Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Port Hunter LLC request to classify garage second floor as professional office
Summary
The board denied a use and dimensional variance for 361 Miller Ave after neighbors questioned parking, long‑term enforceability of owner‑only stipulations and the hardship claim; the board concluded the applicant did not meet the use‑variance criteria.
The Portsmouth Zoning Board of Adjustment denied a use variance and related dimensional relief for a proposed two‑story garage and second‑floor "owner‑only" office at 361 Miller Avenue after extensive public comment and board deliberation.
Attorney Colby Gamester (S9) appeared for Port Hunter LLC and said the second floor would be an "office refuge" used solely by the owners to manage nearby rental properties and consolidate storage. Gamester asked the board to treat the use as low‑impact and comparable to a home occupation but acknowledged the label in the ordinance required a use variance.
Neighbors and abutters voiced objections at the hearing, raising two central concerns: whether the property’s existing six‑unit residential use and on‑site parking made a professional office inconsistent with the district, and whether the owner‑only limitations and other stipulations would be enforceable and durable for future owners. Tim O'Brien (S21), a nearby resident, argued the application showed a preference rather than an unnecessary hardship tied to the land: "A preferred use is not a hardship," he said, urging careful scrutiny of owner‑only stipulations.
Board members questioned whether the modest increase in height and consequential setback changes made the garage more intrusive and whether allowing a professional office use would create a gap in the zoning ordinance that could be difficult to police. Several members raised the long‑term enforceability problem, noting variances typically run with the land and future owners could seek different uses.
After deliberation the board moved to deny the variances. The board cited failed demonstration of the hardship criterion and concerns about the proposed change of use affecting the spirit of the ordinance. The denial leaves the previously approved garage footprint intact; applicants may elect to build under the prior approval or return with a revised plan.
