A series of zoning amendments in Arundel have been proposed with the goal of helping a specific business.
They were placed before the voters through the efforts of that business. Five of the seven proposals are opposed by the Planning Board.
Bentley’s Saloon is a highly regarded business, and the proposals appear to be widely supported. But the bare facts of the case should raise concerns among sensible voters. Arundel voters should give the town more time to address these issues by voting “No” on Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7.
Bentley’s Saloon, is a popular spot with many friends and admirers. It also has critics who resent the motorcycle traffic that the Route 1 tavern attracts. But the issue isn’t motorcycle noise or Bentley’s good works. It’s the importance of maintaining sound zoning regulations.
One of the main concerns raised by the company has been its inability to accommodate its clientele due to restrictive occupancy rules. Although the business is understandably eager to address this limit on its ability to do business, the piecemeal, special-interest approach to zoning that the company drafted is not in the town’s best interest.
The Planning Board is responsible for drafting and interpreting zoning ordinances. In this case, the board has raised what seem to be reasonable concerns with the Bentley questions.
Question 7, for instance calls for a change in parking lot standards. Besides requiring one automobile space for every three patrons, it allows the calculations to be adjusted by allowing one motorcycle space for every two patrons. The net result would be to allow greater occupancy for the same amount of parking space.
But this apparently reasonable trade-off only applies to taverns. The Planning Board is rightly worried that other businesses might sue the town for not providing this special accommodation to them.
In Question 4, Bentley’s seeks to define taverns as a “permitted use,” effectively exempting it, and any other taverns that might set up shop on Route 1, from Planning Board oversight. It would create a loophole that could change the landscape on that stretch of highway.
We agree that these dry details are less interesting than arguments about Bentley’s economic vitality, community service or biker patronage. But such issues must be addressed with care, and the Planning Board has promised to do so.
Emotion is running high on this issue, but we think voters would be making a mistake to reject the advice of their planners.
— Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
