Staff proposes administrative tools: development plan review, deck size limits, temporary permits, nuisance enforcement and fee updates

City zoning staff presented a package of administrative and regulatory changes aimed at clarifying routine review, limiting disruptive rooftop decks, creating a temporary‑use approval pathway for longer events, strengthening municipal remedies for derelict properties, and updating application fees.

Nick Farmer, Newport’s zoning officer, said the state now requires an administrative development review process with a quick review window. Staff proposed establishing that administrative review at the lower end of the scale (for smaller projects) while retaining the technical review committee for large projects. "We are proposing this administrative process, on the at the lower end of the scale," Farmer said, adding the process would pair staff review with the existing committee to address stormwater and other impacts.

On decks, staff said existing special‑use permit standards were too subjective to consistently regulate rooftop or upper‑level decks, and a legal opinion from the city solicitor recommended moving to objective dimensional controls. Farmer outlined proposed size and projection limits for residential decks: second‑floor decks capped at 100 sq ft, balconies up to 40 sq ft (four‑foot projection), third‑floor/roof decks capped at 30 sq ft and required to be inset from the building edge; staff also proposed banning decks above a third floor. "We have had some roof decks that have been huge that have been proposed and essentially we do not have the ability to prevent them because we have no size limitations," Farmer said.

Staff also proposed a temporary‑use permit category for activities and installations longer than the city’s special‑event limit (two weeks) but not greater than six months. Examples include temporary holiday sales, art installations, ice rinks, tents and temporary storage containers. Farmer said shorter‑term events (under two weeks) will remain on the special‑event licensing track; longer uses would be reviewed administratively first, with zoning‑board and council involvement for more substantial or extended proposals.

On nuisance properties, staff described working with the city solicitor and referenced municipal receivership and existing municipal‑court enforcement; the goal is to give the city clearer authority to address abandoned or derelict properties that pose health or safety risks while guarding against overreach. Farmer described municipal‑court remedies and possible receivership models used by other Rhode Island cities as options staff is evaluating.

Staff also proposed modernizing application fees (current common fee $100), with many fees doubled to better reflect staff time; they proposed higher special‑meeting fees (to cover staff, volunteers and potential solicitor time) and recommended increasing the number of zoning‑board alternates permitted by local code in line with state changes that allow more alternates.

Bill Moore was identified as still serving as part‑time building official during a transition to a new full‑time inspector. No formal votes were recorded at the workshop; staff said draft ordinances will be advertised and come before the planning board and council for first readings, with the first zoning code readings expected in March.

Questions from councilors and public commenters focused on legal defensibility of deck dimensional limits, how temporary permits would differ from special events, protections against abusive nuisance complaints, and whether higher fees should be set to recover solicitor and staff costs for special meetings.