I have a question that I know the answer to fundamentally, but don't really know a good defensible way to write it.
I am working to change our minimum exterior side yard (side adjacent to a street) setback calculation methods (here), but the change would have a 'benefit' for some property owners. Many cconforming lots in the muni were built when the exterior side and front yard were considered the same and a 25 foot setback was required. Well, with my code change is appears that corner lots with existing 25 foot setback would now have a minimum required setback of 22.5 feet, effectively giving them 2.5 feet of buildable area they didn't have before.
Now, the concern could be raised that this change is giving these property owners a valuable benefit, but I really think that giving a property an additional 2.5 feet of buidable area is actually quite nominal.
So, my reasoning is that the costs of construction to maximize the additional buildable area would not be justified by the realtively small increase in house square footage. Now, just saying the above may not be sufficient, so I am wondering if y'all can help me with a better way to phrase my argument so that it is more convincing and logical.