Letters for May 4, 2015
B&B ordinance is confusing – and confused
Ordinance 935 is the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO). It repealed and replaced several ordinances including 864 in 2012. That the planning director still insists that 864 clearly requires a use permit for a B&B is disheartening. That several comments posted to TGI also refer to language in 864 that suggests B&Bs will be dealt with later is frustrating. 864 is not the law any longer.
I’ve spent way too many hours reviewing 935. I find no clear requirement for a use certificate/permit for a B&B. B&B is mentioned only once in the entire ordinance, where it refers to several definitions including “Single Family TVR.” The definition of a SFTVR specifically includes the words “other than a homestay.” In other words, the ordinance first says it is before it says it isn’t.
I have followed several lines of reasoning through 935, and as far as I can tell, whether or not a B&B requires a “use permit/certificate” just “depends” on which definition you read first. Even then, the requirements are muddy.
There are no B&Bs near me, so I have no interest in supporting or denying them.
Do we see another lawsuit against the county coming?
Reparations for slavery is ridiculous concept
A Sunday editorial states recent criminal activity in Baltimore, makes “an undeniably convincing argument for the need to discuss reparations” for slavery. What? The case is anything but convincing.
Slavery ended over a century and a half ago. No former slaves are presently alive. Yes, segregation lingered on in some parts of the country. That too ended quite awhile ago.
Collective guilt from long ago is beyond irrational. Contrary to the editorial writer’s claim, this is not “significant.”