Ross ADR supports FEMA house lift at 78 Shady Lane but splits on rear‑yard pool and exterior materials

The Town of Ross Architectural Design Review Committee on March 18 reviewed a design‑review amendment and variance request for 78 Shady Lane that would raise the house to comply with FEMA requirements, relocate a small amount of entry square footage, and allow a 12‑by‑24‑foot pool and outdoor kitchen in the rear setback. The ADR told the project team it generally supports the FEMA‑required house lift and the small front‑entry square‑footage swap, but raised objections and recommended changes on the pool variance, HVAC/pool‑equipment location and exterior materials.

Leslie Jones of Jones Street Design, the project designer, presented plans showing a house lift from 27 feet 7 inches to 29 feet 6 inches — still under the 30‑foot maximum building height — to meet the FEMA base‑flood elevation and to avoid the town’s 50 percent “substantial improvement” limit. Jones described a mix of new exterior materials (limestone veneer, standing‑seam metal roof and two‑tone cladding) and a new six‑foot steel front fence with columned limestone gate and a motorized driveway gate.

Jones described a rear‑yard layout that includes a 12‑by‑24 pool located about five feet from the rear property line and pool equipment sited behind the proposed garage on a raised platform. She said the team had replaced an earlier shrub choice with English bay laurel and larger box sizes along the neighbor at 1 Locust Avenue to increase short‑term screening after that neighbor raised privacy concerns.

Landscape architect Jay Warner explained the decision to use a six‑foot fence and motorized gate: the design team wanted a secure pool barrier and preferred to use rusted steel and encourage planting to grow through the fence so it reads as a “green wall.” Warner said the higher gate was chosen rather than an obvious raised pool latch at 4 feet, and that plantings would be sized larger to establish screening more quickly.

Neighbors and public comment: Sean Svenson of 84 Shady Lane (a nearby homeowner) told the ADR he and his wife support the project and the FEMA lift. The homeowner (identified in the meeting as Heather Bennett) spoke about family needs and described access to water as important for a child with sensory processing issues: “It’s proven therapeutic,” she said.

Members of the ADR generally supported the house lift as a necessary response to conditions discovered during renovation work. Joey Buckingham said he would support the raising of the house. Several ADR members, however, objected to the proposed pool location and authoring a new variance precedent. One ADR member summarized the split: they could support the FEMA lift and the front‑entry change but could not vote to support a pool placed five feet from the rear property line where several other recent pool requests had been denied.

Additional committee concerns included the location and noise of HVAC equipment and mechanical units placed near a neighbor’s windows (the applicant proposed screens and larger shrubs and said they chose quiet units rated 52–53 decibels). ADR members suggested the project team explore noise‑baffling shrouds, modest relocation or integration of equipment under or into the garage structure, and to return with revised material choices; several members said the proposed limestone/stone treatment conflicted with the house’s earlier craftsman/shingle character.

The ADR recommended that staff forward the requested design‑review amendment and variances to the Town Council with clear notes: (1) the committee supports the FEMA lift and the modest front‑entry adjustment, (2) the committee expects the applicant to work with staff to refine exterior materials, front‑gate design and pool‑equipment noise mitigation, and (3) the committee was split on the rear‑yard pool variance and did not record consensus approval for that variance. The ADR directed staff to include the committee’s design concerns and recommended mitigation in the council packet.

No formal ADR roll‑call vote approving the entire submittal as presented was recorded in the transcript; the committee’s comments will be included in the staff report to the Town Council for final action.