When the difference between acceptable and unacceptable use of a property is a simple IRS designation, common sense ought to win out. And it did! Miracle of miracles.
In the linked situation, the difference between an outfit being able to set up shop on West O Street and not being permitted was whether or not they were a registered non-profit. Considering how little a non-profit status has to do with a group's use of a property, that's a pretty silly distinction. Zoning laws are supposed to be about things like safety and use clumping (or separation), not petty bureaucratic distinctions. So kudos to the Planning Commission for not blindly sticking to the letter of the law.
That being said, I wonder why this situation developed in the first place. Why do non-profits get leeway that other organizations don't? If this property shouldn't be used for its newly-intended purpose, then it shouldn't be used in that manner by anybody, non-profit or not. Perhaps this is a loophole that ought to be closed.
I dunno. Zoning regulations are (mostly) foreign to me. If there's something to be fixed, let's fix it.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
No comments yet! Be the first.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.