New home on undersized lot protested by Portsmouth neighbors: 'It will change how we live'

PORTSMOUTH — Despite opposition from neighbors — which included a petition signed by more than 30 people — the city's Zoning Board of Adjustment granted the variances needed for a proposal to build a three-story home on a vacant and undersized lot to move forward.

The project is proposed at 0 Melbourne St. , which a group of neighbors contended has been used as a backyard for an adjacent lot owned by the same family.

The board granted a variance to allow 6,197 square feet of lot area where 15,000 is required by city zoning, a second variance to allow 6,197 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit where 15,000 is required and a third variance allowing 50 feet of frontage where 100 feet is required.

Attorney Christopher Mulligan, who represents the applicants, Patrick and Wendy Quinn, stated his clients have a contract to acquire the property at 0 Melbourne St. from the current owner, Bruce Carll.

Carll also owns 124 Melbourne St., according to city property records.

The successful application for the variances by the Quinns includes what Mulligan called “possible design elements” for the single-family house they are proposing to build on the lot.

Details about the new home coming to 0 Melbourne St. in Portsmouth

The proposed new three-story home includes four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a 1-car garage, a living and dining room and a guest suite, according to the proposed plans filed with the city.

The home, if approved as built, would be 2,197 square feet, according to the submission.

“It is understood that, should the variance requested here be granted, the Inspection Department will need to review and approve all construction drawings and sketches prior to issuing a building permit to the applicant,” Mulligan said in documents filed with the city.

But he stated that the proposed new home “will meet all applicable setback, height and lot coverage requirements” and won’t be any taller than 35 feet.

Neighborhood opposition to project

More than 30 people signed a a petition urging the board to reject the variance requests.

“The established zoning regulations are in place to maintain the character and harmony of our neighborhood. Granting such a substantial variance would set a concerning precedent, potentially leading to a cascade of similar requests,” the neighbors said, according to a copy of the petition.

They also raised concerns that “the introduction of a residential unit on an undersized lot may adversely affect the property values of surrounding homes,” the neighborhood of single-family residences.

Essex Avenue resident Sheila Reardon was one of a group of residents who turned out at the recent board meeting to express her opposition to the variances.

She bought her home in 2009 and said one of the reasons is she “loved the environment of this small, quaint, old-school if you will, quiet neighborhood, in Portsmouth.”

She touted the neighborhood – which is located off Islington Street – as being “close enough to walk downtown,” while being “just far enough away for peace and quiet from downtown.”

Portsmouth neighbors object to 'huge structure'

She called the home proposed by the applicants “completely uncharacteristic of the neighborhood,” and added it’s “like nothing currently in the neighborhood.”

She added that it looks like a “townhouse” or the type of construction “maybe you would see down in West End Yards.”

“I bought in this wonderful neighborhood because it’s private and quiet,” she said, while predicting the new home being proposed would create a “sense of crowding in the neighborhood.”

Sheffield Road resident Kate Beckett described 0 Melbourne as “a backyard, and it’s not  a very big backyard.

“If a three-story building goes up there, we’re going to have no sun in my backyard and it will change how we live in our house,” she said. “Our home will not be the same again, with this huge structure.”

Vine Street resident Mary Beth Savage called the home proposed for 0 Melbourne “excessive.”

She added it would “create a structure that would very much be out of the context of our neighborhood, and negatively impact our properties.”

Sheffield Road resident Rose Sulley, who lives around the corner from 0 Melbourne, said proposing a new home for the lot “is not in characteristic at all with the rest of the abutting neighbors.”

Sheffield Road resident Jim Pendergrast called the size of the lot “so inadequate.”

“The frontage is so inadequate, the square footage of the lot is so inadequate, I’m amazed we’re even standing here discussing it,” he said.

Land has been 'a yard for 60-plus years'

Essex Street resident Mike Wierbonics said 0 Melbourne has “been a yard for 60-plus years.”

“Putting a house there is going to change our neighborhood,” he said during the board’s recent meeting at City Hall.

“I feel if you put this house in … it’s going to look like a multi-family development, which is not in the character of the neighborhood,” he said.

Landowner's lawyer defends proposal

Portsmouth attorney Colby Gamester represents Bruce and Claire Carll, who have owned the two Melbourne Street properties “continuously since the 1960s.”

The couple lives in California but they spend summers in Portsmouth, Gamester said.

Bruce Carll is a Portsmouth native and a Vietnam veteran, he added.

Gamester explained 0 Melbourne St. is a “pre-existing non-conforming lot of record” that was created as part of the Daniels Park subdivision in 1918.

“The Carll family has been paying two separate tax bills on each of these properties,” Gamester said, and added that the open 0 Melbourne lot is assessed by the city at $200,000.

“This is not a literal postage stamp lot where the building envelope is next to nothing,” Gamester said about the 0 Melbourne property. “There’s no setback relief, there will be space between the houses, there is light, air and space, there is still the availability of privacy between the abutting lots.”

More local news: Portsmouth board praises 48-unit downtown housing project

Gamester stated too the Carlls believes the Quinns “and their proposal will continue to be a steward of this property, and the neighborhood by adding to the essential character, which is a single-family residential neighborhood.”

Mulligan, who represents the applicants, acknowledged that 0 Melbourne was “deficient by today’s zoning standards.”

But he said that the variances are the “only relief we need.”

“We cannot under any circumstances comply with those requirements,” he said. “The lot is simply not large enough.”

“What we are proposing is not in any way out of character with what already exists,” he said.

“In this case, the essential character of the neighborhood as a residential neighborhood will remain unchanged,” Mulligan added.

Strictly complying with the zoning ordinance, Mulligan contended, “would make the lot completely undevelopable.”

Board members voted 5-2 to grant the variances sought by the applicants.

Acting Chair Beth Margeson, and members Thomas Nies, Jeffrey Mattson, David Rheaume and Jody Record voted to grant the variances, while members Paul Mannle and Thomas Rossi voted against it.

Nies said he didn’t find the variance requests contrary to the public interest.

“This will be a single-family home, which is what is in the neighborhood,” he said.

“All setbacks will be met,” he said. “Without the variances, this property is basically unusable for its primary use.”

But Mannle, who made an initial motion to deny the variances that failed, stated that the owner could combine the two properties, “which is how it’s been used since it was purchased.”

Rheaume stated that the board is likely to see other applicants seeking to build up with the lack of available lots for sale in the city.

“It’s wave that’s going to be happening across our city, it already is, in other neighborhoods,” he said.

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: New home on undersized lot protested by Portsmouth neighbors: 'It will change how we live'