The Keene Planning, Licenses and Development Committee on a 6–1 vote approved plans for an 18‑unit cottage court at 454 Elm Street, allowing a limited impact of 1,435 square feet within the 30‑foot wetland buffer to accommodate stormwater management improvements.

John Noonan of Fieldstone Land Consultants, the applicant’s consultant, told the board the 2.3‑acre proposal would create 18 detached single‑family condominium units governed by an owners’ association that would maintain the private road and stormwater systems. The application seeks only a site‑specific impact of the buffer related to a level spreader and stormwater outlets; Noonan said the remainder of the 30‑foot buffer would remain intact and that the project adds native plantings, silky dogwoods and a Northeast pollinator seed mix as mitigation.

“Ultimately, we’re just looking for approval of the impact area only — 1,435 square feet — which is for stormwater management,” Noonan said.

Staff and the city engineer reviewed stormwater plans and concluded the post‑development flows for standard return intervals would be controlled with on‑site detention, outlet orifices and a level spreader to avoid channelized flow to the wetland. Staff told the board the city engineer had reviewed the stormwater report and that the design includes an inspection and maintenance plan the homeowners’ association must follow; the city will accept water and sewer mains once built and utility easements will be recorded.

Evan Clements, deputy zoning administrator and planner, summarized board and staff findings: the three proposed unit types produce a site‑wide average gross floor area of about 1,248 square feet (under the 1,250‑square‑foot cottage‑court maximum); footprints are 895 square feet and parking meets requirements (one garage space plus one driveway space per unit). Clements noted the Conservation Commission reviewed the application and that staff’s preliminary finding was that the project does not create regional impact but does require the surface‑water conditional use permit for the buffer impact.

Neighbors and abutters raised concerns about traffic, cumulative impervious surface and local drainage. Gary Boutel, an Elm Street resident, told the board he believed a fuller traffic study was warranted given the proximity of Fuller School and Court Street. “I think a traffic study is necessary for this proposal,” Boutel said, adding he fears increased vehicle volumes and safety risks during peak school travel times.

John Noonan and the applicant’s traffic consultant said trip‑generation estimates based on ITE tables show a peak‑hour estimate of about 14 vehicle trips in the AM and 18 in the PM for the whole project and that the estimated daily trips fall below the local thresholds that trigger a full traffic study. Noonan said the traffic engineer advised total daily trips were under the 100‑vehicle threshold and the AM/PM peak hour estimates were under the 50‑vehicle peak‑hour trigger.

Board members debated cumulative impacts from other recent and pending developments on Elm Street but cited the city’s current trip‑generation thresholds in concluding a full traffic study was not required for this application. Several members said the project’s stormwater controls represented an improvement over existing conditions because the design captures and detains more runoff on site than the present configuration.

A historic‑resources concern also emerged: the Sadeke family descendants sent a letter asserting the existing house on the lot has historic significance. Clements explained the property is subject to Keene’s demolition‑review and demolition‑delay ordinance; the demolition review committee (a subcommittee of the Heritage Commission) can document the property and delay a demolition permit up to 30 days to explore alternatives, but the city cannot indefinitely bar the owner from demolition under the ordinance.

The board approved the application with precedent conditions (owner signatures on plans, submission of five full‑size paper plan sets and a digital copy, submission of security acceptable to the Community Development Director to cover landscaping/sediment/erosion and as‑built plans, and draft utility easement documentation for city review) and subsequent conditions (installation and inspection of erosion controls and wetland buffer flagging before site work, recorded utility easements, city council acceptance of utilities after construction, initial and one‑year landscaping inspections). The approval was recorded as a roll call: Harold Farrington — yes; Roberta Mastrogiovanni — yes; Mike Remy — yes; Armando Rangel — no; Michael Hafer — yes; Stefan Mayhew — yes; Mayor Jay Khan — yes.

Next steps: the applicant must satisfy precedent conditions, record required easements and securities, obtain any necessary demolition permits and coordinate recorded documentation with the Community Development Department before commencing site work.