Portsmouth council adopts coliving zoning amendment after debate over parking, lease minimum and on‑site management

Portsmouth City Council voted to adopt an amendment to Chapter 10 of the city zoning ordinance to add “co‑living” as a new, conditional use in specified character districts (CD‑4, CD‑5), CD‑4W Gateway areas, and business districts, creating a regulatory framework for shared housing models.

Peter (city planning) summarized the key standards proposed: co‑living facilities may contain co‑living units (sleeping rooms) and shared common areas; a co‑living unit is limited to a maximum of two persons and the unit cannot contain a kitchen; a co‑living facility shall not exceed 80 residents per building or 40 residents per floor; one full‑time on‑site manager is required for every 40 residents; common areas must meet a minimum square footage standard (baseline 1,200 square feet plus incremental space per unit); and proposed parking rules exempt facilities located within 600 feet of selected public parking garages (Foundry and Hanover) from off‑street parking requirements while facilities beyond 600 feet must provide one space per four co‑living units.

In public comment at the council’s hearing many residents raised concerns about management, parking, neighborhood impacts and health inspections. Petra Huda urged the council to require an on‑site resident manager at all times and objected to the 80‑resident cap in a single building, saying larger resident populations “would create an issue” and expressing concern about parking displacement in downtown neighborhoods. Elizabeth Browder said unsupervised large shared living situations could recreate problems seen in older rooming houses and urged strong management and supervision. Supporters of the ordinance, including Council members who had worked on the proposal and the planning board, said the use provides a housing option for workers, seasonal staff and younger residents priced out of conventional housing.

Council debate focused on three recurring questions: minimum lease length, parking and management. Councilor Denton introduced an amendment to change the minimum continuous occupancy from 30 days to six months; supporters argued a longer minimum would provide tenant stability, while opponents said 30 days preserves flexibility for temporary workers and could help pass the ordinance. The motion to change the minimum to six months failed on a roll call (four yes, four no) after councilors expressed differing views: Councilor Tabor and Denton voted yes on the amendment; Councilors Cook, Blaylock, Bagley, Monroe, Lombardi and the mayor voted no.

Council members also directed a technical revision after a legal review and moved to delete a phrase in the ordinance’s purpose section that would have limited the new use to downtown; the council voted to strike that phrase so the use applies in the districts shown in the amended use table rather than only downtown.

After additional deliberation the council voted to suspend the rules and pass third and final reading at the same meeting. The council’s final actions included procedural votes to remove the downtown‑only wording and then to pass the ordinance through third reading; councilors discussed and added requirements for management contact information, inspection processes and limitations on short‑term rentals (co‑living facilities are not allowed as short‑term rentals and require more than 30 days’ continuous occupancy under the adopted language).

The ordinance sets a permitting path (conditional use permit with planning board review and subsequent city permits) and requires permanent signage identifying management contact information to be provided to the city clerk so the city can reach on‑site managers. The permitting process allows the planning board some flexibility to modify standards through the conditional use review process.

Ending: Councilors framed the change as an experiment and an additional housing option rather than a universal solution. Councilors also signaled an intention to continue master‑planning and monitoring the downtown and incentive overlay districts as co‑living properties develop.

(Direct quotes in the article are attributed only to speakers included in the transcript.)