Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Text Measurements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects change to measurement of grade for nonhabitable structures; fence rule amendment fails 4‑3
Summary
A proposed ULDR amendment to change how 'grade' is measured for structures — including fences — failed on a 4‑3 vote after extended technical discussion about FEMA finish‑floor rules, fill restrictions and potential impacts on decks, pools and privacy walls.
The Planning and Zoning Board on Feb. 19 considered a text amendment to ULDR measurement rules (section 47‑2.2) that would alter how grade is determined for principal structures and allow a ground‑based measurement option for nonhabitable structures such as fences.
Development Services staff said the change would address an inconsistency created after recent FEMA‑driven limits on bringing fill onto lots: builders can raise a finished floor using structural fill under the building, but the rest of the lot remains at natural grade. Under the existing local definition, fences and other nonhabitable structures were being measured from the finished floor elevation in some cases, which produced fence heights on neighboring properties that appeared much taller. Staff proposed measuring fences from the new approved ground elevation directly at the fence line, consistent with how other nonhabitable structures are measured.
Board members and staff discussed practical consequences: how decks, pools, AC pads and side‑yard slopes would be treated; whether sheet‑pile or other retention measures would be used at property edges; and FEMA/CRS implications tied to limiting lot fill. Several members voiced concerns that changing the definition would affect many code sections that reference grade, not only fences, and that unforeseen consequences could follow.
On the roll call, the board voted 4‑3 against the amendment: John Barranco, Sherry McCartney, Vice Chair Brad Cohen and Chair Weymouth voted no; Patrick McTigue, Steve Gannon and Jay Shechtman voted yes. The motion to adopt the amendment therefore failed.
Staff noted the issue arises from recent changes to floodplain and fill rules and said they will continue examining code language; the failed vote leaves the existing measurement language in place until staff returns with revised wording or clarification.
