Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board approves after‑the‑fact fence variance at 53A Chevrolet Ave despite split vote

Board of Adjustment · January 21, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After‑the‑fact variances to retain 5‑ and 6‑ft fences at 53A Chevrolet Avenue were approved 4–3 by the Portsmouth ZBA; the applicant argued the private‑way orientation made the fence consistent with ordinance intent and condo neighbors supported the request.

The Board of Adjustment granted an after‑the‑fact variance on Jan. 21 allowing higher fences at 53A Chevrolet Avenue.

Owner Doug Howwood told the board he and his neighbors in the four‑unit condominium complex face a private way and that the physical orientation of the house means the installed fence functions as a side yard or backyard privacy fence rather than a front‑yard obstruction. He said the fence sits 11 feet from one edge of the private way and about 7 feet at another point, and noted the condo association members submitted letters of support.

Board members debated whether the lot should be treated as a corner/front yard under the zoning code (which would limit fence height to 4 feet). Mr. Rossi, who made the motion to approve, said the fence does not create a pedestrian barrier on a heavily trafficked segment and that strict enforcement would produce an unnecessary hardship; Mr. Ray opposed the motion citing the ordinance’s intent and precedent for corner‑lot front‑yard limitations.

The motion to approve passed 4–3 (yes: Mr. N., Mr. Manel, Mr. Rossy, Mr. Matson; no: Mr. Ram, Mr. Ray, Mr. Sullivan and the chair voted no), and the board recorded findings that the variance would not diminish surrounding property values and would achieve the ordinance’s intent in this specific configuration.

The board noted the developer who built the homes raised the issue with the owners and that ownership history was a relevant context but not a controlling legal factor for variance criteria.