MAPLE ROAD (full text)

Corey A. Auerbach Partner February 9, 2026 Via Hand Delivery Elizabeth Cassidy, Code Enforcement Officer The Aurora Municipal Center 575 Oakwood Ave East Aurora, NY 14052 Re: Area Variance Application - 0 Maple Street (SBL 164.12-1-1.131) Dear Ms. Cassidy: We represent Russo Developers & Builders Inc., the record owner of the property located at 0 Maple Street, Town of Aurora, identified as SBL 164.12-1-1.131. By way of background, a Negative Declaration under SEQRA was previously issued by the Town, and an Open Development Area (ODA) approval was granted on July 13, 2015, approving the subdivision that created the subject parcel. In order to authorize the parcel as a buildable lot of record under the Town’s current regulations, the applicant is seeking relief from certain minimum standards applicable to Open Development Areas. Enclosed please find the Zoning Board of Appeals application and supporting materials submitted in connection with that request. The enclosed Proposed Plot Plan/Concept Plan prepared by Carmina Wood Design, dated February 9, 2026 (Drawing No. C-100), is submitted to satisfy the application requirements for a sketch, survey, and site plan. The plan depicts the property boundaries, lot dimensions, flagpole access, setbacks, proposed building envelope, driveway configuration, and surrounding conditions sufficient for the Zoning Board of Appeals’ review of the requested variances. This letter is submitted as the Letter of Intent for purposes of the ZBA application. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any additional information or if there are any administrative items that should be addressed to facilitate review and scheduling before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Very truly yours, Corey Auerbach Enclosure The Avant Building – 200 Delaware Avenue Suite 1200 – Buffalo, New York 14202 barclaydamon.com [email protected] Direct: (716) 858-3801 Fax: (716) 768-2801 50069050.1

Town of Aurora Application Form

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM AND INSTRUCTIONS Please Read Carefully The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) has the power to issue interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance and to grant area variances, use variances and use permits. Application requirements: 1. Prior to seeking a variance from the ZBA, the Applicant/Property Owner must receive a denial from the Building Department for a building permit, a decision from the Code Enforcement Officer, or a referral from the Planning Board or Town Board. 2. Completed applications must be submitted by the second Monday of the month prior to the next scheduled meeting of the ZBA. The ZBA meets the third Thursday of each month. 3. All applications must be accompanied by the proper application fee. ZBA application fee is $100.00. Checks made payable to Town of Aurora. 4. If the applicant/petitioner is not the property owner, an owner authorization form must be submitted. 5. Submit one (1) original and ten (10) copies of the following information: 1. ZBA application with all questions answered. 2. Petitioner’s letter of intent. 3. Sketch, drawing, plan or brochure showing all dimensions of the structure that requires a variance and any other information as may be necessary (ex: photos of the property). 4. Survey prepared by a licensed surveyor, licensed architect or professional engineer showing the property involved and the location of all existing structures and proposed structures. All setback measurements must be shown on the survey. 5. A site plan showing the proposed structure and all dimensioning including distance from property lines and roadways, driveways, wells, septic, drainage ditches and any other features relevant to the variance being requested. 6. Copy of property deed. 7. Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEQRA) – Part I completed by applicant. Incomplete applications will not be accepted for review. Attendance at the Hearing: The property owner, applicant, owner/applicant’s attorney, engineer and/or architect or a duly authorized person must attend the public hearing. 1

CASE NO. __________________ DATE OF HEARING __________ Town of Aurora Zoning Board of Appeals 575 Oakwood Avenue, East Aurora, New York 14052 300 Gleed Zoning Board of Appeals Application Form I. TYPE OF REQUEST X ____ AREA VARIANCE ____ SPECIAL USE PERMIT ____ USE VARIANCE _____ INTERPRETATION II. APPLICANT/PETITIONER Applicant’s Name Russo Developers & Builders, Inc. by Barclay Damon LLP as agent/attorney Address 200 Delaware Ave, Suite 1200 City Buffalo State NY ZIP 14202 Phone 716 858 3801 Fax Email [email protected] Interest in the property (ex: owner/purchaser/developer) Owner III. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION (If different from applicant information.) Property Owner(s) Name(s) Address City State ZIP Phone Fax Email III. PROPERTY INFORMATION Property Address 0 Maple Street SBL# 164.12-1-1.131 Property size in acres 2.36 +/- Property Frontage in feet 70.1 feet Zoning District R-1 Surrounding Zoning Residential Current Use of Property Vacant Land IV. REQUEST DETAIL (check all that apply) X Variance from Ordinance Section(s) # ___ 99-31 ___ Special Use Permit for: ___ Use Variance for: ___ Interpretation of 2

V. SIGNATURES (This application must be signed by the applicant/petitioner. If the applicant is not the owner of the property, a separate owner authorization form must be submitted - see pg. 5 ) A cAe/aGis . as agent/attorney Signature of Applicant/Petitioner Russo Developers & Builders, Inc. Print name of Applicant/Petitioner State of New York; County of Erie On the ¶ day of year Z0Zibefore me, the above individual app are rsonally known to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and ackn • edged to me that he/she/they executed the same forth rp herei ta Notarii Public SARK R MCNAMARA .ary Public, State of New York (Notary stamp) Reg. No 02MC6090444 Qualified in Erie County zommission Expires April 14, 20_Z - Office Use Only: Date received: Receipt #: Application reviewed by: ECDP ZR-1 form sent to EC: Hearing publication date: PREVIOUS APPEAL(S): A previous appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals ( ) has ( ) has not been made with respect to this property. Previous appeals: Date: Type of Appeal: Granted Denied Date: Type of Appeal: Granted Denied 3

PETITIONER’S LETTER OF INTENT Please describe in detail the proposed project, reason the variance and/or special use permit is being requested and any additional information that may be helpful to the Zoning Board of Appeals in deciding this appeal: (attach additional pages if needed) See attached. TO BE COMPLETED ONLY WHEN A USE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED: A Use Variance is requested because the applicable regulations and restrictions in the Zoning Code of the Town of Aurora have caused unnecessary hardship as demonstrated by the following: 1) I cannot realize a reasonable return on my property for each and every permitted use allowed in the current zoning classification as demonstrated by the accompanying financial evidence (provide financial evidence to support your argument). Financial Evidence Provided Yes ____ No ______ (financial evidence is required per NYS Town Law) 2) Describe why your alleged hardship relating to the subject property is unique and does not apply to other properties in the zoning district or neighborhood: 3) Describe why you believe that the essential character of the neighborhood/community will not change if the Zoning Board of Appeals grants you a use variance: 4) Is your need for a use variance a result of you own actions (is your difficulty self-created)? Please explain: (Attach additional pages if needed) 4

Town of Aurora Zoning Board of Appeals 575 Oakwood Avenue Application East Aurora, NY 14052 Owner Authorization www.townofaurora.com The undersigned, who is the owner of the premises know as: 0 Maple Street 164.12-1-1.131 , identified as Tax Map (SBL)# (address) Barclay Damon LLP as agent/attorney hereby authorizes to bring an application for (X) area variance ( ) special use permit ( ) use variance ( ) interpretation before the Town of Aurora Zoning Board of Appeals for review and potential approval. The undersigned further permits the Town or its authorized representative(s) access to the property to review existing site conditions during the review process. Russo Developers & Builders, Inc. 2/9/26 Owner (print) Date agent a Owner (signatur STATE OF NEW YORK SS COUNTY OF ERIE On this 9th day of February , 20 26 , before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said state, personally appeared Corey A. Auerbach , personally known to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon behalf of which the individual(s) acted, executed the instrum Notary "ublic MARK R. MCNAMARA Notary Public, State of New York 5 Reg. No. 02MC6090444 Qualified in Erie County Commission Expires April 14, 20.47--

Prior Open Development Area Approval

Prior Negative Declaration

Deed to Property

Environmental Assessment Form

Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project Information Instructions for Completing Part 1 – Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1 – Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: Russo Development Variance Project Location (describe, and attach a location map): Maple Street, Aurora, SBL 164.12-1-1.131 Brief Description of Proposed Action: Area variances to authorize lot of record as buildable lot of record in compliance with local zoning. Owner intends to construct a permitted single-family dwelling on the property if valiances are granted. The proposed action has been defined broadly to include all site and construction activities. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: (716) 858-3801 Russo Developers & Builders Inc. by Barclay Damon LLP as agent/attorney E-Mail: [email protected] Address: 200 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1200 City/PO: State: Zip Code: Buffalo NY 14202 1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, NO YES administrative rule, or regulation? If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that ✔ may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval: Building Department - Building Permit ✔ 3. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? __________ +/- 2.35 acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? __________ +/- 0.90 acres c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? +/- 2.35 acres __________ 4. Check all land uses that occur on, are adjoining or near the proposed action: 5. Urban Rural (non-agriculture) Industrial Commercial ✔ Residential (suburban) □ Forest Agriculture Aquatic Other(Specify): □ Parkland Page 1 of 3

5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ✔ b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ✔ NO YES 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape? ✔ 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes, identify: ________________________________________________________________________________ ✔ NO YES 8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? ✔ b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? ✔ c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed action? ✔ 9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ✔ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES If No, describe method for providing potable water: _________________________________________ ✔ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ______________________________________ ✔ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 12. a. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district NO YES which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the ✔ State Register of Historic Places? ✔ b. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory? 13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency? ✔ b. Would the proposed action physically alter, or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody? ✔ If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: _____________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 3

14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: □Shoreline □ ✔ Forest Agricultural/grasslands Early mid-successional Wetland □ Urban ✔ Suburban 15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed by the State or NO YES Federal government as threatened or endangered? ✔ 16. Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan? NO YES ✔ NO YES 17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non-point sources? If Yes, ✔ a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ✔ b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems (runoff and storm drains)? ✔ If Yes, briefly describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Follow natural drainage patterns. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water NO YES or other liquids (e.g., retention pond, waste lagoon, dam)? If Yes, explain the purpose and size of the impoundment:______________________________________________ ✔ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ _ Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste 19. NO YES management facility? If Yes, describe: _______________________________________________________________________________ ✔ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation (ongoing or NO YES completed) for hazardous waste? If Yes, describe: _______________________________________________________________________________ ✔ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor/name: ____________________________________________________ Russo Developers by Barclay Damon LLP as agent/attorney Date: 2/9/2026 __________________________ _____________________ /s/ Corey Auerbach agent/attorney Signature: _____________________________________________________Title:__________________________________ PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3

EAF Mapper Summary Report Monday, February 9, 2026 3:54 PM Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental assessment form (EAF). Not all questions asked in the EAF are answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources to confirm data provided by the Mapper or to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Part 1 / Question 7 [Critical Environmental No Area] Part 1 / Question 12a [National or State No Register of Historic Places or State Eligible Sites] Part 1 / Question 12b [Archeological Sites] No Part 1 / Question 13a [Wetlands or Other Yes - Digital mapping information on local, New York State, and federal Regulated Waterbodies] wetlands and waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to the EAF Workbook. Part 1 / Question 15 [Threatened or No Endangered Animal] Part 1 / Question 16 [100 Year Flood Plain] No Part 1 / Question 20 [Remediation Site] No Short Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report 1

Area Variance Analysis

Area Variance Analysis 0 Maple Street 164.12-1-1.131 Barclay Damon LLP represents Russo Developers Builders Inc. (“Applicant”), the record owner of the property located at 0 Maple Street, Town of Aurora, New York, identified as SBL No. 164.12-1-1.131 (the “Property”). The Property was created pursuant to an Open Development Area (“ODA”) approval granted on July 13, 2015, following issuance of a Negative Declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”). The ODA approval authorized subdivision of the parent parcel and established the Property as a lawful lot under the Town Code in effect at that time. Since issuance of the ODA approval, the Town has amended its ODA regulations. As a result, although the Property was lawfully created, development of a single-family residence now requires area variances from certain minimum standards set forth in § 99-31 of the Town Code. The Applicant proposes construction of a single-family residence consistent with the original ODA approval and the existing surrounding development pattern, and seeks only the relief necessary to authorize the Property as a buildable lot of record. Requested Area Variances Pursuant to Town Code § 99-31 and Town Law § 267-b, the Applicant seeks the following area variances: 1. Minimum Lot Area § 99-31(A)(1) requires a minimum lot area of three (3) acres, exclusive of the flagpole portion of the lot. o Required: 3.0 acres o Provided: approximately 2.07 acres, exclusive of the flagpole portion 2. Flagpole Frontage at Street Right-of-Way § 99-31(A)(2) requires a minimum of 75 feet of frontage on an existing state, county, or Town road. o Required: 75 feet o Provided: approximately 70.1 feet 3. Private Right-of-Way Width § 99-31(A)(3) requires a private right-of-way at least 75 feet in width. o Required: 75 feet o Provided: approximately 67.5 feet 4. Front Yard Setback § 99-31(A)(5) requires a minimum front yard setback of 200 feet from the boundary line parallel to the street right-of-way. o Required: 200 feet o Provided: approximately 50 feet

5. Distance Between Ingress/Egress Rights-of-Way § 99-31(A)(9) requires a minimum 100-foot separation between ingress/egress rights-of- way. o Required: 100 feet o Provided: approximately 45 feet from an existing driveway No variances are requested for minimum lot width, side yard setback, rear yard setback, driveway width, grade, turning radius, or other access design standards, all of which can be satisfied through site design and placement of the proposed residence. Variance Standard The applicable standard for review of area variances is set forth in Town Law § 267- b(3)(b). In making its determination, the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) must weigh the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted against any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community, and must consider the following five factors: (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. Granting the requested variances will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character and will not result in any detriment to nearby properties. The application proposes construction of a single-family residence on a parcel previously approved for residential development through the ODA process. The surrounding area is characterized by low-density residential development on large parcels with long driveways and limited road frontage. Development of the Property in this manner is entirely consistent with that pattern. The relief sought does not increase density, authorize additional building lots, or introduce a new or intensified use. Rather, it allows reasonable residential use of a parcel expressly contemplated for development under the prior ODA approval. (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The benefit sought cannot be achieved through a feasible alternative that avoids the requested variances. The dimensional constraints giving rise to the variances were established by the prior subdivision and by the physical configuration of the Property, including its flagpole access. Strict compliance with the amended ODA standards would effectively render the Property unbuildable, notwithstanding its lawful creation and prior ODA approval. Redesign of the lot to meet current dimensional standards would require reconfiguration of the subdivision or acquisition of additional lands, neither of which is feasible or contemplated by the Town’s prior approvals. (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial.

Although the requested variances involve numerical deviations from current ODA standards, New York courts are clear that substantiality is not measured by arithmetic alone, but by consideration of actual impacts. Here, the variances do not increase development intensity, alter neighborhood character, or create off-site impacts. The requested relief allows development of a single residence on a lot already approved for that purpose. The lot area, frontage, and access conditions are functionally sufficient to support residential use consistent with surrounding properties. When viewed in context, the variances are not substantial. (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The requested variances will not have an adverse physical or environmental impact. The proposed development does not require grading, removal of natural features, or expansion of impervious surfaces beyond what is typical for a single-family residence. SEQRA review for the original ODA resulted in a Negative Declaration, and the current proposal remains consistent with that review. Access, drainage, emergency response, and utility service can be adequately accommodated within the proposed site design. (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. To the extent the difficulty may be characterized as self-created, that factor arises solely from the Applicant’s ownership of a parcel created pursuant to a lawfully approved ODA subdivision. The Applicant did not create the dimensional constraints through post-approval actions, and this factor is entitled to limited weight and does not preclude granting the requested relief. Balancing Balancing the benefit to the Applicant against any potential detriment to the community, approval of the requested variances is warranted. Granting the variances allows reasonable residential use of a lawfully created lot, consistent with prior Town approvals, without adverse impacts to neighboring properties or public resources. Conversely, denial of the variances would effectively deprive the Property of practical use, undermining the purpose of the original ODA approval and yielding no corresponding public benefit. The requested variances represent the minimum relief necessary to permit a reasonable and appropriate use of the Property.

Site Plan

TOWN OF ELMA TOWN OF AURORA sections 7209N and 7301 of the New York State Education Law for any person, unless acting under the direction of a registered architect, licensed engineer or land surveyor to alter this drawing. If altered such R.A., P.E. or L.L.S. shall affix his or her seal, signature, the date,the notation "Altered By" and a specific description of the alteration. 900 All Rights Reserved. Reuse of these documents without the expressed written permission of CARMINAWOOD DESIGN is prohibited. WARNING it is a violation of article 145 Greensboro 430 MAPLE STREET SBL# 164.12-1-1.11 N/F RUSSO DEVELOPERS BUILDERS INC. 2.68 ACRES ) ARIES Utica DTH V 426 MAPLE STREET 905 SBL# 164.12-1-1.12 910 Buffalo N/F BRIAN G. STILLER 900 D (WI 2.79 ACRES 900 E RO A EX. DRIVEWAY MAPL 915 400.0'± 26.9'± 45.0' 910 6.0' 6'x25' BUMPOUT AT 150' 25.0' MAX. INTRVALS ALONG 67.50' DRIVEWAY (TYP.) 43.2'± 20.0' FUTURE DRIVEWAY MIN. 50 FT SIDE SETBACK 920 10.0' 274.7'± Proposed Plot Plan 82.6' Town of Aurora, New York 14052 905 930 930 EX. 420 MAPLE STREET EDG 940 EO SBL# 164.12-1-1.132 FW A OO N/F FRANCES R. RUSSO RE PROPOSED MIN. 50' FRONT SETBACK (200' REQ'D) A DED 33 0.89 ACRES ED 910 AR 0.0 OD 915 EA '± W O SBL# 164.12-1-1.131 F 940 143.4'± 950 EX. HOUSE EO DG © CARMINA WOOD DESIGN EX. DRIVEWAY X.E E MI N. 50' 0 Maple Road RE 920 ARS ET BA EX CK EXISTING WOODED AREA .D RIV EW AY 93 EX. HOUSE 0 0 MAPLE STREET SBL# 164.12-1-1.131 940 N/F RUSSO DEVELOPERS BUILDINGS INC. 2.35 ACRES MIN. 200' FRONT SETBACK (REQ'D) 950 Date 67.5'± 915 MIN . 920 50' SIDE SET BAC K No. Description 77.4'± REVISIONS: 75. 0'± BACK EX. HOUSE SIDE SET 930 MIN. 50' 0 95 940 14.0'± 12 HIGHLAND DRIVE SBL# 164.12-1-4 950 N/F DANIEL G. FOIT 188.6'± 0.56 ACRES 98.1'± DED AREA EX. EDGE OF WOO 18 HIGHLAND DRIVE SITE DATA (R-1 ZONING approved as ODA) 14 HIGHLAND DRIVE SBL# 164.12-1-7 SBL# 164.12-1-5 N/F RAYMOND WRAZEN LOT SIZE = 2.35 AC (+/-) N/F DANIEL E. MARRACINO 16 HIGHLAND DRIVE 0.67 ACRES 0.40 ACRES SBL# 164.12-1-6 PER AURORA CODE SECTION 99-31 N/F TIMOTHY BENNETT EX. HOUSE 0.44 ACRES (1) MIN. LOT AREA = 3.0 AC (2) MIN. LOT FRONTAGE (FLAG POLE) = 75 FT AT R.O.W. (3) All access roadways will be located on a private r.o.w. at least 75 ft wide EX. HOUSE (4) All access roadways will be a minimum of 20 feet wide from the street right-of-way to the residence, with required apron at the street, and constructed of gravel, asphalt or other hard surface. in all cases, EX. HOUSE EX. HOUSE access roadways will be sufficient to support the weight of fire apparatus and safety vehicles. such design EX. HOUSE EX. HOUSE will be approved and inspected by the town engineer. (a) At every increment of 150 feet of access roadway length, there will be an additional vehicle DRAWING NAME: pass-by bump-out measuring a minimum six feet wide and 25 feet long. (b) At a point between the interior termination of the 75 feet wide private right-of-way and the VARIANCES Plot Plan residence, a fire apparatus hammerhead, "y," or cul-de-sac turnaround must be created as approved by the building inspector. REQUIRED PROVIDED Concept (c) Access roadways will not exceed 10% in grade. (d) The minimum turning radius in an access roadway will be 28 feet. (1) MIN. LOT AREA = 3.0 AC 2.07 AC (not including flagpole) * (5) MIN. FRONT SETBACK = 200 FT (from the boundary line parallel to the street right-of-way) (2) MIN. LOT FRONTAGE (FLAG POLE) = 75 FT AT R.O.W. 70.1 FT * SITE PLAN (6) SIDE SETBACK = 50 FT MIN. (3) PRIVATE R.O.W. AT LEAST 75' WIDE 67.5 FT * SCALE: 1"=30' Date: 02.09.26 (5) MIN. FRONT SETBACK = 200 FT 50 FT MIN. * Drawn By: C. Wood (7) REAR SETBACK = 50 FT (from the boundary line parallel to the street right-of-way) Scale: As Noted (8) MIN. LOT WIDTH = 200 FT MEASURED AT SETBACK (for boundary line parallel to the street right-of-way) DRAWING NO. (6) SIDE SETBACK = 50 FT MIN. 50 FT MIN. (9) MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN INGRESS/EGRESS R.O.W.'S = 100 FT C-100 (7) REAR SETBACK = 50 FT 50 FT MIN. NOTE: BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS, CARMINA WOOD DESIGN ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS ACCURACY. (8) MIN. LOT WIDTH = 200 FT MEASURED AT SETBACK < 200 FT (for boundary line parallel to the street right-of-way) 30 0 30 60Ft. 30' Project No: 26-4024 (9) MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN INGRESS/EGRESS R.O.W.'S = 10045FT FT MIN. (FROM EX. DRIVEWAY) * * VARIANCE REQUIRED