Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ADR asks staff to draft pool and landscape-structure setback changes, considers 10-foot side/rear standard
Summary
The Ross ADR reviewed options to reduce variance requests for pools and landscape structures by recommending a code amendment to allow pools and low landscape structures within 10 feet of side and rear property lines subject to design review; members asked staff to draft language for future review.
The Ross Advisory Design Review Group discussed a staff proposal to reduce the need for variances for pools and landscape structures by setting an objective side- and rear-yard setback (the staff proposal used 10 feet as an example) and treating conforming proposals as design-review rather than variance cases.
Planning staff described a pattern of many recent variance requests for pools, barbecues, patios and fireplaces and said a 10-foot side/rear allowance (with the front yard unchanged) could standardize decisions and reduce ad hoc variance outcomes. Staff noted other jurisdictions use a 10-foot accessory-structure standard and suggested limiting the new allowance to accessory features that are at least 10 feet from property lines; the proposal also included the option that low landscape structures (for example trellises, barbecues, benches) be limited in height so they could be handled administratively or with design review.
ADR members responded favorably in principle but asked for more time to consider details. Members raised the need to account for Ross's wide variety of lot sizes and shapes so a single numeric setback would not unfairly penalize large lots or advantage very small lots. Several members supported the 10-foot side/rear standard as a workable compromise; one suggested limiting permitted landscape structures under the new rule to 5 feet in height to avoid allowing large trellises or similar features without review.
Members asked staff to return with draft code text (for example a strikethrough/underline showing proposed edits) and to clarify which features would be allowed administratively versus by design review. Members also suggested staff require applicants seeking variances to submit their proposed variance findings in writing so the ADR can evaluate them during hearings.
No formal vote was taken; staff agreed to prepare draft code language and present it at a future ADR meeting for further consideration and a potential recommendation to the Town Council.
