BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

REGULAR MEETING
PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE
7:00 P.M CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS February 19, 2002

AGENDA

  1. Approval of Minutes
  2. Meeting of January 15, 2002

  3. Old Business
  4. A) Petition of Thomas Vento, Grantor of 1996 Trustee, owner, for property located at 102 Marne Avenue wherein the following are requested: 1) a Variance from Article III, Section 10-302(A) to allow an existing non conforming frontage to be reduced to 25’+ as a result of a lot line relocation with the abutter where 100’ is the minimum required, and 2) a Variance from Article III, Section 10-301(A)(1) to allow the conversion of the single family dwelling to a two family dwelling with 25’+ of frontage where 100’ is the minimum required. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 222 as Lot 43 and lies within the General Residence A district. This application was tabled at the January 15, 2002 meeting to the February 19, 2002 meeting.

  5. Public Hearings
  6. 1) Petition of Ray Grasso, owner, Kevin Ravenville, applicant, for property located at 2859 Lafayette Road wherein the following are requested: 1) a Special Exception as allowed in Article II, Section 10-208(36) to allow an auto washing facility in a district where such use is allowed by Special Exception, 2) a Variance from Article III, Section 10-301(A)(8) to allow a 64’ front yard where 105’ is the minimum required, 3) a Variance from Article III, Section 10-304(C)(1) to allow one access and one egress per 174’ where a minimum of 200’ is required. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 286 as Lot 20 and lies within the General Business district.

    2) Petition of Mary P. Franks, owner, for property located at 189 & 199 Lincoln Avenue wherein the following are requested for the consolidation of two lots each having 3 dwelling units in a single building: 1) a Variance from Article II, Section 10-206 to allow 6 dwelling units on one lot where 4 dwelling units are the maximum allowed and, 2) a Variance from Article III, Section 10-301(A)(2) to have dwelling units in two buildings on a single lot where all dwellings are required to be in the same building. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 130 as Lots 58 & 59 and lies within the General Residence A district.

    3) Petition of John L. Conway, owner, for property located at 4 Suzanne Drive wherein a Variance from Article III, Section 10-302(A) is requested to allow a) a 12’ x 16’ sunroom addition with an 18’ rear yard, and b) a 16’ x 22’ one story bedroom/ bath addition with a basement with a 16’ rear yard where 30’ is the minimum required. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 292 as Lot 83 and lies within the Single Residence B district.

    4) Petition of Joseph Arnstein, owner, for property located at 25 Foch Avenue wherein a Variance from Article III, Section 10-302(A) is requested to allow a lot line relocation reducing the existing nonconforming lot from 14,996 sf to 12,886 sf in area where 15,000 sf is the minimum lot area required. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 233 as Lot 140 and lies within the Single Residence B district.

     

    5) Petition of Local Union 976, owners, for property located at 155 West Road wherein a Variance from Article III, Section 10-305(A) is requested to allow a 30’ x 30’ one story addition with a 40’ rear yard where 50’ is the minimum required. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 252 as Lot 2-37 and lies within the Industrial district.

    6) Petition of Lawrence N. & Ruth S. Gray, owners, for property located at 80 Currier’s Cove wherein a Variance from Article III, Section 10-301(A)(7) is requested to allow 8’ x 14’ deck 67’ from the edge of the salt water marsh/wetlands and 312 sf of enclosed living space within 100’ of the edge of the salt water marsh/wetlands. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 204 as Lot 14 and lies within the Single Residence A district.

    7) Petition of Coventry Assets Ltd, owners, for property located at 10 Pleasant Street wherein a Variance from Article IX, Section 10-908 is requested to allow: a) a 5.06 sf attached sign for a second floor business in a district where attached signs are not allowed for businesses above the first floor and, b) a 4 sf projecting sign for a business above the first floor where 2 sf of projecting signage is the maximum allowed. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 107 as Lot 82 and lies within the Central Business B and Historic A districts.

    8) Petition of Lafayette Partners of Michigan, LP, owners, Margaritas Management Group, applicant, for property located at 775 Lafayette Road wherein the following are requested for an 1,838 sf addition to an existing restaurant: 1) a Variance from Article II, Section 10-208(20)(a) to allow said addition within 200’ of property zoned residentially where a minimum setback of 200’ is required, 2) a Variance from Article III, Section 10-304(C) to allow said addition within 100’ of property zoned residentially, 3) a Variance from Article III, Section 10-304(A) to allow said addition with a 13’ left side yard where 30’ is the minimum required; and, 4) a Variance from Article XII, Section 10-1204 Table 15 to allow to allow 522 parking spaces to be provided where 595 are required. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 245 as Lot 1 and lies within the General Business district.

    9) Petition of Getty Petroleum Inc., owners, Nader Alkurdi, applicant, for property located at 361 Islington Street wherein the following are requested: 1) a Variance from Article II, Section 10-207 to allow a Ryder Truck renting facility with three trucks on display on the property in a district where such use is not allowed: 1) a Variance from Article IV, Section 10-10-401(e) to allow a nonconforming accessory use in addition to the existing nonconforming use. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 144 as Lot 23 and lies within the Mixed Residential Business district.

    10) Petition of Deer Street Associates, owner, Yogaeast, applicant, for property located at 165 Deer Street wherein a Variance from Article II, Section 10-209 is requested to allow 2,150 sf of existing space to be used as a Yoga studio/school in a district where schools are not allowed. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 125 as Lot 17 and lies within the Office Research and Historic A districts.

  7. Adjournment

Members of the public and abutters should be aware that after the board renders its decision tonight, that a later request could be made to reconsider the decision and/or appeal the decision to the Rockingham County Superior Court. Please note that an abutter/aggrieved party may file a motion to reconsider if they are dissatisfied with the Board’s decision. If you have any interest in finding out whether a motion to reconsider has been filed; you should contact the Planning Department twenty-one (21) days after the BOA decision is rendered. Thereafter, depending on the outcome of the reconsideration request, you are also invited to make inquiries at the Legal Department to determine whether an Appeal to the Superior Court has been filed.




 | Search | Meetings Calendar | Portsmouth Info | Local Links | Employment | Site Map | Contact Us