Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZBA Members Gerardo Arzate, Chairman Tim Harry, Vice Chairman Kyle Newton, Member Kirk Strahan, Member Pricilla Contreras, Member Paul Anthony Rios, Member Norberto Brito, Member (Alternate) ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY HALL, 411 W. 8TH ST. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – FIFTH FLOOR May 15, 2024 8:30 A.M. I. OPENING ITEMS 1. Invocation II. CONSENT ITEMS 2. Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning meeting minutes for March 06, 2024. III. PUBLIC HEARING The Zoning Board of Adjustments board will hold a public hearing on the following items: 3. CASE FILE NO. 2024-07-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of Cleopatra Anderson, owner, for a variance from Section 14-7-5 of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure (Mobile Home) to be located with a one- foot (1’) front yard setback instead of a twenty feet (20’) front yard setback in a General Residence (GR) Zoning District, Lot 1 Block 14, Davis Heights Addition (841 Barrett Ave). IV. Adjourn  ZBA Members Gerardo Arzate, Chairman Tim Harry, Vice Chairman Kyle Newton, Member Kirk Strahan, Member Pricilla Contreras, Member Paul Anthony Rios, Member Norberto Brito, Member (Alternate) ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT- M i nu t e s CITY HALL, 411 W. 8TH ST. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – FIFTH FLOOR March 06, 2024 8:30 A.M. I. OPENING ITEMS 1. Invocation II. CONSENT ITEMS 2. Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning meeting minutes for February 14, 2024. III. PUBLIC HEARING The Zoning Board of Adjustments board will hold a public hearing on the following items: 3. CASE FILE NO. 2024-03-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of Jesus and Olivia Muro, owners, for a variance from Section 14-7-7 of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow an existing residence to maintain a five and a half feet (51/2’) side yard setback instead of the required six feet (6’) side yard setback and from Section 14-7-9 (1) to allow the existing residence to maintain a four feet (4’) rear yard setback instead of the required five fee (5’) rear yard setback in a Two Family-One (2F-1) Zoning District, Lots 15-16 & 114.28 Sq. Ft. of Lot 14, Block 44A, Herbert and Wight Subdivision. (1100 Golder Ave.)  4. CASE FILE NO. 2024-04-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of Jimmy & Beckie Allbright, owners, for a variance from Section 14-7-5 of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow a residence to be built with nine feet (9’) front yard setback instead of the required five feet (25’) front yard setback in a Single Family-Two (SF-2) Zoning District, Lot-3, Block 9, University Gardens. (4612 Orchid Ln.) IV. Adjourn Be it said and remembered that at 8:31 a.m. on the 6 t h day of March 2024, there came on and was held a Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting in the Council Chambers, 5th Floor, 411 W. 8th St., Odessa, Texas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerardo Arzate, Chairman Priscilla Contreras Norberto Brito Paul Anthony Ríos MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Harry, Vice Chairman Kyle Newton (had a case) Kirk Strahan OTHERS PRESENT: Maria Prieto, Planning Manager; J a m e s R e b e r P l a n n e r ; Cheynna Torres, Planning Tech, Gracie Rodriguez, Planning Tech; Gary Owens, Building Official; Dan Jones, City Attorney The minutes of the February 14, 2024, Zoning Board of Adjustments Commission meet were approved, motion for approval being made by member, Pricilla Contreras, seconded by board member, Paul Anthony Rios, with the vote being a unanimous “aye”.  TO: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM: Maria Prieto, Planning Manager SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 2024-03-V APPLICANT: Jesus and Olivia Muro, Owner REQUEST: Variance from Section 14-7-7 and14- 7-9 (1) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance PROPERTY INVOLVED: Lots 15-16 & 114.28 Sq. Ft. of Lot 14, Block 44A, Herbert and Wight Subdivision. (1100 Golder Ave.) The property involved in this request is located at 1100 Golder Ave. This site is currently zoned Two Family-One (2F-1) and is occupied by a single-family residence. The property is surrounded by residential development to the north, south, east and west. The applicants Jesus and Olivia Muro, owner, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow an existing residence to maintain a five and a half feet (51/2’) side yard setback instead of the required six feet (6’) side yard setback from Section 14-7-7 and to allow the existing residence to maintain a four feet (4’) rear yard setback instead of the required five feet (5’) rear yard setback from Section 14-7-9 (1) from the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance, which states: Sec. 14-7-7 Side Yard In the following zoning districts the minimum required side yard shall be in accordance with the following schedule [1] and no building, structure or use shall hereafter be located so as to have a smaller side yard on each side of such building than herein required, and no side yard existing at the time of passage of this ordinance shall be reduced below the minimum set forth herein: Schedule minimum required side yard Two Family-One (2F-1) 6 ft. (See Exhibit A) Sec. 14-7-9 (1) Rear Yard No building or structure shall hereafter be located, erected or altered to have a rear yard smaller than herein required and no rear yard existing at the time of passage of this ordinance shall be reduced below the minimum set forth below.  (1) There shall be a five (5) feet rear setback line for main or accessory buildings unless no an alley exists or an easement with a minimum twenty (20) feet width abuts the rear property line. No single-family or two-family residential building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall cover more than seventy (70) percent of the overall lot. For accessory building standards see section 14-7-13. Two Family-One (2F-1) 5 ft. Rear Yard The following criteria as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance are to be used by the Board of Adjustment in evaluating variance requests. The burden of proof in meeting each of these criteria is upon the applicant. A. The variance request is not contrary to the public interest. B. Special conditions exist for the applicant that do not generally exist for others. C. A literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. D. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice is done. Staff analysis of this request is the applicant’s request to maintain the side yard setback to five and a half feet (5 ½’) and maintain the rear yard setback to four feet (4 ft.) will not create any hazards or hardships to surrounding properties to light, air, or open space. With this in mind the Planning staff has no objections to this request as presented. Should the Board choose to approve this request, the Planning staff would recommend adoption of the following conditions: 1. No structures or additions shall be placed within the 6 ft. side yard setback. 2. No structures or additions shall be placed within the 5 ft. rear yard setback. Information in order of inclusion: --Area of notification map --Copy of site plan Maria Presented: The property involved in this request is located at 1100 Golder Ave. This site is currently zoned Two Family-One (2F-1) and is occupied by a single-family residence. The property is surrounded by residential development to the north, south, east and west. The applicants Jesus and Olivia Muro, owner, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow an existing residence to maintain five and a half feet (51/2’) side yard setback instead of the required six feet (6’) side yard setback  from Section 14-7-7 and to allow the existing residence to maintain four feet (4’) rear yard setback instead of the required five feet (5’) rear yard setback from Section 14-7-9 (1) from the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance, which states: • Sec. 14-7-7 Side Yard • Schedule minimum required side yard. • Sec. 14-7-9 (1) Rear Yard The following criteria as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance are to be used by the Board of Adjustment in evaluating variance requests. The burden of proof in meeting each of these criteria is upon the applicant. A. The variance request is not contrary to the public interest. B. Special conditions exist for the applicant that do not generally exist for others. C. A literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. D. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice is done. Should the Board choose to approve this request, the Planning staff would recommend adoption of the following conditions: 1. No structures or additions shall be placed within the 6 ft. side yard setback. 2. No structures or additions shall be placed within the 5 ft. rear yard setback. Member Anthony Rios ask a question on Site Plan, as Maria Prieto (Planning Manager) comments about some back story to this specific property. A House was built years ago and was supposed to be remodeled only, as this was demolished instead. Originally the back house was built with main home and with her needing to rebuilt- Owners (Jesus & Olivia Muro) knew they had to replat and submit a Site Plan for Approval. The Variance is only for the existing structures as the builders are aware of the setback requirements. Member Norberto Brito III responds, as of now the forms are only on the land. Member Paul Anthony comments as well of the home not being built already why is the home not meeting requirements? Does this have to do with the side issue or existing? Maria Prieto replies with code ordinance having one ownership on lot not, two with this home being existing with two double living owners. Anthony Rios ask if we were to keep on five an half setback, will this help with the side approval or if we move it to the setback then it will not. Mr. Prieto replies with such structure already does exist is what the variance is for. Mr. Rios answers this home is not built yet, only form. Ms. Prieto looks the audience for some questions to be answered as Chairman Gerardo Arzate states the public portion is not yet open. Ms. Prieto answers to our understanding there are current built structures. Mr. Rios replies with no house yet built only frame, as if you look towards the back, you see some structure. Ms. Cheynna Torres (staff member of in audience) stands to mention the photos of what is place behind the house frame are already existing. Those are the ones the mentioning for the setback variance. As Mr. Rios re-ask to verify, Not the new construction is what we are looking for? Ms. Prieto verifies he is correct. The current structures are what the applicant is applying for. Mr. Rios answers not new construction, as on the other plan it shows they are over the setback. Ms. Prieto indicates only existing structures and new plans would have to have a variance when they are done. When the plans come in as a Site Plan, we will indicate the six (6’) feet separation between buildings and must oblige by the setback mentioned. Mr. Rios mentions even the older homes are over the setbacks with the proposed residence. Ms. Prieto answers they must stray away from the setback lines. Mr. Rios ask if the existing structure is outside the setback, to which Ms. Prieto answers yes. Member Norberto Brito ask if the homes are habitable or storage or garage? Ms. Prieto answers habitable by another family currently resigning. As the Site plan is submitted, they will submit both structures will allow them to remain. At this time Chairman Gerardo Arzate ask board for any further discussion or question for Maria Prieto (Planning Manager) Mr. Brito ask if the site plan is going to be revised, indicating the new setbacks for the existing structures with the current home. If we are to approve this one today this would not go for anything new and if they were to need to come back, they would for the proposed structure(s)? Ms. Prieto replies yes for any new structures would have to come back for a new case. Mr. Brito mentions if they would have to be in compliance even with the six-foot (6’) separation, new and existing structures. Ms. Prieto replies any kind of beam, wall or cons must be (6’) six-foot separation as they may have the overhang but must have structural portion (6’) six feet and yes, this variance is only for existing only. Chairman Gerardo Arzate ask board again for any further discussion or question for Maria Prieto (Planning Manager). Thanks Maria Prieto and Opens the Public hearing. At this time Kyle Newton, Newton Engineering PC, approaches the podium on behalf of the owners, Jesus & Olivia Muro. As Newton Engineering has helped them with the replat process, this process and will continue with the Site Plan Approval. Ms. Prieto explains the case on the residence being demolished instead of rebuilding the current home. Now with applying for permits to fix the residence that has been done by another company, as the process continues owners have come to some conflicts with the home being built in the earlier years before the ordinance. (As the other site plan was not placed on the presentation but pointed out in the agenda) Northeast end has the existing structure being occupied with a detached structure next to it. Applicants and consultants did submit a site plan on what kind of details owners were wanting, such as house to current garage. As Kyle Newton, Newton Engineering, PC Consultant, turns to owners for confirmation, with a proposed condition should have been submitted for this case. As Maria Prieto opens the case file, pulls out the proposed file indicating the connection between proposed residence and existing garage. This was one of the intents, variance case and respond to the encroachments as applying for the encroachments. The new structure will be setback to attach to the current garage where will pass is the eave, no structure as I wanted to verify as I heard some questions. Mr. Rios thanks Mr. Newton for clarifying the questions he has as those were the questions on the new structures. Chairman Gerardo Arzate ask any further questions for Mr. Kyle Newton. Mr. Brito, member, ask Mr. Newton about the detached as well with the setbacks. Mr. Newton replies yes, proposed is within setbacks as the existing does not meet setbacks and the detached garage. Mr. Rios ask the Building Official, Gary Owens, about the detached garage if this would be a new structure or how do you categorize this? Mr. Owens stand to approach the podium. States this is why we are here, as this is a question and response on you as a board how we are going to continue with this. What the ruling is what I must abide by. Mr. Newton states the new structure is not in the setback only existing structure. Mr. Rios states yes but once you combine this would make existing structures new, according to code? Mr. Brito indicates Mr. Rios is stating as when the inspector or building official goes out to inspect how are they going to state what to inspect. Mr. Owens replies to Mr. Brito as a board you will get to determine how I will categorize it to be inspected. Reason this case came to you guys once the residence was torn down, now not meeting code and going back to when the house was built. Mr. Newton states why the variance was applied for in the first place to get all existing structures figured out and hopefully approved to move forward. Mr. Owens states if they hadn’t torn the house down on accident, we would not be standing here trying to request a variance. Mr. Rios ask how are is the detached garage over the setback? Into the five from the site plan submitted Mr. Newton confirms. Mr. Brito ask Kyle Newton if there any way to keep the garage detached? As Mr. Kyle Newton states the homebuilder could detest to this as well as the owners, which he turns to owner for answers. Mr. Brito ask if the owners or builders thought of keeping the garage detached? As Mr. Newton replies to owner and builders would have to attest to that. Chairman Gerardo Arzate comments the owners wanting the detached and this is partial on why we are here. Mr. Newton states regardless of detach or attached, the new constructed will meet the setbacks as the existing he was not the one who built them or spoke on behalf of. This would be what the variance is for as the remainder will meet current building codes. As Mr. Newtons ask board why it would matter if the garage were attached or detached. Mr. Rios states the code is why this would matter as accessory buildings are required to have a (6’) Six Foot Setback between structures. Mr. Newton states the encroachment is in the setback, as why we presented what the owner wants to accomplish as speaking on behalf of what they proposed to Newton Engineering. Either way if we are speaking on behalf of attach or detach the original structure is already into the setback requirements. At this time Chairman Arzate ask if any other questions for the owners or the consultant Kyle Newton, Newton Engineering PC. Hearing no one come forward he then begins to close the public portion for discussion or questions. As Mr. Brito wanted to confirm if we are only here today to approve existing structures? Yes, as Chairman Arzate confirms. As Mr. Brito states a concern if we allow them to go through will that set president for future construction of this property. If the owners need another Variance, are we allowing them to come back through for another. As board all reply “yes”. Norberto Brito, Member, make a motion to approve 2024-03-V, with Staff Recommendations of #1 & #2, as of approved this way? Chairman Arzate states this is where they would have to return for attached or detached. This would state your motion for Case File No. 2024-03-V with staff recommendations, Pricilla Contreras Second the motion, speak in all in favor, with vote being unanimous “aye”.  ZONING (Exhibit A) 14 Attachment 6 Minimum Side Yards - Residential Uses DISTRICTS TYPE USE FD SF-E SF-1 SF-2 SF-3 SF-4 SPD 2F-1 2F-2 GR 4-F MF-1 MF-2 MHE MH MU U P O MC NS R R-1 CB-1 CB-2 LC HC LI HI PD Minimum Required Side Yard Single-Family 5' 15' 15' 8' 6' 5' 5' 6' 6' 5' 5' 6' 5' 5' 6' 5' * 5' - 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' - - Detached and Two-Three † and Four-Family Dwellings Minimum Required Side Yard for Single-Family None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - Attached and Special # # # # # + # # # # # # # # # Housing Minimum Required Side 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' Yard for Multiple-Family * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** †† Dwellings Minimum Required Side Yard Mobile or HUD- ## 6' ## - ## ## ## ## ## ++ Manufactured Home Minimum Required Side Yard for Single-Family Detached and Two-Family 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' - 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' Dwellings Located on Lots Platted Prior to December 28, 1971 - Indicates side yard not applicable for type of housing * See section 14-2-5 † See section 14-7-8(g) # See section 14-7-8(e) + See section 14-7-8(5) ** See section 14-7-8(b) †† See sections 14-7-8(b), (g), (i) ## See section 14-7-8(h) ++ See section 14-7-8(7), (8) 14 Attachment 6:1 Publication, Dec 2022  TO: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM: Maria Prieto, Planning Manager SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 2024-04-V APPLICANT: Jimmy and Beckie Allbright, Owners REQUEST: Variance from Section 14-7-6 (c) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance PROPERTY INVOLVED: Lot 3, Block 9, University Gardens. (4612 Orchid Ln.) The property involved in this request is located at 4612 Orchid Ln. This site is currently zoned Single Family-Two (SF-2) District and is occupied by a single-family residence. The property is surrounded by residential development to the north, south, east and west. The applicants are Jimmie and Beckie Allbright, owners, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow a structure (carport) to be built with eight feet (8’) front yard setback instead of the required thirty-five feet (35’) front yard setback. In order to allow the structure (carport) twenty-seven feet (27’) forward on the thirty-five (35’) front yard setback the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 14-7-6 (c) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance, which states: Sec. 14-7-6 (c) Special Front Yard Regulations Where a building line has been established by plat or ordinance and such line requires a front yard setback greater or lesser in depth than is prescribed by this ordinance for the district in which the building line is located, the required front yard shall comply with the minimum required front yard as established by section 14-7- 5. All residential development located on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum front yard building setback of fifteen (15) feet: Single Family-Two (SF-2) 35 ft. (See Attached Plat) The following criteria as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance are to be used by the Board of Adjustment in evaluating variance requests. The burden of proof in meeting each of these criteria is upon the applicant. A. The variance request is not contrary to the public interest. B. Special conditions exist for the applicant that do not generally exist for others. C. A literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship.  D. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice is done. Staff analysis of this request is the applicant’s request to reduce the front yard to eight feet (8’) is reasonable due to the main residence was originally built at 40 feet from the property line. The applicant’s request to place the carport at 32 feet forward instead of the 35 feet required will not create any hazards or hardships to surrounding properties in relation to light, air, or open space. With this in mind the Planning staff has no objections to this request as presented. Should the Board choose to approve this request, the Planning staff would recommend adoption of the following conditions: 1. No structures or additions shall be placed within the 35 ft. front yard setback. 2. The structure (carport) shall not be enclosed in the future. Information in order of inclusion: --Area of notification map --Copy of site plan Ms. Maria Prieto Presents: The property involved in this request is located at 4612 Orchid Ln. This site is currently zoned Single Family-Two (SF-2) District and is occupied by a single-family residence. The property is surrounded by residential development to the north, south, east and west. The applicants are Jimmie and Beckie Allbright, owners, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow a structure (carport) to be built with eight feet (8’) front yard setback instead of the required thirty-five feet (35’) front yard setback. In order to allow the structure (carport) twenty-seven feet (27’) forward on the thirty-five (35’) front yard setback the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 14-7-6 (c) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance. The following criteria as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance are to be used by the Board of Adjustment in evaluating variance requests. The burden of proof in meeting each of these criteria is upon the applicant. A. The variance request is not contrary to the public interest. B Special conditions exist for the applicant that do not generally exist for others. C. A literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. D. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice is done. Should the Board choose to approve this request, the Planning staff would recommend adoption of the following conditions: 1. No structures or additions shall be placed within the 35 ft. front yard setback. 2. The structure (carport) shall not be enclosed in the future.  Chairman Gerardo Arzarte ask Ms. Prieto if this is for a carport, to which Ms. Prieto (Planning Manager) attest to Mr. Arzate Question yes. This carport Ms. Prieto indicates will have the Row Met and a (8’) Eight feet Setback remainder. Owners are asking for a 32ft over the ROW and Setback requirement of (40’) Forty Feet Setback. Normal construction was built (40’) Forty Feet from original site plans. At this time Chairman Arzate ask if any questions are for Maria pertaining to this case. Mr. Rios comments for the overhang into the setback or keep all inside. Ms. Prieto replies with an answer from Mr. Allbright. “all structures and overhang will be kept inside of the allowed setback”. Chairman Gerardo Arzate now asking board for any further question, hearing no one, opens the public portion for comments or concerns. Mr. Jimmy Allbright approaches the podium indicating name and address. As Mr. Allbright explains the existing oak trees is what they used for the protection of their vehicles, due to conditions they had to cut down the trees. Recently got two new vehicles, with one being a company vehicle as in the last three month had to be replaced due to weather damages. The two vehicles we use for work and our personal was paid more for than the home itself bought years ago, as protection for our items is what we are most concern with. Since the home was built in the 70’s, the garage is too small to park them. Chairman Arzate ask audience if any question for Mr. Allbright or ask board for additional concerns or questions. Hearing no one, closed the public portion and turns to his board for motion. Member Anthony Rios Motions to approve with the recommendation from staff, Member Priscilla Contreras Seconds the motion, chairman as if speak in all favor of, with vote being a unanimous “aye”. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:58 a.m. Cheynna Torres, Planning Technician, placed the minutes in the Minute Book on March 06, 2024. ____________________________________ Gerardo Arzate, Vice Chairman  TO: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM: Maria Prieto, Planning Manager SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 2024-07-V APPLICANT: Herbert Ray Anderson and James Wesley Anderson, Owners, Cleopatra Anderson, Applicant REQUEST: Variance from Section 14-7-5 of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance PROPERTY INVOLVED: Lot 1, Block 14, Davis Heights Addition (841 Barrett Ave.) The property involved in this request is located at 841 Barrett Ave. This site is currently zoned General Residence (GR) and is currently vacant land. The property is surrounded by residential development to the north, and vacant land to the east and south, and residential development to the west. The applicants are Herbert Ray Anderson and James Wesley Anderson, owners, Cleopatra Anderson, applicant, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow a structure (mobile home) to be placed at nineteen feet (19’) front yard setback instead of the required twenty feet (20’) front yard setback. In order to allow the structure one (1’) foot forward on the twenty (20’) feet front yard setback. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 14-7-5 of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance, which states: Sec. 14-7-5 Front Yard In the following zoning districts, the minimum required front yard shall be in accordance with the following schedule and no building or structure shall hereinafter be located, erected or altered so as to have a smaller front yard than hereinafter required, and no front yard existing at the time of passage of this ordinance shall be reduced below the minimum set forth in the following schedule except as hereinafter provided: Schedule minimum required front yard General Residence (GR) 20 ft. (See Page 14 Attachment 5) The following criteria as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance are to be used by the Board of Adjustment in evaluating variance requests. The burden of proof in meeting each of these criteria is upon the applicant. A. The variance request is not contrary to the public interest. B. Special conditions exist for the applicant that do not generally exist for others. C. A literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. D. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice is done. Staff analysis of this request is the applicant’s request to reduce the front yard to nineteen feet (19’) instead of the required twenty feet (20’) front yard setback will not create any hazards or hardships to surrounding properties to light, air, or open space. With this in mind, the planning staff has no objections to this request as presented. Information in order of inclusion: --Area of notification map --Copy of site plan  ZONING 14 Attachment 5 Minimum Required Front Yards DISTRICTS TYPE USE FD SF-E SF-1 SF-2 SF-3 SF-4 SPD 2F-1 2F-2 GR 4-F MF-1 MF-2 MHE MH MU U P O MC NS R R-1 CB-1 CB-2 LC HC LI HI PD Minimum Required Front 25' 15' Yard Except as Herein-After 35' 35' 25' 25' 25' 20' 25' 25' 20' 25' 25' 25' 15' ** 25' 15' 20' †† 20' †† - * † Provided * See section 14-7-6(i) † See section 14-7-6(g) - See section 14-7-6(h) ** See section 14-2-5 †† See section 14-7-6(k) 14 Attachment 5:1 Publication, Dec 2022