Laserfiche WebLink
• 1 said he could see' no reason for requiring setbacks if they <br /> 2 were only to be ignored; <br /> .3 expected other requests for similar variances would follow. <br /> 4 Mrs. stated that the Cahills were "wonderful people and neigh- <br /> 5 Dorr: bors" ; <br /> 6 reported they had a double garage on the southwest corner of <br /> 7 their property and their neighbor to the west had built <br /> 8 their garage right next to theirs; <br /> 9 indicated the people who previously lived in Cahill' s <br /> 10 house had planned to build a garage on the east side of <br /> 11 their property but instead built the existing double <br /> 12 garage on her side of the property and "now Mr. Cahill plans <br /> 13 to build a triple garage" ; <br /> 14 suggested the appearance of the whole neighborhood would <br /> 15 benefit if Mr. Cahill would build his garage on the other <br /> 16 side of this property next to his neighbor ' s garage to the <br /> 17 east; <br /> 18 contended Mr. Cahill would get a better view of the neigh- <br /> 19 borhood and his property would be better balanced if he <br /> �0 did that; <br /> 21 said Mr. Cahill would also have better access to his garage <br /> 22 by having it built on the other side. <br /> 23 John J. : said he considered the proposed garage size would be in- <br /> 24 appropriate to that neighborhood and hadn' t seen other <br /> 25 garages like it anywhere else in the City; <br /> 26 pointed out 'that at 60 X 133 feet and less than 8,,000 square <br /> 27 feet .most of the lots in his parents ' neighborhood are <br /> 28 _legal but substandard according to the City ordinance re- <br /> 29 quirement for 75 foot wide lots of at least 9 ,000 square <br /> 30 .feet; <br /> 31 perceived that before the variance request was considered, <br /> 32 the City had to consider its effect on the neighbors ' view <br /> 33 and appropriateness of the location; <br /> 34 stated he perceived there was clearly no hardship which was <br /> 35 not a part of the property itself because the hardship in <br /> 36 this case results from. Mr. Cahill increasing the size of his <br /> 37 garage which, if it weren' t constructed so large, could meet <br /> 38 the City's setback requirements; <br /> 39 insisted the exact property line should be determined before <br /> 040 any new structure is erected. <br /> 14 <br />