Committee continues rezoning request for 425 Marlborough Street and asks staff to draft broader zoning fixes

A petitioner seeking to rezone 425 Marlborough Street from Neighborhood Business to Low Density asked the Keene Planning, Licenses and Development Committee on Tuesday to clear a zoning path for a cottage‑court housing project; the committee voted unanimously to continue the public workshop and asked staff to prepare a revised ordinance and broader code changes before returning for further review.

The request was brought by Jeb Thurmond, owner of property at 425 Marlborough Street and a member of Keene Marlborough Group LLC. Thurmond told the committee he is not a developer and described the proposal as an opportunity to create smaller, affordable rental housing near downtown. “I like the idea of the cottage court idea,” Thurmond said, adding that his interest grew from conversations with city staff and personal difficulty finding housing for family members.

The committee’s action follows a detailed staff presentation by Evan Clements, city planner, who placed the lot on the city’s future‑land‑use map and explained how the proposed map amendment would change allowed uses and dimensional rules. “We are looking at a potential zoning change for 425 Marlborough Street from neighborhood business to low density,” Clements said, noting the parcel contains a single‑family home and covers about 0.92 acres (TMP 596‑017‑000). Clements summarized that the neighborhood lies on the boundary between the city’s industrial/live‑work and primary growth areas and that the master plan supports locating higher‑density housing where municipal infrastructure can support it.

Nut graf: Committee members focused not only on the petitioner’s goals but on how the existing Neighborhood Business zoning — particularly the district’s build‑to requirement that places building facades close to the street — affects what can be built on irregularly shaped lots. Staff and members debated whether to grant the map amendment as requested, or instead revise the Neighborhood Business text to allow multiple detached structures or to permit cottage courts directly in that district. Those changes would affect future owners as well as the current petitioner.

During discussion Mary Brunner, community development staff, clarified numerical limits and tradeoffs between zones: low density imposes lower lot‑coverage and impervious limits than Neighborhood Business (staff cited low‑density building coverage of about 35% and impervious coverage of about 45% as an example), while medium and high density districts allow greater coverage (medium: building coverage ~45% / impervious 60%; high: building coverage ~55% / impervious 75%). Brunner also explained that the Neighborhood Business district includes a form‑based “build‑to zone” that typically requires front facades to be located between 5 and 10 feet from the front lot line, an element that can limit placing multiple detached structures behind a street‑facing building.

Some committee members said keeping the parcel in Neighborhood Business and amending the text might preserve flexibility for mixed commercial‑residential uses along Marlborough Street; others favored a map amendment to Low Density to allow cottage‑court development. Councilor Harold Farrington urged the path of least resistance — changing the parcel to Low Density so the petitioner could pursue the cottage‑court pathway — while several members including Councilor Ken (Kenneth Cost) and Councilor Bobby Williams favored instead revising Neighborhood Business requirements so multiple buildings could be placed behind a street‑facing structure.

The petitioner told the committee he did not have a site plan; he estimated the existing house sits roughly 15–20 feet from the road and said he would not necessarily tear it down. “I’m not a developer. I’m a chiropractor,” Thurmond said. He confirmed he would be willing to retract his map amendment application if staff and the committee instead pursue a zoning text amendment that addresses the build‑to rule.

After extended deliberation, the committee voted unanimously to continue the public workshop. The committee directed staff to prepare an “A” version ordinance that (a) explores zoning‑text changes to Neighborhood Business to allow detached secondary structures without forcing every building into the build‑to zone, (b) considers allowing Cottage Court development in Neighborhood Business or otherwise clarifying where Cottage Court may be used, and (c) evaluate whether similar form‑based constraints exist in other districts and propose consistent fixes. The committee also asked staff to return with draft language and a map for a subsequent workshop.

Ending: Under the committee’s direction, staff will draft the alternative ordinance and return it to the joint Planning Board/PLD committee for additional review. The petitioner said he would withdraw his current application if staff’s alternative text provides a workable path forward.

Votes at a glance: The committee voted unanimously to continue the public workshop on ordinance O‑2025‑07 (425 Marlborough Street rezoning) and requested an A‑version that examines text changes and broader district impacts.