For the past few months, Volunteer Park Cafe (VPC), a corner cafe located on 17th Avenue and E Galer Street, has been developing their vacant, weedy backyard space into a small patio with raised garden beds. Eventually, owners Ericka Burke and Heather Earnhardt planned on adding a chicken coop and a few tables for customers.
“It’s basically a garden with seating for overflow,” says Earnhardt. “We wanted a few more tables for customers to sit while they wait for their coffee.”
But their plans have been put on hold after Paul Jones, their closest neighbor, complained to owners about their project. “He seemed to think we’re expanding our business, but we’re not,” Earnhardt says. “Frankly, our kitchen can’t support any more customers.”
Jones then filed a complaint with the Department of Planning Development stating VPC doesn’t have the permits it needs to operate as a restaurant—it’s only permitted to be a grocery store (which is what operated there originally, in 1905). VPC owners allege that Jones hasn’t been happy with them since they moved in three years ago, and now he’s trying to get them shut down.
“He’s about the only person in the neighborhood who’s never been in the cafe—except to complain,” says Earnhardt. “He’s complained from the get-go about parking, about our compost being eaten by squirrels… he’s even complained about our garden hose not being hung up properly.” Jones couldn’t be reached for comment.
Now what began as a fight over patio seating has turned into a battle for the entire cafe: If the DPD doesn’t grant VPC a restaurant permit, the cafe will close.
“We were floored,” says Earnhardt. “The people who originally changed the store from a grocery to a cafe in 1995 just never got the permit, and it never came up when we took over the space—our lease says we signed on for a cafe.”
“It’s a unique situation but not unheard of,” says DPD spokesman Bryan Stevens. Stevens explains that VPC is the only business operating in an area zoned for residential use. The cafe is housed in a building that was a grocery store a century ago, and the neighborhood essentially grew up around it. When the area was eventually zoned for residential use, the building was grandfathered in. “Technically, a store wouldn’t be allowed there now,” Stevens says.
So what happens next? The DPD’s process for resolving these situations is a little weird: “We’ll be evaluating the space as if it were still a grocery store,” says Stevens. “We’ll look to see if what they propose doing with the space—running a restaurant/cafe—is any more detrimental than what’s there now—a grocery store.” Stevens adds that there will be a public commenting period to this months-long process, and that comments “help inform our decision.”
The DPD has already received letters protesting the restaurant permit; now Burke and Earnhardt are begging for love letters from patrons and “people who think we rock.” If you’re such a person, you can email Burke here.
They have been a nuisance for a while now. Plenty of people have complained about the noise from a busy restaurant and the rotting food and broken glass in the alley. The area was never zoned that way and the neighbors have tried to remind them of that when these issues have been brought up. Looks like they ignored their neighbors for too long.
I wonder what insightful comment Will in Seattle will have about this?
Oh, such vexing problems faced by rich retirees.
Welcome to the hell of high density living. You gerbils are all pissing on each other’s newspaper shreds.
Maybe it’s time to add a new category like “two-block radius”. Something like “Closer to Dan’s House Than Yours”. For coverage of Kingfish or doublewide strollers clogging the sidewalks or lesbians making the most of attending Holy Names.
yum. . .kingfish. . .
I lived in that neighborhood for more than ten years. Never seen a bigger pack of NIMBY assholes. People who will protest an expansion of an elementary school. People who will knock on your door to ask you to move your car from in front of their house because it’s “their” parking space.
Most of them are totally passive-aggressive about it — they’d rather write an anonymous note or call the authorities than actually say something out loud, but there is a surplus of entitlement around there.
Note “property values” is the preferred code for “my opinions are more important than others in the community because my house costs more.”
I would rather send hate mail to the dick than love mail to the bitch.
I remember when the original cafe opened – loved the food there.
That said, too many chickens easily rile up the neighbors. Especially those neighbors.
@7 for the 100 percent accurate NIMBY win.
LOL @8.
Such is life.
That cafe is the first business to do well in that space in the 30 years that I have been walking past that store on a regular basis. I honestly think the women who run it are kind of obnoxious, but @7 is dead right about that neighborhood. Those people suck, and the idea that they could kill a thriving successful business just because they don’t want it near them is offensive and stupid.
City sez VPC has anywhere from 3 to 5 months to work this out
http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2010/0…
I love the place. Truly welcoming people, absolutely fantastic food.
You know what, @7 and @12 – it kind of sucks to paint with such a broad brush. I live in the area and I know a lot of people who live close to VPC and everyone I know supports VPC and is friendly to their neighbors.
Absolutely – there are probably some curmudgeons and some NIMBYs and there are also people with completely valid opinions that might be different than your own. But, seriously? “Those people suck?” Proving once again that a few purportedly “progressive” readers of SLOG can be very intolerant and snobbish.
Personally I like VPC for all their foibles and I don’t really have a problem with their expansion. But then again I don’t live next door. And I definitely think they need to fix their zoning problem. Ultimately it will come down to DPD and public comment.
Sartre was right.
@16 – what, first we kill all the lawyers and then get drunk?
Everyone’s got a right to bitch about whatever they want. If there was some fancy company that wanted to build something noisy right next to my house, I’d complain too. As I’d expect almost anyone would do, unless they had some kind of inferiority complex and decided they didn’t deserve to have their opinion heard.
If I lived next door to this place I would count my blessings. It’s one of the hidden gems of Capital Hill.
The whiner is clearly not much interested in local economic development for jobs or for business-related reasons. What they are interested in is the value of their asset. Which is understandable.
And it’s why your neighborhood will soon suck.
The VPC is a wonderful place. Great food, organic food from local farms such as full circle farms and great place to meet your neighbors. People love to see each other there and help each other out. I know more people than I ever would have thanks to the cafe. the cafe also has a large communal table and family dinners. the person who mentioned rich retirees… what are you talking about, this is a neighborhood of families with children. This is about organic, sustainable food, recycling and living green. The world is going to move to higher density and will need more places for people to walk to in their neighborhoods rather than big box stores. I live right near the cafe and go there everyday. No ONE in the neighborhood I know of has been complaining about any smells or even parking. It’s a very friendly situation. don’t knock it until you try it.
@19, the cafe has been there for years. The neighbor has not been trying to shut them down for years. He took this action when they tried to further expand their outdoor seating.
I often walk past this place and took a stroll there this evening. Here’s what I noticed: 1.The dumpsters in back REEK and are noticeable halfway down the alley. The rat scuttling underneath was a nice touch. 2. The cafe, as it often does, has all the windows and doors open. The clanking of dishes, din of conversation and laughter, and loud music are audible across the street. And even if they close at 9 PM, that doesn’t mean they close up and go home. As any restaurant worker knows, there’s usually at least an hour of cleanup after the last meal is served. 3. The neighbor has two windows directly overlooking the courtyard in question, one on the first and one on the second floor. Based on how much I can hear *my* neighbors when they dine in their backyard in the evenings, I can’t imagine having several tables of people right outside my windows and back yard.
This is also not a commercial zone or retail strip. It’s a very quiet neighborhood of single-family houses (some of which are converted into duplexes). It is zoned for residential use. There are very, very few other businesses in the vicinity. There are multitudes of commercial and mixed-use areas in the city for a business of this nature.
For those screaming NIMBY, this neighbor did not move above a bar or restaurant or club on Pike/Pine, or downtown, or Belltown or any other dense multi-use area, and then start complaining about the noise. Just the opposite happened. He bought a house in a quiet neighborhood, and the business owners moved in and are infringing on the neighbors with their garbage, noise and traffic. They now demand the right to infringe even further by expanding their outdoor seating (and noise), in spite of the impact on their surroundings. Perhaps they should rethink their impact on others. Would Ms. Burke like it if her neighbors opened an outdoor cafe outside her bedroom window?
@21, who said that “this neighbor did not move above a bar or restaurant or club on Pike/Pine, or downtown, or Belltown or any other dense multi-use area, and then start complaining about the noise. Just the opposite happened. He bought a house in a quiet neighborhood, and the business owners moved in…”
Actually, he moved behind an establishment that has been handling food, receiving deliveries, and making business-y noises of one sort or another since 1905, which in Seattle terms is literally the dawn of time. It has been operating as a café for at least 15 years; do you have any evidence that this neighbor predates that?
Seattle has such a dearth of mixed-use areas that we’re used to making a false choice: live in one of the dozen or so bustling areas and put up with annoyances both minor (odd-hours deliveries) and major (cavalcade of douchebags on weekend nights); or live in a “quiet neighborhood” and be near absolutely fucking nothing.
And then there’s the Volunteer Park Café, a true neighborhood bistro in that, by virtue of its squirreled-away location, it primarily serves its own neighbors. Whom it seems to care about. Thanks to Seattle’s 1950s approach to zoning, it might be the only such place in the city. But we’re still stuck in the ’50s in so many ways, so necessarily someone screams “ZONING!” and tries to bury this rare gem.
@1: What puzzles me about NIMBY Seattleites such as yourself and Mr. Jones is how you’d rather focus on discarded food scraps and broken glass (both of which end up in the trash and recycling bins you leave out curbside for pick-up each week, right?). You’re losing sight of a. the social benefit of having a third place within walking distance from your home where you can easily buy affordable food, coffee, and other treats whilst getting to know your neighbors better, and b. the fact that its presence in the neighborhood is within walking distance and doesn’t require you getting in your car and driving a mile or more away to get to the Broadway or 15th neighborhoods. Heaven forbid you actually get comfortable enough with the VPC owners that you could have civil conversations with them about your concerns (which I’m sure they would work with you and the rest of the neighborhood to alleviate).
But this is precisely the problem I have with the zoning codes of Seattle: it doesn’t encourage more al fresco dining nor a proliferation of food cart pods in neighborhoods such as what Portlanders now enjoy. Certainly there are successful examples in Seattle of how neighborhood coffee shops, pubs, and small restaurants can encourage walkable travel (Cloud City Café in Maple Leaf and Roanoake Park Place Pub are two that come to mind) and by proxy increased community building, but it’s not enough.
As for the property value decline argument, whatever. Does the presence of Top Pot and Sun Liquor within a block of a condo really decrease its demand? I beg to differ. I’d pay more to live in an area where I can leave my car at home more often than not.
Needless to say, I’ll be e-mailing my letter of support to the VPC owners tonight. @1 & Mr. Jones – get over it.
That place is a hidden gem. Can’t believe the neighbors are hating on it.
@22, the neighbor built his house on that property in 1988. VPC has been in that location, what, four years?
You’re completely missing the point. This cafe opened there like four years ago (correct me if I’m wrong, I read that somewhere). The neighbor has not been trying to shut them down for those four years. He only complained because they are trying to expand their OUTDOOR seating. Do you get it? Can you comprehend? The previous store/cafe did NOT HAVE OUTDOOR SEATING. His complaint is about THE EXPANSION OF OUTDOOR SEATING. Do you get it now, screechy?
@25
So what’s the big fucking deal with outdoor seating?
@22, I notice that you completely ignore legitimate complaints: the garbage, the noise, the traffic, in a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood. This area is NOT zoned for commercial or multi-use purposes, and the owners got busted when they tried to further infringe on those who live nearby. And we have a “dearth” of mixed-use areas? Seriously? You’re probably one of those rubes that complains online that Seattle has “no parks” or “no open space”.
Eliza, please post your address so that I can work on opening an outdoor cafe right outside your bedroom windows that will only be open until 9 p.m. or so.
Volunteer Park Cafe: HECK YES.
Chickens at Volunteer Park Cafe: NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO.
@1/21: What is wrong with you people?!? They’re extremely quiet for a restaurant, wonderfully delicious and provide outer space to socialize which is an important part of URBAN life. If this is offensive to you, I shudder to think what you’d think of actual adversity or real city life. There are a multitude of suburbs waiting for. Move there.
Wow, @25/@27, I might have suspected you were the neighbor in question, but more likely you’re just a dick.
Firstly, it sounds like there was some increased outdoor socializing, but that outdoor food service and table seating had yet to materialize. So according to your understanding — that outdoor seating is the only thing to which the neighbor objects — then he’s exacting retribution for a hypothetical. It’s more likely, as the café owners allege, that he’s been a thorn for a while, and the patio is just his excuse to ratchet up the hostility.
And if you had bothered to learn to read, you might know that the establishment has operated as a café for 15 years, and that the current proprietors assumed ownership of it, in good faith, as a café. Meanwhile, the neighbor built a house behind what had been an operational business since 1905, so any claim to an expectation of exclusive residential zoning doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
But it’s funny to me that you make such an absolutist zoning argument, then claim Seattle is chock-full of mixed-use areas. Outside of downtown, there are about a dozen mixed-use streets in the entire city; activity is hyper-concentrated, which is why each one seems overrun with restaurants and bars, and undesirables from vagrants to meatheads. There is no natural gradation of development between overbearing and empty. It is one or the other, and yes, that is the result of your cherished absolutist zoning.
Perhaps Paul should be more careful in calling attention to himself since his home is markedly under assessed by the King Co. Assessors office. The home directly west of VPN recently sold for $910,000 while Paul’s home (directly north of VPN) is assessed at $691,000 (that’s a $219,000 difference–wow). Could someone please contact the assessors office and alert them of this sale? Paul should pay his fair share of taxes as a contributing member of the neighborhood. I wonder is Paul’s property has any non conforming land use issues that we should know about?
Dinky or not, Seattle is still a city. If you want total peace and quiet and pristine surroundings move to fricken Gold Bar or something.
That said, Seattle is a city. Chickens? NO.
@ 32, pull your head out of your ass. There’s no reason to prohibit chickens from the city. Hens, anyway, since they’re no more of a nuisance than dogs.
Ah yes. People who buy houses don’t want to deal with commerce nearby. Why walk to the corner store when you can drive a mile to the strip mall or five miles to the Super Walfart? Cars and gas are cheap after all.
Gag.
yes, that’s right @34. every person who buys a house wants no commerce nearby.
@32 – just because someone doesn’t want an open dining patio right next to their window doesn’t mean thay need “total peace and quiet and pristine surroundings”.
@26 – if you live next door and you did NOT have outdoor seating next to your windows and then you suddenly DID have outdoor seating next to your windows, I can see it being a big deal. I think a lot of folks here are being willfully obtuse and not really seeing things from anybody else’s perspective. It’s easy to be militantly urbanist when it’s not your life that’s going to change.
And I’m not arguing AGAINST VPC or outdoor seating at all. Sometimes there are winners and losers in urban life and we should try to be sympathetic to the losers in a situation even if we don’t agree with their position. And even if they’re being overly emotional and angry in their reaction because they are being FORCED to accept change. Change can be hard. You know what’s NOT hard? Taking an extreme position in a debate when you have ZERO skin in the game.
@34, I own a house, in the city. Yes, I’m a dirty imperialist capitalist exploiter, and you’re just gonna have to deal with it. While my house is located in a single-family zone, I live two blocks from a NC1-zoned area. I WALK just a mere few blocks to my local and independently-owned video store, gym, dry cleaner, pet supply store, convenience store, bakeries, garden store and several restaurants. Another mile away are my grocery store, bank, and many other amenities, which I WALK to. I support local, independent entrepreneurs in my neighborhood (and the people they employ) with my hard-earned dollars. I do not own a car. I walk pretty much everywhere, or if I really must, I use transit or taxis. I enjoy being able to WALK to these amenities, and I enjoy supporting local, independent businesses. I chose my neighborhood because I could live in a residential area, with walking access to a local business area, and have lived here for nearly a decade. That said, I would pitch a big fucking hissy fit if someone tried to open an outdoor cafe outside my bedroom window in an area that is not zoned for such a business. If I wanted that, I would live on Broadway, or even 15th, or maybe even 19th, or in an apartment on Madison, or in any other of the multitude of multi-use or commercial zones in our city. Quite honestly, I’m past the age of wanting to listen to people exit noisy bars and restaurants while I’m trying to go to sleep, because I have another 9-hour work day ahead of me tomorrow. And yet I still want to live in the city, and not drive, and not waste fossil fuels, or shop at big box stores, and have a carbon footprint of a gazillion, while being surrounded by people who worship Sarah Palin. Surely there has to be some compromise. There has to be a greater choice than “deal with it you live in a CITY, bitch” or “move to Issaquah, bitch”. Oh, and P.S., all of us evil homeowners that you disdain so much pay huge amounts of property tax that go to support all kinds of county services that everyone uses. Most of us even actually vote FOR property tax increases for things like schools and parks and social services, so please stop with the “property owners are evil and mean and vindictive” whining.
@30: a DOZEN mixed-use areas? You are smoking crack. Spend some time looking at DPD zone maps. Because if you keep up with the dozen, you just sound like you are smoking crack.
You are still ignoring the evidence: rank garbage, noise, and traffic in a NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS NOT ZONED FOR BUSINESS USE. Do you get it? NOT ZONED FOR BUSINESS USE. The previous STORE was grandfathered in because of its age, and is NOT ZONED TO BE A RESTAURANT. The owners are, by their own admission, operating that business in a building that is NOT ZONED OR PERMITTED FOR THAT USE. Do you understand now?
BTW, slick, I don’t make up the “absolutist” zoning codes. If you have a problem, take it up with the DPD. “There is no natural gradation of development between overbearing and empty” is just fucking laughable. Do you even live in Seattle? Because you sound like don’t have a fucking clue as to what you’re talking about.
@39: And you sound like an asinine douchebag!
I checked out your precious map, and it confirmed what I said. There are just a few infinitesimal strips of light blue (“Seattle mixed” zoning) in a sea of “single family” and “low-rise” yellow.
Meanwhile, you can’t scream “NOT ZONED FOR BUSINESS USE” twice in a row and then gloss over that the site (not just the grocer) “was grandfathered in because of its age.” Grandfathering a site that pre-dates the zoning code is common practice, and nullifies your “not zoned” absolute.
Another term you may not understand: “Good Faith.” As in, the current owners of Volunteer Park Café entered into an agreement to purchase and operate an already-functioning café in good faith. Which actually means a great deal before the law, as society has an interest in not financially punishing those who enter into business arrangements with the best of intentions and a reasonable expectation that the other party has fulfilled its obligations before the law.
As for your last “point” — which your own zoning map refutes — this city is a big fucking suburb compared to most any other coastal city with geological constrictions. Los Angeles, everyone’s favorite supposed sprawl-happy whipping boy, has more mixed usage in any given square mile than we have in our entire city. You sound like someone who’s never bothered to travel beyond Seattle in your lifetime. You also sound like a fucking dipshit.
Oh, and @38/@39, just to respond in advance to your next dumb comment:
Nobody here has argued that the café necessarily has the right to build a chicken coop, to make excessive noise, or to install outdoor seating. (The garden should be fine; who in a “residential neighborhood” can justify complaining about a garden?) But if those were the neighbor’s true worries, he likely could have resolved them by having a reasonable discussion with the owners.
But the neighbor, in good Seattle fashion, is actually just using those canards as a passive-aggressive pretext to shut the café down. He — like you — believes that the present-day residential zoning supersedes all, and that the café therefore has no right to exist. You’re both wrong — not just morally, but legally.
P.S. Kind of funny how you scoff at my comment about development gradation, and then immediately proceed to talk about how awesome it is for you to live on a quiet single-family street and walk two blocks to a busy commercial zone. Guess what, dumbass? That’s a total lack of gradation!
They had a nice little business going, thanks to an odd little grandfather of a grandfather clause, but then they BLEW IT by being GREEDY. If the whole place closes it’ll be a shame, but it will be their fault.
Their claim that they aren’t expanding by adding more outdoor seating (“…”we’re not… Frankly, our kitchen can’t support any more customers””) is disingenuous horseshit. Restaurants expand by adding more tables and letting customers wait longer for a sandwich.
And as for the inarguable pleasures of “outdoor seating” and “walking neighborhoods,” how about walking your bagged sandwich an extra block to the PARK?
It would seem to me the question isn’t whether you like the cafe or dislike the cafe, it’s a question of whether they have the right to be there. Putting aside what the restaurant says what happened, they operated a restaurant for 15 years without a permit. The argument that they put “Cafe” on the lease with a private individual does not grant them the right to run a restaurant, as I suspect they knew. Whether or not you like the cafe or dislike the cafe and the environment it creates, citizens have a right to complain about infringement in zoning laws…no matter what their motivation. The law must not discriminate based on perceived value or disadvantage of a business. It must treat all people equally. Nice cafe, greasy spoon, rowdy crowd, soccer moms…it shouldn’t matter in the eyes of the law. It should only matter if they have complied with the laws and statutes of the city/state etc.
It sounds to me like the Cafe played a bit fast and loose with the law and permits, and I would suspect that they reason they did not apply for a restaurant permit was because they recognized it would be rejected. I have a hard time believing that a restaurant owners did not know the laws and rules for fifteen years.
If the cafe stays open, when others have been closed for the same infraction, it sends a clear message that people are not equal, and we’ll make exceptions for the right kinds of people (which, personally, puts my teeth on edge).
@44:
It seems that the old owners were arrogant enough to run a café from 1995-2007 without bothering to follow the rules and apply for the correct permits. If this debate were about them, I would have approximately zero sympathy.
But the new owners appear to have acquired the business in good faith.
Expressing dismay about their attempts at expansion and chicken-farming (both are questionable) is different than impugning their right to exist, which would punish them for the sins of their predecessors. It’s morally wrong — and legally not nearly as cut-and-dried as the neighbor would like to believe.
@45
You are correct that the original owner violated the rules to apply for permits. However, before taking over a business, it is the responsibility of the owners to request and verify the correct permitting. They would be punished for operating a restaurant without a permit. This is their transgression. If they trusted everything was kosher, that was a mistake, but it was their mistake. I would not purchase a car from somebody without seeing the papers. If I did, and the car was taken from me because the original possessor stole it. His “sin” is transferred upon me, and I have to give up the car.
If we could punish the original transgressor, we should. As it stands, I believe the Cafe owners probably have a fair case against their lessor.
That aside, the DPD must make a ruling based on the laws that have been codified.
I would also state, in your scenario, a large loophole would exist, allowing one party to create a business in violation of zoning and legitimize it by leasing the business to a second party that can claim ignorance of permitting.
Finally, according to the writing. the DPD has already received letters objecting to the restaurant permitting. I suppose it’s possible all the letters have been from the single neighbor, but I suspect there might be more than one objector in the neighborhood.
If they have a commercial lease that specifies “cafe,” the current owners have cause to seek legal remedy against the bozos who contracted with them. But their push to expand pollutes that argument: there is simply no plausible way they could have NOT realized that they were enjoying the fruits of a zoning anomaly. I think the “entitlement” problem here lies with these women and their chicken coops. They are the capitalists in this scenario, and they weren’t satisfied with the clearly profitable business they were running.
@46: All of your points are fair and valid. As I said, nothing is cut-and-dried here.
They made a stupid and grievous error in failing to check the proper permitting for themselves. But what the repercussions should be may depend on the circumstances in which they made that error. Did the previous proprietors and/or landlord falsely represent, explicitly or implicitly, the permitting status?
In your stolen-car analogy, the thief’s sin is not entirely transferred to you, as you are not subject to arrest for grand theft auto. But whether you are at risk of having you car seized versus going to jail for receiving stolen property depends on your level of knowledge at the time of the transaction.
Regarding your hypothesized loophole: Your second party (the lessee) would have no “reasonable expectation” that a newly-created business was properly permitted and operating legally. There is no way said party would believe the permitting secure unless the first partly explicitly and falsely represented it as such (negating the first party’s ability to “legitimize it” without further illegal conduct).
But the new proprietors of a business that has been operating for 12 years without incident would absolutely have a “reasonable expectation” that the business had been operating legitimately — yes, the neighborhood and type of business do come into play here — mitigating (not excusing) the stupidity of not checking on the permits themselves. If the current owners were actively discouraged from checking on the permits via an act of false representation, then they would most certainly have a claim against the prior owners and/or landlord.
And of course the Dept. of Planning and Development should make a ruling based on “laws that have been codified.” But those who try to reduce this debate to “CURRENT ZONING RESIDENTIAL. RESTAURANT DIE NOW” do so inaccurately and at the risk of looking stupid.
This Paul Jones guy really does sound like a relentless douche, but that doesn’t mean his concern is invalid. The city’s process seems reasonable and will factor in the community’s response – as it should. I’m glad they’re evaluating the case and not just shutting them down for a blatant zoning violation (although, really, who doesn’t check the zoning before starting a business!?). That said, what irritates me about this thread are all of the people who favor multiuse neighborhoods (and likely live in one of the neighborhoods that reflect that value) assuming that everyone should share that value if they live in the city. Those of you with this opinion might be surprised to find out how many purely residential neighborhoods are in the Seattle city limits. I’m not saying that’s a better way to live, but there are a diversity of opinions on this topic and people usually opt-in to neighborhoods that suit their lifestyle preferences.
@46 and @48… Interesting conversation…
The thing about it is it’s easy to check how a property is zoned. It’s super easy. There’s really not much of an excuse not to do it. It’s part of due diligance.
For another analogy – In a residential real-estate transaction every buyer will do their own inspection, right? Why? Because everyone knows that it’s NOT ENOUGH JUST TO TRUST THE SELLER’S DISCLOSURES. You start with the seller’s disclosures but you also do your own inspection. Every fool knows that. The problem with trusting the seller’s disclosures is you don’t know what you don’t know.
The fact that there is “good faith” involved is at best possibly a slightly mitigating factor when DPD reviews the use change request.