Ross council debates exempting routine siding work from demolition permits, resists broad FAR exception

Ross town council members discussed proposed zoning-code changes that would let routine exterior wall work proceed with a building permit rather than a demolition permit, while separately debating whether to create a new exception process for increases in floor-area ratio (FAR). The discussion focused on where to draw the line between administrative efficiency and maintaining design-review oversight.

The conversation opened with Speaker 1 asking whether it is appropriate for neighbors to act as approvers. Speaker 2 replied that "neighbor consent provisions and zoning rules are illegal. They're unconstitutional," framing the legal limit on giving neighbors veto authority. Planning staff clarified the existing practice: the only time neighbors formally weigh in on changes is through variance or design-review findings tied to bulk, character and privacy concerns, not through a plain demolition standard.

Several council members and staff discussed a 25% threshold in the design-review code that currently triggers ADR (design-review) and council review when more than 25% of exterior walls are removed. Steven Sutro, who identified himself as an ADR participant, told the council the 25% exterior-wall trigger is commonly used and that demolition standards more typically reference framing and studs. Sutro said the 25% threshold is a reasonable place to retain design oversight for substantial changes.

Supporters of a narrower exemption said it should be limited to in-kind replacements or upgrades for fire safety (for example, replacing older wood siding with fire-resistant fiber-cement or hardy board). "If it's in kind or fire-preventative, then the applicant should sail through," said Speaker 5, who urged limiting exemptions so design review still catches changes that alter neighborhood character. Opponents warned that creating an exception process for FAR could be a "Pandora's box," introducing subjective judgments in a town with irregular lots and a history of nonconformance. Speaker 1 said Ross’s irregular lot shapes make uniform application of any new subjective exception process difficult.

Staff noted that introducing an FAR exception process would change the findings the town must make; existing FAR changes have been processed as variances and require a showing of hardship in accordance with state-directed variance findings. Planning staff described four recent FAR variance applications, with two approvals when physical-site conditions (for example, a house with a second-floor entrance on a slope) justified relief and two denials.

Council members asked staff to return with draft code language. The council directed staff to explore revisions to the demolition and design-review code — including the limited in-kind or fire-safety exemption proposal — but stopped short of creating a new FAR exception process at this time.

The council did not take a final vote on the zoning changes; members said they had "sufficient direction" for staff to prepare language and consider ADR input before returning to council.