The following is some information from our zoning ordinance: Buildings accessory to residential buildings may occupy not more than 25 percent of a required rear yard, or 40 percent of the total rear yard. (To me this language clearly shows the intent of the zoning ordinance that the accessory buildings are to be built in the rear yard. Section 1502(8) provides that "If a lot is considered a water front lot, one (1) building accessory to a residential building is permitted in the front of the lot subject to the following restrictions: ...(c) Must meet all other setback requirements for accessory buildings or structures..." This language shows the intent of the zoning ordinance that only water front lots have accessory structures in the front yard area. This is our definition of front yard: a. Front Yard: A yard across the full width of the lot extending from the front line of the principal building to the front lot line, or highway-right-of-way line as the case may be. The following is from our attorney: The use of the term "required" in front of the term "front yard" does not change the area that is considered the front yard. The argument that use of the term in Figure 6 on page 15 of the Zoning Ordinance, which is for illustration purposes, defines the term would be incorrect. Under Section 102(9) terms not defined in Article 11 shall have the meaning customarily assigned to them. Further, the same Section 1502(2) uses the term "required rear yard" without definition and without inclusion in the illustration. Consequently it is my legal opinion that accessory buildings are not allowed in the front yard of a non-waterfront lot. Our Zoning Ordinance says: Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required front yard with the exception of item eight (8) for waterfront lots listed below. (The picture below started this issue.) Does this mean people may put accessory buildings in the front yard?