Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council introduces ordinance easing design-review rules for in‑kind siding replacements
Summary
The council introduced ordinance 7‑26 to exempt like‑for‑like exterior wall‑covering replacements from design review and permit requirements when replacements are required by insurers for fire-prevention reasons; councilors also removed a color restriction and broadened insurer 'letter' to 'written communication.'
Ross — The Ross Town Council introduced Ordinance 7‑26 to amend two zoning sections that govern demolition and design review, creating a narrower class of projects that would not require separate design-review or demolition review when a homeowner is replacing exterior wall coverings in kind or when an insurer requires replacement for fire-prevention reasons.
Under the proposed changes staff presented, replacing an exterior material "in kind" — for example, repairing or replacing existing siding with the same type of siding — would not trigger design review. In addition, when replacement is required for fire-preventive reasons the ordinance would allow homeowners to proceed via building permit if they provide written evidence from their home insurance carrier rather than going through two meetings (ADR and council) for the same change.
Council members debated trade-offs: several said the change would streamline the process and help homeowners who must replace siding to retain insurance, while others cautioned that design review plays a role in preserving the town’s architectural character. The council agreed to two modifications during the discussion: removing a requirement that the replacement match the same color (striking the color restriction) and broadening the insurer-evidence language from "letter" to "letter or other form of written communication" so that an email or policy notice would suffice when clearly documented.
By motion, the council introduced the ordinance by title with those edits and the motion passed 5–0. Staff noted that a larger design-review modernization and objective guideline work plan (part of housing-element implementation) would continue in parallel and could address broader changes to ADR procedures.
Next steps: the ordinance was introduced (first reading) with the revisions; the council indicated it will continue discussing design‑review streamlining items under separate implementation work tied to the housing element.
