The proposed project on Ridge Road sparked considerable discussion among council members and attendees, with the primary focus on the variances required to proceed with the development. The applicant’s plans included a new single-family dwelling and an accessory structure comprising a pool house and gazebo. The dwelling’s design aimed to accommodate a large family, featuring an open floor plan on the main level with a formal foyer, dining room, living room, guest suite, office, and an open-plan family room and kitchen. The second floor included additional bedrooms and a master suite with walk-in closets and a small balcony.

The discussions revealed that the proposed front entryway encroached slightly into the front yard setback, leading to a consideration of moving the house back by one foot, which would affect the size of rooms. The architect defended the design’s intent to provide an expansive and airy feel through significant architectural elements such as a two-story foyer and varied rooflines. The pool house was designed to complement the main residence, employing similar materials and roof pitches to maintain visual consistency.

A key point of contention was the size of the accessory structure, which exceeded local ordinances. While the ordinance permits a maximum accessory structure size of 100 square feet, the applicant proposed a 717-square-foot structure. The architect clarified that the enclosed area would be limited to around 120 square feet, while the remainder would comprise an outdoor kitchen and shaded area. Concerns about the potential use of the pool house as living space were addressed by emphasizing its intended purpose as a recreational space, not a dwelling unit.

The necessity for variances was attributed to the unique characteristics of the property, including its irregular shape and easements that restricted design options. The planner, Alex Dowardy, argued that the large lot size, coupled with neighborhood precedents of sizable structures, justified the variances. He contended that the project’s benefits, such as enhanced family amenities, outweighed any potential detriments, drawing on legal precedents to support his stance.

During the council’s deliberations, the absence of objections from neighboring property owners was notable. This lack of opposition seemed to sway opinions favorably, as one council member remarked on the significance of not having neighbors present to contest the application. Despite concerns over the house’s scale, which exceeded the typical size of nearby homes, the council acknowledged the project’s aesthetic appeal.

Ultimately, the council voted to approve the requested variances, starting with a motion to accept the front yard setback, which passed unanimously. The proposed maximum lot coverage of 19.3%, exceeding the permitted 15%, was also approved following a unanimous vote. The most debated variance, concerning the accessory structure size, was approved with a majority vote, despite one council member’s opposition due to concerns about the structure’s height and massing. The council’s attorney advised that procedural constraints prevented revisiting the motion.

In addition to the Ridge Road discussion, the council addressed a separate application for an in-ground pool at Two Grouse Lane. Steve and Elizabeth Olaflin sought variances for setbacks due to the property’s corner lot position. Their proposal was approved unanimously, with the council determining that it would not negatively impact the public good or violate zoning laws.