Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board approves variance for Eldridge Place condo deck expansion at 40 Marramac Street

Portsmouth Board of Adjustment · May 26, 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

The Portsmouth Board of Adjustment granted a variance to allow a replacement rear deck at 40 Marramac Street to extend from 8 to 10 feet deep and sit approximately 3.5–4 feet from the side lot line, finding the change minor and not contrary to the public interest.

The Portsmouth Board of Adjustment voted to grant a variance on May 26 to allow the Eldridge Place Condo Association to replace a deteriorating rear deck at 40 Marramac Street and increase its depth from 8 to 10 feet.

Peter Carpenter, speaking for the Eldridge Place Condo Association, told the board the carriage‑house structure dates to the 1870s and was converted to three townhouse condominiums in 1987. He said the existing 48‑by‑8‑foot deck has deteriorated and the owners seek an updated composite deck expanded by two feet in depth, which would leave a proposed side setback of roughly 3.5 to 4 feet where the GR zone requires 10 feet.

Board members applied the city’s five variance criteria. Mr. Nes said the change was “a pretty minor change to an existing property,” noting the surrounding lots and sightlines limit any impact on light, air or neighborhood character. He and other members described the lot as unusually shaped and the existing structure’s placement as creating a practical hardship. No members of the public spoke for or against the application during the hearing.

After deliberation, a motion to grant the variance carried unanimously. The board’s approval will allow the owners to replace the deck as presented and advertised; the application had been advertised as requiring relief from side‑setback rules and minor lot‑coverage considerations.

The board closed the hearing after the vote; the postponed 221 Woodbury Avenue application (item 1C) was rescheduled for the June meeting.