KEENE, N.H. (MyKeeneNow) The Keene City Council spent much of its Thursday meeting in a divided debate over whether to revisit recently adopted zoning changes aimed at encouraging housing development, ultimately postponing the matter for about a month after multiple motions failed.

At the center of the discussion was an ordinance adopted last year that made several changes to the city’s land development code — most notably increasing the number of allowed dwelling units in the Medium Density District.

Under the previous rules, buildings in that district were limited to three residential units. Property owners seeking to build up to six units had to apply for a conditional use permit under a “cottage court” provision, triggering Planning Board review and, in some cases, site plan approval.

The updated ordinance doubled that allowance, permitting up to six units per building “by right,” meaning no special zoning approval is required for that increase — though projects must still comply with site plan review, building codes, and other regulations.

The change evolved from an initial citizen proposal that would have allowed six smaller units — capped at 600 square feet — but that size restriction was later removed by a joint Planning Board and Planning, Licenses and Development (PLD) Committee, leaving a broader allowance for six units per building.

According to city staff, no projects have yet been proposed under the new six-unit standard, though there have been past inquiries about adding units in the district.

The ordinance’s stated goal was to promote housing development, including the potential to convert larger homes into smaller apartments — an idea supporters say could help address housing shortages, but one that has also raised concerns about neighborhood character and density.

Thursday’s debate was not about changing the ordinance itself, but whether to reopen discussion so soon after its adoption.

The council’s deliberations were shaped in part by formal communications submitted as part of the meeting agenda, including opposition from Councilor Laura Ruttle-Miller and the Monadnock Interfaith Project.

In her letter, Ruttle-Miller cautioned against reconsidering the policy prematurely.

“Reversing an ordinance that expands housing opportunity, particularly less than a year after its adoption, risks undermining the City’s ability to meaningfully address housing needs,” she wrote.

She emphasized that there has not been enough time to evaluate the impact of the change.

“A seven-month period is not sufficient to evaluate the impact of a policy change of this scale,” Ruttle-Miller added, urging the council to rely on long-term data rather than anecdotal concerns.

A separate letter from the Monadnock Interfaith Project echoed those concerns, highlighting the broad reach of the region’s housing challenges.

“We understand that the Planning Licenses, and Development Committee is considering reopening discussion… This does not feel like a good use of time and resources,” wrote Tom Julius and Angela Pape.

The group urged the city to focus on other housing strategies and allow time for the ordinance to take effect.

“We urge the City Council to give Ordinance O-2025-15-A time to work,” the letter states.

Despite that opposition, several councilors argued Thursday night that additional time was needed to hear from residents.

“The main reason for PLD requesting more time is honestly simple — to allow further input from concerned citizens that have asked,” said Councilor Filiault, chair of the Planning, Licenses and Development Committee. “Above all the issues by this council, it’s imperative that we allow input requested by our constituents.”

Filiault also pointed to precedent.

“Not once, ever, never have we refused a council committee to grant more time ever — not once,” he said.

Councilor Ed Haas framed the issue as one of public participation.

“To deny, to move away from putting on more time and take it as informational, strikes me as kiboshing free speech,” Haas said. “It won’t look good in anybody’s eyes.”

Councilor Bettina Chadbourne echoed that sentiment.

“Elected by the people. If the people want to hear it again, we hear it again — that’s all,” Chadbourne said.

Others pushed back, arguing the ordinance had already been thoroughly vetted and that no new information justified reopening it.

“There’s no reason for this ordinance to be revisited at this time — there have been no new developments,” said Councilor Catherine Workman.

Councilor Bobby Williams raised concerns about priorities and staff time.

“We’ve already spent quite a bit of time in this rabbit hole last year,” Williams said. “It’s not a good use of council time. It’s not a good use of staff time. We have other priorities.”

Councilor Tobin said he remained unconvinced there was a clear purpose for revisiting the issue.

“I did not hear any new information presented or communicated,” Tobin said. “New information is something I would need in order to think it was worth warranting more time and a clear goal.”

After extended debate, a motion to accept the request as informational failed. A subsequent motion to grant more time also failed on a 7–8 vote, leaving the council without a clear path forward.

To break the impasse, Philio moved to table the item to a date certain roughly two meetings away. The motion passed, effectively giving residents additional time to provide input while delaying any formal reconsideration.