Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks variance, ADU and demolition permits for 23230 Wellington
Summary
At an Architectural Design Review meeting, an applicant requested a recommendation to the town council for design review and multiple permits for 23230 Wellington, including a variance tied to a proposed increase in floor area; ADR members offered mixed support and requested clearer allocation and findings.
An applicant representative appearing before the Architectural Design Review (ADR) group on May 20, 2025, requested a recommendation to the town council for design review and for several permits related to work at 23230 Wellington: a HOSA law permit, a demolition permit, a nonconformity permit, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) permit and a variance.
The request follows earlier reviews. The representative said the project was first presented to ADR on Feb. 25, 2025, after an earlier conceptual review on Aug. 20, 2024, and that the revised plans were returned to ADR on May 20, 2025. The applicant said the project includes a shortened pool (from 38 feet to 34 feet), an increased side yard setback for the pool from 9 feet 1 inch to 12 feet, and an increased rear setback from 13 feet 1 inch to 17 feet 2 inches. The representative said the applicant is requesting an additional 692 square feet overall: 521 square feet for a new two-car garage and 171 square feet for the main residence, which would increase total floor area from 2,267 square feet to 2,959 square feet. The applicant described that change as a roughly 2% increase above the existing 8% floor area ratio.
ADR members’ views were mixed. The transcript records that at the earlier Feb. 25 meeting most ADR members expressed support for the additional garage floor area and did not support the original pool location. At the May 20 return, the presenter said most members supported the pool variance and all members supported the additional garage floor area; however, two ADR members did not support the additional square footage proposed for the main house. The applicant returned at this meeting to clarify how the proposed additional floor area would be allocated and to provide variance findings and narrative for the record.
The presentation included some technical difficulties: the presenter and reviewers discussed switching slides, showing a staff report chart that displays floor area ratio (FAR), and providing a narrative that lists the applicant’s proposed variance findings. The record shows the presenter planning to add the FAR chart and the variance findings to the slide deck before seeking ADR’s recommendation to the town council.
No formal ADR vote or final recommendation to the town council is recorded in the transcript. The matter therefore remains pending; the next step described in the discussion is for the applicant to provide clarified materials and variance findings for ADR and the town council’s review.
