Exeter approves duplexes to replace dilapidated gas station
EXETER – A dilapidated car repair shop on Main Street in Exeter may finally get a makeover, as a developer plans to tear down the building and transform the eyesore into four townhouses.
The town’s Zoning Board voted unanimously Feb. 20 to approve developer Patrick Houghton’s request to exceed the density requirements to build four townhouse-style residential units at 46 Main Street.
The site, which has been used as an automobile shop since the 1960s, was also a Mobil gas station at some point. Cocheco Auto Repair has been operating in the space for the past 10 years.
The plan calls for demolishing the service station to construct two duplexes. Each of the buildings will have two units for a total of four housing units on site. In a letter filed with the town, Houghton said the redevelopment would “dramatically improve the appearance of the area and help to alleviate housing shortage.”
Attorney John Arnold, representing Houghton, went before the board seeking a variance to build four units on the 26,000-square-foot lot. According to town zoning, the minimum lot requirement is 15,000 square feet for a singlefamily and 24,000 square feet for a duplex.
Arnold pointed out that several multi-family housing units in the neighborhood have a higher density, citing Houghton’s request as “far less than what already exists in the area.”
He pointed to the three-unit housing on a 9,147-square-foot plot at 44 Main Street and a five-unit on a 6,535square-foot plot at 64 Main Street.
Neighbors split on proposal
Residents of the neighborhood voiced split opinions on the proposal at the meeting. While some are happy to see the demolition of the “dilapidated” service station, others were concerned the development would back up traffic and hurt the property values of nearby houses.
Paul Markey, who lives on Ash Street, said adding more housing, especially near Main Street School, will cause traffic to back up.
“There’s mornings where I can’t get out of my street because people queue on the line and block the street – in the morning and in the afternoon the same thing too,” said Markey.
Dave Essensa, owner of a singlefamily home with two apartment units, told the board the project did not meet any of the variance requirements. He said the development will look like “a compound,” which “wouldn’t look like a residential neighborhood.”
He said if approved, the development could hurt the property value of nearby houses.
“Just like everyone else, we want what’s best for our neighborhood,” said Essensa.
Essensa questioned the board if there really is a housing shortage in Exeter. He said there are many housing options in town such as the Ray Farm development with 96 units and more projects coming along at Portsmouth Avenue.
“I’m sure Mr. Houghton’s units are going to be beautiful, that’s not the issue,” said Essensa’s wife, Ann. “My big concern is that it’s a residential neighborhood and I feel like four townhouse condo units is going to change the look and feel of the whole neighborhood.”
Audrey Hoyt, owner of a multi-family house at 43 Main Street, said she was in support of the project.
“I think this is great,” said Hoyt. “That dilapidated car garage has been falling apart since we bought (our) property 10 years ago. It’s bad then and it’s even worse now.”
ZBA gives project the green light
This was the second time the project came before the Zoning Board.
In November, the board granted two variances for the project, one to allow multi-family use in a single-family residential zone and one to allow for a reduced setback. However, the board denied a variance to allow for five units. Instead, they encouraged Houghton to come back with a redesign with a reduced size and scale.
The project now consists of four units, which reduced the depth of the buildings by 10 feet, from 50 feet to 40 feet.
ZBA member Laura Davies said the revised proposed project “will not change the essential character of the neighborhood.”
ZBA member Kevin Baum agreed noting the proposed multifamily is more in line with the character of the neighborhood than the existing service station. He said the development will not have any negative impact in terms of “health, safety or welfare.”
“Given the size of the lot… four units on this lot compared to the other much smaller size surrounding lots, I think there’s consistency there,” he said.
Board members noted the developer did have a “hardship” as the property’s size, large frontage and configurations make it a challenge to develop. They also noted the site’s former use as a gas station makes it more difficult to develop for residential use.
Last year, the board denied variances from a different developer to allow a retail bank at the location.