Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Route108 136 Opaque Melody topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board grants variance for 18‑unit development at 136 Route 108
Summary
The board approved a variance permitting 18 condominium units at 136 Route 108 on a split CI/R‑1 parcel; the board found no regional impact and approved the variance 4–1, with site plan and buffering to be addressed by the planning board.
The Somersworth Zoning Board voted to grant a variance that allows the development of 18 residential condominium units on a split‑zoned property at 136 Route 108, approving the request 4–1 after concluding the proposal does not have potential for regional impact.
Planning staff told the board the parcel, roughly 2.5 acres, is partly in the Commercial/Industrial (CI) district for about 300 feet from the road and partly in the single‑family residential district; an existing single‑family structure built about 1920 sits on the lot and is a nonconforming use. The applicant, Opaque Melody LLC, represented by attorney F.X. Bruton, proposed three buildings of five units plus one three‑unit building (total 18 units) designed as condominiums for sale rather than rental apartments. The applicant said the proposal meets the city’s density calculations (approximately 6,000 square feet per unit and lot area over two acres), provides two‑car garages plus visitor parking, and would extend city water to the site at the applicant’s expense.
Residents and abutters spoke during the hearing. Tina Stewart, representing her 78‑year‑old mother who lives at 134 Route 108 next door, said she feared the project’s effect on her mother’s safety, privacy and driveway access and asked whether the city water extension would force her mother to connect. The applicant responded that buffering and fencing would be considered at the planning‑board stage and said the project team would work with neighbors on screening.
Before the variance vote the board evaluated whether the project had potential for regional impact (an assessment under RSA guidance). After discussing traffic, water use, schools and other cross‑jurisdictional effects, the board voted 5–0 that the project does not have potential for regional impact; the matter then returned to the variance criteria. Supporters on the board said the parcel’s split zoning and its residential context — including nearby condominiums, larger apartment complexes and a manufactured‑housing park — make the residential development consistent with surrounding uses and justify relief. Opponents cited loss of potential CI land and concerns about safety and traffic.
Board member Richard Brooks moved to grant the variance; the motion passed 4–1. The board did not add specific conditions beyond the standard requirement that the project must proceed to site‑plan review before any construction or change of use; planning staff noted buffering and other site‑level mitigation will be reviewed and conditioned by the Planning Board.
