Keene council sends decision on 100 Church Street back to committee after neighbors seek time to plan

The Keene City Council voted 14–1 Thursday to send the question of selling a small city-owned parcel at 100 Church Street back to the Municipal Services, Facilities and Infrastructure (MSFI) Committee for another month, after repeated debate over safety, neighbor plans and long-term maintenance.

Councilor Greenwald, who presented the MSFI committee's finding, said the parcel is a small, city-owned lot that has been maintained in the past but is not formally a park. “It is just a piece of land that is available to the public,” Greenwald said, arguing that without a formal plan the city is unlikely to sustain maintenance. He noted the MSFI committee had voted 4–1 to sell the parcel after months of consideration.

Neighbors and property owners have offered conflicting views on the lot. Communications submitted in advance included petitions and letters urging the city either to retain and maintain the space as a pocket park or to sell it to a private owner. Councilor Williams told the council there is a petition and “a list of 21 people who have volunteered to help out” to develop and implement a plan to maintain the site. Several councilors said they wanted to give that group a final opportunity to present a concrete plan to city staff and the committee.

Opponents of retaining the parcel pointed to ongoing safety and nuisance concerns. Councilor Madison said neighbors who live adjacent to the property report daily problems, including public defecation and other behaviors that have made abutters uncomfortable. “The folks who are adjacent to this property, who are dealing with the behaviors going on at this property on a daily basis, are very much in favor of selling it,” Madison said.

Councilor Tobin said the core issue is safety rather than green space. She observed that the property was never formally designed or managed as a park and that selling the lot does not guarantee it will be developed. Tobin also urged the city to consider broader volunteer programs for small public parcels whether this lot is sold or not.

After extended discussion, Greenwald moved to refer the matter back to the MSFI committee; Councilor Filio seconded the referral. The council voted in favor, 14–1, to return the item to committee with instructions that the committee should consider any neighborhood plan and that this should conclude the matter at the November committee cycle unless a staff-approved plan is presented.

Background: The parcel was planted and lightly maintained when Antioch University occupied a nearby building, according to remarks at the meeting. Councilors said the city originally took the property through eminent domain for a road that was never built and that the city has not budgeted ongoing maintenance for the small lot. The MSFI committee previously recommended sale after considering competing petitions and after asking neighbors to submit a maintenance plan over several meetings.

The council recorded no formal plan acceptance; the referral instructs MSFI and city staff to evaluate any neighborhood maintenance proposal and any legal or liability issues associated with transferring or leasing the parcel.

The council did not set a sale or transfer date and made no decisions about a specific purchaser. The city manager and city attorney will review any proposals forwarded by MSFI before further council action.