Laserfiche WebLink
CASE NUMBER; 1535-84 <br />APPLICANT:' Robert Gavrilescu <br />6. <br />7. <br />Page 2 <br />question here, then, is whether or not the ability to construct a 21 foot <br />garage is in fact a legitimate hardship, or is a 22 foot, 6 inch ars e a <br />necessity or a matter of zonvenience. g g <br />As you know, the standard for lots developed after 1959 is 10 feet for the <br />side yard setback. Most communities maintain a side yard setback <br />requirement of between 5 and 10 feet. <br />setback is to provide space for light and airne to purpose of the wider <br />g <br />the <br />rear yard, and maintenance of anadequate spacep rovforldmaintaining accesso the <br />structures within your own property and to allow adequate space for <br />fighting a fire in the event a fence is built on the property line, a 5 <br />foot side yard is frequently usable for little else but storage, which in <br />some cases impedes the ability to get to and around the structure. <br />Thus, it comes down to a judgment call as to the reasonableness for the <br />need for the wider garage which appears to be 6 inches" wider than the <br />typical double garage constructed today. <br />Perhaps, the wnin <br />case, can explain, the need for the wider structure, Ifmeonot,e a� 21 foot <br />garage may be deemed not to be a hardship constraint. of <br />