Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies 181 Hill Street redevelopment after extended debate over zoning intent and hardship
Summary
The Board voted to deny a proposal to demolish three century‑old buildings at 181 Hill Street and construct two new multifamily buildings (16 units) after finding the application did not meet the spirit and hardship criteria of the CD4 L1 zoning; multiple variances sought included lot area per unit, building footprints, open space and number of units per building.
The Portsmouth Board of Adjustment voted on May 26 to deny a proposed redevelopment at 181 Hill Street that would have demolished three existing multifamily buildings and constructed two new three‑story buildings connected by an underground garage and elevated courtyard.
Attorney Derek Durban and the project team presented plans for two buildings (Building A with six units; Building B with 10 units) totaling 16 residential units on a 16,127‑square‑foot lot, and requested multiple variances including reduced lot area per dwelling unit (applicant sought 1,081 sq ft per unit where 3,000 sq ft is required), maximum building footprint relief (applicant identified building footprints up to 5,232 sq ft where 2,500 sq ft is the maximum), relief for open space (projected ~21.3% but asking for an allowance down to 18%), and allowing 10 dwelling units in a single building where the zone allows up to eight.
The applicant argued the lot is an outlier in CD4 L1—by far the largest parcel in the zone—and that the proposed design improves open space relative to the current condition, provides more off‑street parking (36 spaces proposed) and introduces context‑sensitive massing. The project team said they had iterated the plan to break a single 18‑unit proposal into two buildings after community and planning feedback.
Board members split on how to apply the zoning standards. Some members said the lot’s unusual size and surrounding context supported relief; others—most notably the chair—said that because the site would be redeveloped from essentially a clean slate, the applicant can design a conforming project and therefore had not demonstrated the hardship required for multiple variances. A motion to postpone the application to July to allow the applicant to revise and reduce some variances failed on a 3–3 tie.
After further deliberation, the board voted to deny the application as presented, finding it did not meet the spirit and intent of CD4 L1 and failed to establish the hardship criteria. Several board members said the applicant remains free to redesign and reapply. Public comment included both support (neighbors and the owner spoke in favor) and recognition that the master plan calls for increased density in parts of the city; no formal appeal or enforcement action was recorded in the meeting minutes.
