HomeMy WebLinkAbout20251056 10 Elizabeth Ln Area Variance PresentationZoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Request
•Property:10 Elizabeth Lane
•Applicant: Mason Residence
•Zoning District:UR-1
Overview of Request
•This presentation summarizes the
requested area variances
associated with proposed
residential additions.
•The relief is required due to the
home’s pre-1953 placement, which
predates current zoning setbacks.
Existing Conditions
•Single-family residence built in 1953
•Home predates zoning ordinance
•Existing front setback: 24.6’ (30’ required)
•Existing total side yard: 28.6’ (30’ required)
•Existing right-side yard at structure wall: 13.3’
(12’ required)
•Existing in-ground pool located in rear yard (pre-
existing condition)
Proposed Improvements
•Front porch addition
•Vertical (second-story)
addition aligned with existing
walls
•Rear deck replaced with patio
roof within property
boundaries
•No horizontal expansion of the
primary building footprint
•Building height remains well
within the 60’ maximum
Zoning Relief Requested
•Relief is requested from
Article 3, Schedule for
UR-1 District:
1.Front setback: 30’
required / 16’ proposed
2.Total side yard: 30’
required / 28.6’ existing
(3.0’ relief requested)
3.Right side yard setback:
12’ required / 1.0’ relief
related to eave projection
•Relief is triggered by
porch projection and
vertical addition eaves
only.
•No new horizontal
encroachment of
building walls is
proposed.
Statutory Factor 1: Feasible Alternatives
•Addition aligns with the existing home footprint and
structural bearing lines
•Rear yard contains an existing in-ground pool, limiting
feasible rearward expansion
•Shifting the addition toward the rear would require
removal of the pool or loss of functional outdoor
space
•Interior or rearward reconfiguration would create
structural complications and reduce usable living area
•The benefit sought cannot be achieved without front
yard setback relief
Statutory Factor 2: Neighborhood Character
•Additions remain consistent
with surrounding single-family
homes
•Scale, style, and materials are
compatible with the
neighborhood
•Side yard openness is
maintained, as no new wall
encroachment is proposed
•Improvements enhance
functionality without
detriment to nearby properties
Statutory Factor 3: Substantiality
•Front yard relief reflects long-
established placement of the
home
•1.0’ side yard relief relates
only to potential eave
projection
•Total side yard relief (3.0’) is
modest and tied to inherited
nonconformity
•No horizontal encroachment
of building walls is proposed
Statutory Factor 4: Environmental & Physical Impacts
•Work is confined to an existing residential lot
•No adverse impacts to drainage, traffic, noise, or natural features
•Rear patio roof remains within property boundaries
•Project complies with NYS Building Code
Statutory Factor 5: Self-Created Hardship
•Home was built in 1953, prior to zoning regulations
•Existing nonconforming setbacks predate current ownership
•Relief is required only because the vertical addition technically intensifies these conditions
Summary & Request
•Modest residential improvements
•Relief driven by pre-existing site
conditions
•No horizontal expansion of building
walls or neighborhood impact
•The requested variances represent
the minimum relief necessary
•Request approval of the area
variances as submitted