Ross ADR recommends 3–1 in favor of sports court at 12 Canyon Road despite environmental concerns

The Ross Architectural Design Review (ADR) Group voted 3–1 to recommend that the Town Council approve a proposal for a 40-by-60-foot (2,400-square-foot) elevated sports court at 12 Canyon Road, subject to any council-level review of noise and other code requirements.

Roberta (Town staff) described the proposal as seeking design review, a hillside lot permit and a variance for a wall height over 6 feet. The court would sit on a raised wooden platform adjacent to an existing pool deck, be elevated roughly 12 feet on structural steel and concrete piers, include a 7-foot concrete rebound wall on the south side and a 4-foot glass rail on the west side, and would feature downward-shielded, low-voltage landscape lighting. Staff noted that “all new sports courts in the town will be subject to any future rules and regulations concerning pickleball.”

Brad from Imprints Landscape Architecture said the revised plans lower the court (reported as a 5-foot reduction in overall height in some locations and 3 feet in others) and push it 10 feet farther from the closest property line; he reported grading estimates of about 20 to 30 cubic yards and said the glass rail and reduced massing make the court feel smaller. He also said a sound consultant, Salter and Associates, conducted an analysis and that the 4-foot glass rail met Town sound requirements at property lines.

Multiple members of the public urged caution. A resident identified as Zara (speaking with her husband Dennis) urged that the site is the head of a natural canyon with historic springs and argued the project does not meet various sections of the town’s hillside-lot regulations, citing code sections (transcribed as “18 39 0 10 purpose,” “18 39 0 90 architecture,” “18 39 0 90 hydrology” and “18 39 30 submittal requirements”). David Nassau raised questions about noise analysis jurisdiction, and Brad confirmed that ADR’s role is advisory on design and that the Town Council will consider noise and code compliance.

During ADR deliberations several members expressed strong concerns about protecting natural landforms and water courses. One member said the proposal “fails to preserve significant features of the natural environment” and that the court appeared “inappropriate for this particular site.” Another member said lowering the court, switching from a solid fence to glass and moving the court farther inside the lot were meaningful improvements and supported the revised plans. The panel’s decision to recommend approval (3–1) was recorded with one member opposing on grounds that the court would disturb a canyon and run contrary to the town’s hillside protections.

The ADR recommendation will be forwarded to Town Council; the ADR record notes the council will consider any required code findings, sound ordinance matters and the variance for a wall over 6 feet. The transcript shows the applicant engaged a sound consultant and submitted grading estimates; residents requested further evaluation of hydrology and potential effects on a historic spring and local watercourse.