Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fernhill shed: ADR split over front-setback variance as applicants consider drafting findings
Summary
Owners of 21 Fernhill sought conceptual guidance after constructing an expanded shed in the front setback; ADR members split between supporting the screened, in-place structure due to hardship/visibility and opposing it on precedent grounds; staff confirmed ADR recommendation is required before town council considers a variance.
At the Aug. 20 Ross ADR meeting, Russ and Stephanie Aswell presented a conceptual request related to a shed at 21 Fernhill that currently sits in the front-yard setback. The owners said the structure grew from an approved trash enclosure to a functional bike and sports storage shed and that a stop-work order and a demolition permit are in place as they seek a path forward.
The applicants described practical reasons for the expansion: five bikes (one an e-bike) that do not fit in the garage, an accessory dwelling unit occupant who needs a taller doorway, and heavy hedges and landscaping that screen the shed from public view. The owner said the shed sits about 8 feet from the fence and roughly 24 feet from the street and is largely invisible from public vantage points.
Staff reminded ADR that the town council makes variance findings but that council expects ADR recommendations on design and whether the findings can be supported. ADR members were divided: some said the combination of corner-lot location, screening hedges and the fact the structure is already under construction create a case for findings in this specific instance; others argued the lot is large enough to incorporate bike storage into the home or garage and warned against establishing a precedent that would encourage front-yard structures.
Because this was a conceptual review, ADR did not make a formal recommendation. Members agreed to work offline with the applicant and staff to draft proposed findings (three required findings were discussed) and to reconvene or review the draft so that ADR could provide formal recommendations before a town council hearing. Staff noted Brown Act constraints prevent review as a quorum outside a public meeting, so the ADR offered to provide individual feedback and to reconvene as needed.
