|
Sponsors: Bevins, Oliver, Huff
Benefitted: Mr. B's Tattoo, which moved 530 ft from 7525 Belair Rd (BM 860ft from school) to 7554 (BL 1300 ft from school), both in Bevins' district
Since I cannot determine what this bill meant, I will simply include its text here:
|
Section 6 of Bill 29-98, as amended by Bill 46-06, be and is hereby repealed and re-enacted, with amendments, to read as follows:
SECTION 6. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, that this Act does not apply to a massage establishment or tattoo or body piercing establishment in existence in a business or commercial zone for at least 12 months prior to the effective date of this Act except if a massage establishment or tattoo or body piercing establishment relocates, other than a tattoo establishment that relocates within a BM CCC District that is less than 500 feet removed from its earlier location OR THAT RELOCATES FROM A LOCATION WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL TO A LOCATION WITHIN A BL, BM, OR BR ZONE WHICH IS FURTHER REMOVED FROM A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL, BUT LESS THAN 1,000 FEET REMOVED FROM ITS EARLIER LOCATION. This section is not intended to waive any other provision or requirement of state or county law in effect prior to the effective date of this Act.
|
Examination of the Bill makes it clear that it was tailored to this situation. (Applies to a business that "relocates from a location within 1,000 feet of a school to a location within BL which is further removed ..."
This bill was faulty in that it states that it amends a bill from 13 years earlier (which had already been amended by another bill 5 years ago). All Bills must amend the actual law on the books in the BCZR, not some old bill. Since the two old bills referenced are no longer available online, it is very difficult to even figure out what this newer bill means. Apparently those who edit and produce the official copy of the BCZR could not figure it out either, as they simply inserted the above text as an "Editor's Note" at the beginning of Article 4B of the BCZR, not even within an actual Section, thus, it has no legal standing. It is unknown what "Act" is being referred to in the fist line.
Zoning case 2014-0015-SPHA then dealt with the issues of allowable tattoo parlors at these two locations. The case went to the Board of Appeals and the Circuit Court, which struggled to figure out what this Bill meant. It's not even clear what their decision was! Mr Smith, the owner of Mr. B's testified in this zoning case that he supported the enactment of Bill 56-11 "because he wanted to move from 7525 Belair Rd" to 7554. This case is really interesting to read and try to figure out, if you like puzzles. The Petioner was Mr. Benkert, who had owned the original Mr. B's and sold it to Mr Smith, but had already formed a new company in March 2013 "Tattoos by Bee" at the old location, which was forfeited in 2017. He was now asking for "grandfathering" at the old location although the 2011 legislation was based on the premise of moving the tattoo parlor further from the school. Mr. Smith opposed. The judge granted the "grandfathering" although the county departments has recommended against it.
This Bill again brings up the question: Why don't we have knowledgable people writing our legislation?
Passed October 3, 2011; effective October 16
|