Report a Comment

@Tyro, It very much is ... because what's being proposed and what it actually means are two very different things. To use your example of the home office (and that's NOT the only matter), we already have home occupation allowances. And while they might legally be permitted to operate more restrictively than what is being proposed today, they rarely do. They actually operate more like what's already out there. Take the b&b home occupation regs. They allow someone to operate a b&b in their own home with up to 6 rooms rented out. But look around you. Can you think of any b&b around here downtown that actually operates that way? Right off the bat I know of one chain of something like 4 in Dupont alone. Each 'home occupation' house in that chain operates far more like a business than a home occupation. First off, the owners don't live in any of these houses. They run and operate them like hotels with a full staff, and don't really pay much attention to the 6 room limit. Other b&b's (again with absentee owners) really do as much, if not more, business as venues with banquet and restaurant facilities. I.e., The enforcement isn't there to keep these to simple home occupations now. What makes anyone think it'll be any easier to enforce the new rules being designed? It's like a speed limit. You want to be sure people don't drive faster than 70 you set the limit to 55. You set it to 70 and suddenly people are driving 80. (As happened when the 55 nationwide speedlimit got rolled back.)

And the problem with enforcement isn't only limited to size and scope. It extends to a lot of other 'business requirements' which only come into play when you're dealing with a business. To return to the b&b example. We have one b&b in the neighborhood who when they asked for a variance related to the conversion of a residence into a b&b (I think the variance was for more rooms than the limit), specifically stated in their application 'no cars will be parked on site'. Go by there now and not only are they using the circular drive for parking, but have paved out 2 additional spots in the front (public space) yard.

When you start mixing business uses with residential uses you're opening a whole kettle of fish. You can't control what you're asking for as simply as Planning would have us believe (e.g., who thinks a 7 pm closing time for these stores sandwiched between residences will really stay that way for long?) And while I'm all for creating new and more mixed use zones where the people moving in do so freely of their own will and are ready to accept all the commerical activites which go with living right next door to a business, it's neither fair nor right to impose these conditions on existing neighborhoods where that is not the expectation. And I won't even go into the domino effect caused by a business moving in next door to a house and how eventually the business uses will crowd out residential uses. Oh yeah, we have enforcement to keep that from happening. Right.

by Lance on May 9, 2012 9:28 am • link • report