3 ms·

Why? Anyway, same reason we don't rezone all houses to be boarding houses

• eesmith 4y ago
  "Allow" doesn't mean "require", which is what "rezone all houses to be boarding houses" comes across as meaning, so I don't see those as being the same.
  • endisneigh 4y ago
    I didn’t say anything about requiring houses to be boarding houses, rather that they are zoned to be them
    • eesmith 4y ago
      I find it hard understand how a house can be zoned to be a boarding house. Do you mean that it's just a label? Can a house be zoned to be a wetland, without changing the house itself? In any case, I think the intent of the question is more equivalent to "allow boarding houses in all residential zoning" not "require".
      • endisneigh 4y ago
        https://www.planning.org/pas/reports/report105.htm https://www.planning.org/pas/reports/report105.htm Not sure why you keep mentioning require, I never said that to begin with.
        • eesmith 4y ago
          Because I see a difference between 1) "rezone all houses to be boarding houses", and 2) "rezone to allow all houses to be boarding houses". The first one sounds like a require, the second sounds like an optional. Like, "rezone all houses to be agricultural" would be a very different than "rezone to allow agricultural use." That link you pointed to wants to prohibit group living arrangements ("the loopholes [that permit group living arrangements] are still there. A few simple amendments can, by eliminating the loopholes, insure effective zoning"). It's absolutely does not want to rezone to allow boarding houses in R-1 single-family zones.