Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment continues Lonza Biologics sign request to May 19 amid ordinance-interpretation questions
Summary
The Portsmouth Board of Adjustment continued a request by Lonza Biologics to install illuminated wall and monument signs after staff and members could not confirm whether the town calculates sign area by business or by parcel; the board asked the applicant to provide the specific section of the Peace Development Authority zoning ordinance and a written rationale.
The Portsmouth Board of Adjustment on April 28 voted to continue a request from Lonza Biologics for illuminated wall and monument signage at 34 Harvest Way to the board’s May 19 meeting so the applicant can provide documentation clarifying which portion of the Peace Development Authority zoning ordinance applies.
Justin Parker of Classic Signs, speaking for Lonza Biologics, described a new building and a monument sign that would be halo-lit and two non-illuminated wall signs. Parker said the total signage proposed for that parcel is about 113.68 square feet and that the company’s existing signs on other parcels contributed to a larger aggregated total in city records. “My name is Justin Parker from Classic Signs,” he said while explaining the proposal and the company’s understanding of previous approvals.
Board members and staff raised a procedural question that carried the meeting: whether Portsmouth’s sign-area limit is calculated by business ownership or by individual parcel. Staff member Steph told the board she could not find a clear, on-the-spot citation for the town’s interpretation and noted that the Peace Development Authority (PDA) had provided a conditional approval letter but that the city’s portal had flagged the application and indicated a variance was required. Several board members said that difference in interpretation could determine whether a variance was required at all.
Given those uncertainties, the board voted to continue the application to May 19 and instructed the applicant to provide the specific section of the PDA zoning ordinance being applied and a supporting rationale explaining why the sign-area calculation should be by business (if that is the argument). The motion to continue passed with the following roll-call as read by the clerk: Mr. Sullivan, yes; Mr. Rossy, yes; Mr. Ray, yes; Mr. Matson, yes; Mr. Mel, no; Mr. N, no; and the chair, yes.
The continuance leaves the core factual question open: whether the town’s sign-area total should include signage across multiple parcels owned by a single business, which the applicant said affects whether this parcel would have exceeded the 200-square-foot cap. The board also asked staff to request a written clarification from PDA about the referral and its interpretation before the May hearing.
The board closed the public hearing on the item and will take the matter up again on May 19 with supplemental materials from the applicant and any clarifications from PDA or city staff.
