(dissenting).
I dissent with reluctance, feeling that the Swensons purchased their home relying on the fact that there were two covered structures for car parking.
*235However, in equal good faith, after having been requested to remove the carport because it violated the zoning ordinance with respect to side yard clearance, they asked for a variance, which seems to be a concession of the violation. It was denied. True, the ordinance had to do with structures attached to a dwelling, in a side yard (in this case a driveway). Thereafter, by sawing through a board or boards, the carport was detached, but was' not moved an inch. The detachment was a technical compliance with the “attached” part of the ordinance, but did not comply with the offset or clearance provisions, which are the meat of the zoning requirements. The carport obviously violated the side-yard offset requirements, — attached or not. This fact was conceded by the Swen-sons’ admission that it was only two feet from their neighbor’s property line and the undeniable physical facts showing occupation of an area prohibited by the ordinance.
The cases generally uphold such ordinances under police-power principles, both on an aesthetic or emergency hazard grounds, the latter being epitomized by the necessity for fire equipment to have access to property and the like.
In this case the patio and garage were unobjectionable, zoning-wise, since they were in the back yard, requiring no similar clearance.
If “attachment” to the dwelling in a sidé yard is the primary factor, and not “clearance”, it takes no imagination to conclude that one could completely obstruct the side yard by building a structural obstacle in complete frustration of the letter and spirit of ordinances dealing with set-backs and space offsets, and would make it impossible for the fire engine to get in or the flowers to bloom.
I think Hargraves v. Young is controlling in this case.1
. 3 Utah 2d 175, 280 P.2d 974 (1955).