Board of Appeals grants setback variance to allow second‑story addition at 148 Beach Ridge Road

The York Board of Appeals on June 24 granted a variance to allow the owners of 148 Beach Ridge Road to add a second floor within the existing footprint, reducing the required front setback from 15 feet to 4.25 feet.

Attorney Darcy Pizer, representing the applicants Bridal and Michelle Morris, told the board the 1,013‑square‑foot house predates the town zoning ordinance and that wetlands, the septic system and irregular lot shape make horizontal expansion impractical. “The only practical way to yield the reasonable return on the lot is to build up within the existing footprint,” Pizer said, describing the proposal as a modest addition that would preserve the home’s character.

Harry Norton, director of code enforcement, reviewed the one‑time vertical expansion provisions and identified the front setback requirement as the primary legal obstacle: by ordinance a vertical expansion is permitted only if the structure is at least 15 feet from the front lot line. Norton confirmed the existing house sits about 4 feet from that line and said a variance is therefore necessary to allow the proposed upward addition. He also told the board that the ordinance limits height (35 feet) and requires an adjacency survey to determine the average height of nearby principal structures for the final height calculation; Norton said the applicant will have to submit stamped survey information at the building permit stage.

Several board members questioned whether the property could be economically reused without the variance; members acknowledged that tearing the house down and rebuilding to a conforming setback is technically possible but would be costly and could destroy the historic structure. Builder Ed Belenta, who said he would perform the work if the variance were granted, told the board that horizontal expansion would require moving or replacing septic, removing gardens and pouring a new foundation, and would add substantial cost compared with building up.

Neighbors and abutters provided support. Resident Sally Glass, who said she has lived opposite the house for 30 years, told the board she had reviewed the plans and would “have absolutely no problem having them go up,” adding that the house is small and that requiring the owners to move it would be a hardship.

After deliberation the board reviewed the four statutory variance standards. The panel found the first standard (that the land cannot yield a reasonable return without relief) was met by a 3‑2 count; the board found the remaining standards—unique circumstances of the property, no alteration of the essential character of the locality, and hardship not self‑created—were satisfied. Member Michelle Marion moved to grant the general variance to reduce the front setback from 15 feet to 4.25 feet; the motion was seconded and the board approved the variance by a 3‑2 vote.

The board’s approval is conditioned on compliance with the other provisions of the ordinance: the applicants must provide a stamped adjacency survey and any required height confirmations when applying for a building permit, and the final construction must meet applicable height limits and other code requirements.

The board chair said the applicants do not need to return to the board for the height verification; code enforcement will require the stamped survey and verify height at the permitting stage. The board did not specify a timeline for the building permit review.

The variance applies only to the front setback relief described above; no other changes to the ordinance or property rights were made by the action.

Next steps: the applicants may pursue a building permit and must submit a stamped adjacency/height survey as required by code enforcement before framing or final height measurements are approved.