At its June meeting the Somersworth Zoning Board of Adjustment unanimously approved two variances allowing commercial use and a mini‑warehouse (self‑storage) development on a long, narrow parcel at the end of Lilac Lane (Assessor Map 43, Lot 1L).

The approvals clear two separate zoning hurdles: a variance from Table 5.a.1 to permit a commercial use on a lot with less than the 200 feet of frontage required in the Commercial‑Industrial (CI) district, and a use variance from Table 4.a.5 to allow mini‑warehouses on the same lot. The board voted that neither application had potential regional impact (5–0) and then granted both variances by unanimous votes.

Why it matters: The property owner intends to redevelop a long, narrow, underused parcel that previously received variances in 2014–2015 that lapsed when the proposals were not acted on. The applicant told the board the site is better suited to low‑visibility, low‑traffic uses rather than typical CI frontage businesses or heavy industrial operations, and that indoor storage would generate tax revenue without adding students to local schools or significant utility demands.

What the board heard: City staff identified the requests and noted prior variances had expired, requiring new relief. Jeff Alleva, the civil consultant representing property owner Nick Curtis, described the lot as "long and narrow" and said it is "a low impact, low traffic, type of situation" suitable for self‑storage and indoor RV/boat storage rather than truck‑intensive industrial uses. Alleva said the project would include predominantly indoor units (no leasing office or dwelling units proposed) and that some larger indoor units would accommodate boats and RVs.

Board members queried the site layout and operations. Ken Vincent, a ZBA member who said, "I actually live across the street from this potential project," asked about the lot grade, the proximity to Sherwood Glen Trailer Park and the possibility that future road connections could extend frontage. Vincent and other members noted public works property and a utility corridor border the parcel and discussed visibility from adjacent streets. Alleva and other speakers said the site is tucked behind existing parcels and would not be highly visible from Route 108 or other main thoroughfares.

Practical details discussed at the meeting: the lot’s existing frontage was described by the applicant as about 60 feet; the minimum frontage in the CI district for the commercial use is 200 feet. The applicant said the concept layout would provide roughly 150–160 indoor storage units of varying sizes, with typical large units described as about 40 by 15 feet, aisle widths designed to accommodate RV turning, and internal site lanes noted during the meeting to be unusually wide in the concept (applicant estimated some aisles at about 55–60 feet in the concept). Alleva said the proposal would not include individual unit water or sewer hookups and that the facility would be accessed with an automated gate; he also said a fire hydrant could be addressed during site‑plan review if required.

Legal and procedural context: Miss Crosley, a staff member, told the board that state RSA rules limit variances and special exceptions to two years unless the applicant demonstrates substantial progress toward approved site plan stages (she said an additional six‑month period can follow site plan approval). She also advised that, if granted, the variances will require the applicant to pursue site‑plan review with the Planning Board before development.

Board reasoning and vote: Members focused on the hardship criterion, repeatedly citing the lot’s unusual shape, location at the tail end of a road, and limited frontage as unique circumstances that prevent a conventional CI development. Several members said the proposed use is consistent with the ordinance’s purpose because it would not change neighborhood character or create substantial negative impacts on adjacent properties. The board voted 5–0 that the applications had no potential regional impact, then granted both variances by unanimous votes.

What happens next: The approvals are subject to the normal site‑plan review process; the board noted state RSA time limits on variances and the possibility of an extension request if the applicant cannot meet statutory deadlines. The applicants must complete planning and permitting steps before construction.

Ending note: The property owner’s redevelopment concept — indoor, low‑visibility storage with spaces sized for boats and RVs and an automated gate — drew support from the board, which concluded the parcel’s physical constraints justify relief from frontage and use requirements so the site can be developed.