Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Height Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards height‑measurement and setback encroachment amendments, seeks clarifications on impacts and vested rights
Summary
The committee advanced amendments to measure building height from predevelopment grade and to reduce allowable setback encroachments; members and public raised concerns about legal nonconformities, impacts on undeveloped lots, and the 18‑month rebuild rule after disasters — staff noted administrative remedies and said the full LMO overhaul will address remaining issues.
A Town Council committee voted to forward a priority amendment that changes how building height is measured and reduces several allowable encroachments into setback areas, while asking staff to analyze impacts on vacant lots, nonconformities and rebuilding timelines.
Missy Lueck, director of planning, explained the proposal would measure building height from predevelopment grade rather than from fixed flood‑elevation offsets (previously 13 feet for residential and 11 feet for nonresidential), alter where setback angles are measured, and strike or reduce the extent of many encroachments (for example, removing open balconies and uncovered porches from allowable encroachments and reducing eave/awning encroachment extents). A new footnote would prevent any encroachment from leaving less than 5 feet to a lot line.
Staff presented maps showing roughly 18,000 residential parcels and 895 nonresidential parcels that could be affected in some way, and noted that some properties below the former mean‑sea‑level measurement may become legally nonconforming. The nonconformities chapter and disaster‑recovery provisions define how repairs, reconstructions and substitutions are handled; staff noted options such as repair within an 18‑month window for certain categories and Board of Zoning Appeals relief for some encroachment issues.
Committee members and public speakers urged caution. Speakers asked staff to analyze (1) whether vacant or undeveloped lots would be deprived of vested rights, (2) how many nonconforming commercial properties are affected and their ages and occupancy, (3) whether HVAC units above roofs should be treated as height increases, and (4) whether the 18‑month rebuild window is practical following a widespread disaster. Chester Williams gave an example of modest at‑grade lot heights meaning the proposed measurement could remove several feet of interior usable height for some homes. Staff said legal nonconformities are handled in chapter 16‑7 and that the proposed language is intended to reduce mass and scale consistent with the town’s comprehensive goals.
A motion to forward the amendment to council with a recommendation for approval and a list of specific staff follow‑ups (definitions of required means of egress per the building code, review of vested‑rights scenarios, HVAC rules, fences vs. walls distinctions, and data about nonconformity age/occupancy) passed. The committee adjourned.
