Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-09-23
Building Set Back.


Mr.. Chapman at the suggestion of the
building office, on account of the possibility
Of Hanover place being extended through
to LIST street, set his building five feet back
from the line of the alley, although he was
not in any way required to do SO, as to
allow for forty-foot street being ex-
tended to LIST street If desired. 1t does not
seem probable however, that this extension
will be made at present, as row of houses
Is being built along LIST street the line
of the extension. 1t would, therefore, have
been easy for Mr.. Chapman, If required to
have built his stable five feet further west
thus making it twenty feet from the near
est residence without giving up any more
ground than he did give up on his front,
which ground. if anything would be more
imortant for the construction of his stable
than ground at the side.
1.-The assistant Inspector OF buildings
neglected to stop the work on account of
the building being within fifteen feet from
the residence until the work was almost
completed, and at that time it seemed to
him questionable whether this was an alley
or not and. if so, whether the requirement
of fifteen feet applied, the requirement
does not apply to alleys. This was mis-
take on his part as he should have reported
the matter to the building inspector and to
the Commissioners At the same time, It is
questionable whether Mr.. Chapman would
not have compelled the issuance Of this per-
nit and whether he could have been re-
quired to move back five feet and whether
the nuisance. if there is a nuisance, would
not be just as great then it is at pres
ent.
After the permit had been issued for
two-story building Mr.. Chapman obtained
permit to make the building three stories,
and the upper stories are evidently intended
for light manufacturing, although no per-
nit has been granted for the Insulation of
machinery and no permit will be granted
unless the applicant conforms to the build
ing regulations as to the necessary consent
of property owners There is no question in
this case as to the application of the regula-
lions. which are very definite on this point.
Applies for Another Permit.
Mr.. Chapman now applies for a permit
to build on an adjacent lot, and still facing
the alley, but to the west of his present
stable. This lot already has a stable on II,
which is used in connection with the first
mentioned stable, all Of which is now rented
to a contractor of the street cleaning de-
partment. Mr.. Chapman desires to repair
the existing stable and to extend 1t; also to
extend the shed. He makes the claim, and
his counsel does likewise that this being
entirely a separate lot the case is an abso-
lutely separate one and that even If the
regulations were violated in the first case,
which he argues Is not the fact, that this
second application. being a separate case
entirely, should not be considered in con-
nection with the first. This might certainly
bC IL uC cASCpe tAdt tAC PioiiS SLoW tildl the
new structures are to be simply continual
lions of existing structures connecting with
them by openings. so that the mere fact of
the buildings being on separate lots does not
interfere with the continuity of the struc-
ture any more than existing buildings built
over two lots. His is one building and the
plans show it to be SUCH
II am therefore of the opinion that the
case is the same as one building on two lots
and that a violation of the permit in the
first case, If there was such violation
could be made a basis for not granting an
extension to this building
The motion for reference of the case to
the corporation counsel closes the recon-
mendation.