Laserfiche WebLink
under Section 32.13. <br />At best, Section 46.7(A) allows modification of "minimum front, side, and rear <br />yard setback requirements." A "yard setback" is measured using the outside boundaries <br />of the lot. For example, Section 5.9 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the "yard <br />setbacks" for "districts" designated as R -1 single family residential, such as the zoning <br />district of the Finger Avenue Project. <br />Section 32.12(F) is a "creek protection and setbacks" ordinance, which explicitly <br />requires a Use Permit, and specifically requires particular findings based upon evidence. <br />It is not a "yard setback". It is not like Section 5.9. It is not measured from the <br />boundaries of the lot — it is measured from the banks of the protected waterway. <br />Accordingly, Respondent did not have legal authority to "modify" the requirements of the <br />creek setback via a Planned Development Permit. <br />Respondent asserts that Section 46.7(D) supports the conclusion that no Use Permit <br />is required if there is a Planned Development Permit (apparently under the concept that one <br />permit subsumes the other permit). Section 46.7(D) states that "No Use Permit, otherwise <br />required under the applicable zoning district regulations, shall be required for uses or <br />structures permitted pursuant to an approved Planned Development Permit." Petitioners <br />assert that the Creek setback regulation is not a "zoning district" regulation. The Court <br />agrees with Petitioners. <br />The various zoning "districts" in the Zoning Ordinance are set forth in Section 3. 1, <br />and pertain to the type of places and uses of a particular neighborhood, and have nothing to <br />do with regulation of a protected watercourse such as Cordilleras Creek. <br />Real Parties in Interest argue that this Court's interpretation would make Section <br />46.7(D) a nullity. Not so. Article 23 of the Zoning Ordinace designates various <br />fR, <br />8.B. - Page 74