL
BK.1810 PG.805

1" IPF .6' HIGH

TAX MAP 241 LOT 93

TR
I-N
AIL

R BF

27 THOMPSON RD.
ROBERT W. BALL
BK.1155 PG.126

17 THOMPSON RD.
GREGORY C. WALKER
BK.840 PG.522

DR
IGH
.5' H

TAX MAP 241 LOT 94

EW

TAX MAP 241 LOT 95

RA
NAT U

L

Rd
0'E 14 RL17
N37°5
d -L7
RW
92RO

96 Rd

100 Rd

UP 31/10

TAX MAP 241 LOT 103
60 THOMPSON ROAD
JEFFREY & ALLISON GARDNER
BK.1962 PG.474

CRAIG T. BAILEY L.L.S. #1001

Bailey Associates
land surveying & land planning
engineering & natural resource sciences
www.bailey-associates.com
(603) 528-3734
217 Cotton Hill Rd. Gilford, NH 03249
SERVING NEW HAMPSHIRE SINCE 1978

RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDARY PLAN
PROJECT OWNER:
CITY OF KEENE, N.H.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
3 WASHINGTON ST.
KEENE, NH 03431
DATE OF PLAN: March 2025

SHEET 4 OF 4

Page 146 of 146