Planning commission records opposition and then moves to deny use permit for residential substance‑use program at 21 Royal Street

The Portsmouth Planning Commission considered a use permit application on Oct. 7 from Urban Life Substance Abuse and Outpatient Services to operate a clinically managed residential (3.1) substance‑use program at 21 Royal Street.

Proposal and staff recommendation Planner Patrice Branch presented the application. Branch said the subject property is a 0.165‑acre lot with a 1,300‑square‑foot building constructed in 1942. The applicant proposed to convert the single‑family structure into a residential program with up to six residents, staffed 24 hours a day, with one staff member on each shift. Branch recommended denial, citing significant operational and physical constraints on the site, including limited on‑site space to meet parking, landscaping and stormwater requirements and insufficient room for on‑site recreational areas.

Applicant presentation Applicant representative Joe Hector described the program as a "residential 3.1 services for adult substance use program" that would provide structured clinical services, medication administration and periodic drug testing; he said the program would be Medicaid‑affiliated and overseen by the state Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services. "It's gonna be a residential 3.1 services for adult substance use program," Hector told commissioners.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns Several Royal Street residents spoke in opposition. Joseph Harris, a neighbor at 30 Royal Street, said parking is already constrained on the narrow street and described prior criminal activity on nearby properties; he told the commission he lost a dog when a previous problem property on the street burned during a fire. "I lost my dog," Harris said when recounting the event and urging denial. Other residents cited a heavy presence of families with young children on Royal Street, limited sidewalks, and concerns about the effect of visitors and vehicle traffic associated with a residential program.

Commissioner discussion and vote Commissioners discussed program supervision, the size of the house and the suitability of the site in a predominantly single‑family residential area. Commissioner Curry emphasized the structured nature of 3.1 programs and noted her professional experience overseeing similar homes; other commissioners expressed concerns about the small building size (1,300 square feet) relative to the proposed resident count and about on‑site recreation and parking constraints.

Outcome A motion to deny the use permit was moved and seconded. The recorded result was reflected in the hearing record; the commission’s roll‑call produced a 5–1 recorded vote (transcript recorded through the clerk as "This motion is denied by a vote of 5 to 1"). The transcript indicates the public hearing was closed and the commission completed its action at the meeting.

What this means Planner Branch’s staff report stated that in the application’s current form the site is not suitable for the proposed intensity of use; with the commission’s recorded vote the use permit will not move forward as presented. The file will reflect the planning commission’s action and the applicant may pursue other options consistent with city code or present a different site or modified proposal.