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.