Somersworth ZBA denies variance for short-term rental at 78 Salmon Falls Road

The Somersworth Zoning Board of Adjustment voted 5-0 on March 5 to deny a variance sought by Michelle Grama to operate a tourist home (short-term rental) at 78 Salmon Falls Road in the city’s agricultural district.

The board found that the applicant did not satisfy the fifth variance criterion—unnecessary hardship—because the application did not show that the zoning restriction, as applied to this parcel, imposed a unique or undue burden that would justify allowing a commercial short-term rental in an agricultural zone. Brad Ferdette, a board member, moved to deny and said, “After review of the application, the file, and all the information presented to the Board, I feel that criteria 5, the hardship criteria, has not been satisfied.” The motion passed unanimously.

Board members and planning staff said the agricultural district’s purpose in the ordinance favors low-density, large-lot single-family uses and that short-term rentals are treated as a commercial use in the city’s table of uses (table4.a.5). Anna Crosley, planning staff, told the board that because the use is listed both as prohibited and as a special exception in different parts of the table, the more restrictive (prohibited) designation controls and requires a variance to proceed.

Neighbors who spoke at the public hearing opposed the request on character and precedent grounds. Darren Ray, who said he lives at 71 Salmon Falls Road, told the board, “We’ve been there 25 years,” and said the area is “zoned agricultural” and that granting a variance “will open it up for other people in the area that have an Airbnb.” The board also read a letter from Peg Toussaint of 69 Salmon Falls Road, who wrote she has lived there “55 and a half years” and urged the board not to grant the variance.

Applicant Michelle Grama said she had previously operated the property briefly as an Airbnb in 2023 and described the request as a short-term measure to cover expenses while unemployed. “It’s just for me to, like, maintain myself a little bit while I’m unemployed,” Grama said. She said she would limit occupancy to a maximum of six guests and had installed outdoor security cameras and planned noise-control measures.

During deliberations, several board members focused on two central issues: whether granting this variance would set a precedent that changes the character of the agricultural neighborhood and whether the applicant demonstrated a property-specific hardship distinct from other parcels in the zone. Anthony Jones, citing zoning doctrine, reminded the board that economic or owner-specific hardship alone generally does not satisfy the legal test for a variance. Ken Vincent said he could not support the request because it risked “opening up a box of worms” in that area.

Crosley also noted procedural next steps: if a variance were granted, the project would still require minor site-plan review and would be subject to the associated appeal periods; she also said residents could file complaints later if any ordinance or site-plan violations occurred. The board recorded that a 30-day appeal period applies to the variance decision.

The board additionally discussed the apparent inconsistency in the city’s table of uses—short-term rentals appearing under both prohibited and special-exception columns—and several members suggested the city council be asked to clarify the ordinance wording.

The application was recorded as ZBA case number 22025 and references assessor’s map 52, lot 17A. Because the request was denied, the minor site-plan review and any licensing or permit steps tied to an approved variance were not reached.

The board moved on to other agenda items after the vote and closed the meeting.