Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council advances zoning fixes: deck-size limits, new setback tiers for substandard lots and temporary-use rules

Newport City Council · March 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council took first-reading action on a package of zoning amendments: new dimensional limits for elevated decks (smaller as height increases), interim R4/R6 setback chapters to avoid an automatic drop to R3 under state law, new temporary-use permits for multi-week events, and updated application fees.

At a public hearing that included planning staff, the zoning officer proposed a set of short-term zoning amendments intended to clarify gaps and respond to state changes affecting "substandard" lots.

Nick Armour, the city's zoning officer, presented proposed deck dimensional limits that would allow no size limit for first-floor decks (subject to lot coverage), limit second-floor decks (5–15 feet above grade) to about 100 square feet, and restrict third-floor decks (15–25 feet above grade) to smaller, inset configurations (proposed 30 square feet). He said roof decks above 25 feet would not be permitted. "We are proposing tonight setting those limits," Armour said, citing repeated neighborhood complaints about elevated decks that become large party spaces.

Armour also explained state-mandated changes that effectively forced many R10 lots that are under 10,000 sq ft to be applied under R3 standards; staff proposed new R4 and R6 interim chapters to create more reasonable setback steps for properties between those thresholds. The proposed changes also included a new "temporary use permit" pathway for events longer than two weeks and a fee schedule update to better align planning/zoning application fees with staff time.

Councilors and members of the public raised concerns about process, vested rights for pending projects, the need for clearer public notice, and environmental impacts in sensitive watersheds. Staff said the package had been reviewed by the Planning Board and that the items presented were intended as short-term fixes; second readings will include any language adjustments.