Homeowner asks Somersworth ZBA to allow third unit at 347 Main Street; board urges appeal option

A Somersworth homeowner asked the city's zoning board of adjustment on April morning to allow a third residential unit at 347 Main Street, saying prior permits and informal advice from code enforcement led him to believe three units were permitted.

Mike Rhodes, who identified himself as the homeowner at 347 Main Street, told the board he purchased the property in 2015 and believed three units already existed. "I had a permit approved to do that, which expired December 30," Rhodes said, adding that health issues prevented him from finishing the permitted work. Rhodes said he paid permitting fees and carried out upgrades, including adding a kitchen to the main house.

The board opened a public hearing on a variance application that requests relief from Table 4-8-1 and Section 6.c so the property could contain three residential units rather than the two the city currently recognizes. Planner Miss Crosley summarized the staff analysis: the lot is 0.37 acres with roughly 120 feet of frontage on Daniel Street and 125 feet on Main Street, and the parcel now contains two principal dwelling units — one at 347 Main and a separate unit above the garage at 349 Main. Crosley noted past approvals on the property, including a 1971 variance that allowed an in-home beauty shop and a 1989 approval for a home-occupation use; a certificate of occupancy for the detached unit was recorded, and a more recent CO was issued in 2020.

Crosley said the requested third unit would be an expansion of a nonconforming use under the city's nonconforming-use provisions, which is why the applicant has applied under Section 6.c. "The applicant has addressed the five criteria so the board can review and move forward," she said.

Board members asked whether the two existing units were treated as principal dwellings rather than accessory dwelling units; Crosley said they are considered principal units under the present interpretation and zoning, which is why the lot is nonconforming.

Members advised Rhodes that he has two procedural paths. The chair explained staff has interpreted the property as grandfathered for two units and that Rhodes may either appeal the administrative decision or pursue a variance from the board. Crosley told the applicant the city made its interpretation on March 9 and that an appeal must be filed within 30 days of that decision; she said Rhodes had about eight days remaining to file an appeal under that window. Several members recommended pursuing an appeal first because an appeal, if successful, could make a variance unnecessary. "If someone's appealing that they don't agree with the interpretation ... typically you see the appeal first," Crosley said.

Brad Fredette, speaking as a board member, suggested tabling the variance until the appeal is resolved. Fredette said appealing might be a more appropriate first step because the standard and consequences can differ from satisfying the five variance criteria. "It sounds like what I'm getting from his testimony is that he feels the city erred in their interpretation, which would trigger an appeal first," Fredette said.

Rhodes said he had been told by code enforcement that his plans were acceptable and that he had proceeded on that basis. "There's actually a note ... from Tim Tevere," Rhodes told the board, saying a courtesy inspection had been performed. The board did not make a final ruling; members outlined options and noted the variance could be tabled to the board's April 9 meeting to allow the applicant time to file an appeal and for both items to be scheduled if needed.

The hearing will continue when the applicant either files an appeal or accepts the variance hearing date; no board vote on the variance was taken during the session. The board did approve the minutes from the Dec. 3, 2023 meeting by motion.