Department of Community Destruction

The latest in the saga of All Star has now turned into an ongoing battle over proper english grammar writing. I received this letter earlier this week, retyped here:
"Dear Ms. Lay; After further review, it has been determined that you Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) application request does not meet the minimum requirements for a special exception to be heard by the BZA. The expansion or alteration of the convenience store/deli to include tables and chairs will require additional parking, resulting in the noncompliance with the aforementioned parking requirement and is prohibited by Section 114-1040.3(7(c)).

If you wish to continue to use the property for a restaurant (sit-down) use, a Special Use Permit will be required. Please contact the Land Use Admin...." ending with names and numbers of the zoning planner and administrators.

The fact that I am denied the option to appeal the decision is based upon the following Zoning Code outlining the restrictions of appeals to be heard by the BZA; if an appeal falls into one of these categories, it can not be heard by the BZA:

"(7) Nonconforming use: enlargement, extension or alteration. Enlargement, extension or structural alteration of a building or structure devoted to a nonconforming use; extension or expansion of a nonconforming use within a building or structure; or construction of an accessory building or structure to serve an existing nonconforming use; provided that:

c. There shall be no increase in the number of dwelling units on the property, nor shall the granting of such exception result in noncompliance with any yard, open space, parking or other requirements of this chapter or any increase in the degree or extent of any nonconforming feature;"

My confusion stems from the fact that this clause refers to adding "dwelling spaces" on the property, which does not apply to my case. When I asked for clarification from both the Planner and the Zoning Administrator, all I was given is this response: "The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) has limited powers and under the exception, the BZA cannot hear this case due to noncompliance with the bolded section, below. The change from a take-out restaurant having a parking requirement of 1 space per each 150 sq. ft. of floor area to a sit-down restaurant having a parking requirement of 1 space per each 100 sq. ft. of floor area results in a net increase in the parking required. Parking is a feature of the use and, for this reason, is not permitted under the normal provisions of the nonconforming section of the Ordinance nor is it permitted under the Special Exception powers of the BZA." and the previous clause written again, but bolding only the second half of the sentence.

Their explanation relies upon this clause, but it is explained by skipping over the first half of the sentence and saying that the second half of the sentence applies to my case....? How can a compound sentence, with a subject and predicate and conjunction (which I will remind us are words such as: for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so), be separated? The purpose of the conjunction is to link the second half of the sentence to the first half of the sentence and explain it further. So, obviously, my application is denied because the zoning clause is able to be interpreted to fit the zoning administrator's decision, rather than read following the grammar rules by which it was written.

The wind is in from Africa, and last night I couldn't sleep.

Maybe it's just the rain today, or maybe other events that have stirred me, but I'm feeling restless, again. I feel like the snow globe of my mind has been picked up and shaken swirling flurries of white through the cerebral spinal fluid, making it cloudy and confusing in here. I spent the last seventy two hours engrossed in awe-inspiring ideas about living sustainably and growing a life that, to me, feels more complete. Now the challenge, and difficulty, and confusion that I feel is in balancing that vision with my current state of mind and living situation. It's a process that I've done before; picking up and moving, changing my focus, aspiring towards something new, but this time is not as easy. This time I can not throw down what I am doing and start something new, turn over the leaf, cut the cord and start again. I'd prefer to be more eloquent with changing, this time. It's just more difficult to do it that way, perhaps. The slate can not be so easily wiped clean because this time there are other factors involved too, not just my own path. I'm not used to this process, and am feeling frustrated by it.

It's like this sweater I was just now beginning to knit. I got to the end of the third row, 300 stitches into it, and saw the mistake that I had made about 100 stitches back. The only way to fix it is to take out all the stitches to that point and rework it. So I began unraveling all the stitches, and saw another mistake even further back, which prompted me to make the decision to take out all of the stitches and start over again. Starting over again, now, is starting with the experience of how I lead to the mistakes I made before, so that this time I am more aware of the steps that lead to those mistakes and can now actively avoid that path. But starting over again also means taking apart what I have made, even though it had a few rough spots in it. Taking the whole thing apart takes more time to get to the place that I was only moments ago, but starting over this way does get rid of the two holes in my work that made it incomplete. I guess the ultimate question, when a mistake was made at some point in one's work, is whether or not to continue on with the holes that were made, or to unravel the work back, fix them and start stitching again.