Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Victory Multifamily topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portsmouth approves use permit for 144-unit Victory Boulevard project after extended public hearing and technical concerns
Summary
Council approved a use permit for a market-rate, 144-unit multifamily development at 4054 Victory Boulevard despite public concerns over unit counts, easements, parking, stormwater and school impacts; staff and the project's architect said many technical issues will be resolved in site-plan review.
After a lengthy public hearing and extended public comment, Portsmouth City Council approved a use permit (UP2508) to allow the construction and operation of up to 144 market-rate multifamily units at 4054 Victory Boulevard. The vote recorded was 6-1 in favor.
Erin Carter, a cofounder of Varsity Development, described a 1–3 bedroom market-rate project with a clubhouse, fitness center and a computer lab intended to provide workspace for residents. Carter said the project would create more than 250 construction jobs with an estimated payroll of more than $15 million and return a previously vacant property to the tax rolls.
Several residents challenged aspects of the application. David House and Daniel House raised concerns that the use-permit paperwork referenced a higher potential unit count (240) than the 144 discussed at the podium, questioned parking and stormwater calculations, noted easements and deed restrictions that they said could limit building height and location of parking, and argued the conceptual drawings did not clearly match technical plans. Daniel House cited a deed instrument allegedly limiting buildings on the property to one story and a 55-foot height limit and argued the current conceptual plan showed four stories at 60 feet.
Tom Rittnauer of RBA Architects responded that the application before council requests a maximum of 144 units (not 240), that a typical school-impact calculation for the proposed unit mix yields an estimated 28–37 students rather than the dozens asserted by some commenters, and that site-plan review would resolve technical issues including easements and exact parking counts. City Manager and planning staff reiterated that the zoning vote is to determine whether the proposed use is appropriate for the property; separate permitting and site-plan processes will address technical compliance.
Council debated the balance between neighborhood concerns and the city's desire to reactivate a long-vacant property. After discussion and the formal recorded vote, the council approved the use permit by 6-1; the dissenting vote was recorded in the meeting’s electronic vote.
Next steps include formal site-plan review, engineering checks for stormwater and easement issues, and coordination with utility and school officials as required by city processes.
