Yes, they can!
And this sleight of hand is something all residents should know about.
The April 25, 2024, meeting of the Planning Board included an important item on the agenda: a tweak in the zoning ordinance surrounding the definition of “Home Occupation.”
This gets technical but it’s important.
There are two segments in the zoning ordinance for Home Occupation. They are known as Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 prohibits homeowners from having any nonresident employees; Part 2 allows one nonresident employee. Neither Part 1 nor 2 allowed any client, vendor, or general public visitations.
The proposed amendment on the agenda would allow up to two clients at one time under Home Occupation 1.
No changes were proposed to Home Occupation 2.
But hold on! During the meeting, Chair Rick Chellman put forward a “NEW.” second “amendment to “Home Occupation 2” which would allow five to six clients at the premises at one time. And the requirement to obtain a “special exception” would be changed to a conditional use permit which, according to those-in-the-know, are granted with some frequency by the Planning Board.
Why the behind-the-scenes change? According to Chair Chellman, during a meeting with City staff, someone suggested this “minor” revision, so he made a 2nd amendment to Home Occupation 2. Check the Video of the Meeting at 56.07.
What’s this all about?
At the February 20, 2024, meeting, the City Council voted to ask the Planning Board for assistance in crafting the Home Occupation ordinance. These changes would comply with goals set in the master plan of “enhancing economic development, enriching the urban and suburban neighborhoods, and to encourage the creative use of existing housing stock.”
It is left to the imagination exactly what this means but with this bunch, watch out!
Recall, the old days when your neighbor, Mrs. Smith, gave a few piano lessons? Oh but, the change proposed by the City via Chair Chellman is completely different or enhanced to include both art and music classes!
Six drummers drumming!
One alert Board member floated the possibility of the potential noise issue. Imagine a class of six youthful musicians learning how to play the drums!
Not to worry, it will be covered by specifications in the conditional use permit. Besides, the city has a noise ordinance that will take care of any disturbances.
Right, just like the ubiquitous revving of motorcycle engines in Market Square late into the night that signals the arrival of spring!
And what about the perennial problem of parking in these affected neighborhoods?
Who is the source of this change?
We understand that the instigator behind the at-home art classes is Councilor Cook. You know, the same Councilor who’s a stickler for process. The City staff is just facilitating behind the scenes, making sure palms are greased and backs are scratched.
But speaking of “process” there is another issue here.
Councilor Cook, aka Kondo , as we said, is a stickler for process. She isn’t the only one.
Recall that the City (attorney, council members) emphasized the significance of “process” during the James Hewitt Kangaroo Court
But sometimes things just slip by, it just depends on who is doing the “slipping,” or in this case the “inserting”. One might ask “would we have the same result if another individual Board member were to attempt the same “process”?
Of course, there are rules to be followed: The Planning Board in New Hampshire – A Handbook for Local Officials, page III-8 is pretty specific about the procedures for amending zoning ordinances.
The City of Portsmouth also has Rules and Procedures for the Planning Board, #6, which ultimately defaults the final guidance for any process to be governed by “Roberts Rules of Order”.
As Chair Chellman admitted, even the Board was unaware of the change. That on-the-fly addition caught the rest of the Board members along with the original requesting artist/resident, (who was elated almost to tears), by surprise!
That was not fair to the rest of the Board or the artist/resident.
So much for transparency.
Maybe next time?
