Newport Council advances broad zoning updates after heated debate over how to count raised patios

The Newport City Council spent the bulk of its evening reviewing a sprawling set of zoning-code “quick fixes” aimed at reducing delays in permit review and clarifying definitions for property owners and staff.

Councilors and planning staff said the amendments are intended to streamline routine decisions now clogging the zoning board, while protecting the city’s historic character and addressing stormwater concerns. The set of changes was introduced as a package and will return for additional consideration in future meetings; several items were broken into smaller pieces for clarity and separate votes.

One of the meeting’s longest exchanges focused on how to define “lot building coverage” — specifically, whether raised patios, sunken patios and retaining walls should be counted as part of the coverage calculation and at what height they should trigger inclusion. Nick Armour, the city’s zoning officer, told the council that the administration proposed a 32‑inch threshold above natural grade because that is the height at which an engineered retaining wall typically requires a building permit and structural review. “At 32 inches, a raised patio that has retaining walls requires an engineered structural retaining wall and a building permit,” Armour said, describing the staff rationale for alignment with building-code triggers.

Councilor Mark Romley pressed for a higher threshold, arguing that smaller grade changes are common on sloped lots and that a higher limit would avoid penalizing homeowners with uneven terrain. Romley offered a 48‑inch alternative and suggested distinguishing front/side yards (more visible) from rear-yard patios (less visible from the right-of-way). “Patios in the rear of the home…aren’t seen from the road,” Romley said, arguing for leniency where neighbors are not likely to be affected.

Staff and other councilors pushed back, saying an objective standard tied to the building code is easier to administer. Planning staff also pointed to stormwater and structural-density effects as reasons to draw a clear line: “Wherever something requires structural support or engineered retaining walls, that’s where it’s reasonable to count it,” the director said.

Ultimately, the council adopted the solicitor’s amendment establishing 32 inches above natural grade as the threshold for this first reading, with additional related items — including impervious-surface limits and other definitions — continued for further refinement and a later vote. The motion to adopt the amended definitions passed by voice vote.

Councilors said the package will return for a second reading; Romley and others signaled they will press for additional adjustments before final adoption. The council also separately approved a new chapter on accessory uses, buildings and structures (Chapter 17.78) that will supersede existing accessory-use provisions; staff clarified that items created by recent state law changes on accessory dwelling units would be handled in a different part of the docket.

The city invited public comment during the discussion. Several residents told the council they are worried about drainage and the impacts of grading and retaining walls on neighboring properties; others supported clearer rules and faster processing for homeowners who want to improve their properties.

Next steps: the zoning package will return for additional readings and for staff to refine language on lot coverage, impervious surfaces and related technical definitions. Councilors asked administration to provide clear, objective text that will be defensible in code enforcement and court challenges.