Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ross ADR recommends council review of small rear addition, setbacks and heat-pump placement at 103 Bolinas Avenue
Summary
The owners of 103 Bolinas Avenue asked the Ross Architectural Design Review (ADR) group to recommend that the Town Council consider a nonconformity permit, a variance for floor‑area ratio (FAR) and a minor exception permit to extend the rear of their home by three feet — a roughly 40‑square‑foot addition — and to place a heat pump in the side‑yard setback.
The owners of 103 Bolinas Avenue asked the Ross Architectural Design Review (ADR) group to recommend that the Town Council consider a nonconformity permit, a variance for floor‑area ratio (FAR) and a minor exception permit to extend the rear of their home by three feet — a roughly 40‑square‑foot addition — and to place a heat pump in the side‑yard setback.
Alex, a town planner, summarized the request as “a recommendation to the town council for a nonconformity permit, a variance, and a minor exception permit.” The owners, John Bozell and his wife, told the ADR the project will match existing siding, enlarge a closet, remove a drop ceiling and enlarge a window and French doors to restore a view toward Mount Baldy they said was blocked by a neighbor’s remodel.
Bozell said the change is limited to a three‑foot southern wall extension and that the house’s height and width will not change. “We are seeking to extend the the southern wall of our primary bedroom, by a simple 3 feet,” Bozell said, adding they have support from the neighbor to the south and from a neighbor to the west. Staff noted the project drew a written privacy concern from the occupant of 101 Bolinas Avenue.
ADR members who visited the site said the proposed work is unlikely to cause privacy impacts. One ADR member noted the shed on the neighboring parcel sits directly up to the fence and said the addition would have no meaningful effect on privacy. Another member recommended the applicants prepare FAR comparisons for the Town Council to show how nearby properties exceed FAR limits on narrow Balinas lot parcels.
Several ADR members pointed out that many lots on Balinas Avenue are nonconforming in size and FAR; one member said that fact is often a valid finding to support a variance in Ross. No formal motion or roll‑call vote was recorded in the transcript; multiple ADR members expressed support for the project as drawn and advised the applicants on materials and on presenting FAR data to the council.
The matter will proceed to the Town Council for a formal decision; staff asked the ADR to provide a recommendation for council consideration.
A timeline or decision date for council review was not specified in the meeting record.
