From the mailbag

Three anonymous readers share their thoughts on Jittery Joe's.

Anonymous No. 1 on the lack of a coffee shop permit ...

Businesses pop up from time to time that fail to renew their permit or think they should have one, but they are usually tiny, in-home operations. I would think a retailer would know to do that. Maybe it kind of evolved from the roaster into retail, and that ball got dropped.

But still, should a business be put "out of business" over something like this? The answer is clearly no. And that is the problem – the rule of codes over jobs in this town. There has to be room for common sense.

Anonymous No. 2 with an alternative option on said permit ...

Regarding the issue of the tasting room having no permit, which was mentioned on the blog: there may be no reason that it would have gone to Planning or Building Inspections for a permit, given that the interior of the Roaster's structure may have needed no additional build-out to accomodate the separate Tasting Room. If they are operating a separate business, they should have gotten a business license from Finance, but perhaps no planning/zoning/buildingn inspections interaction was necessary.

Anonymous No. 3 doesn't like the temporary permit option ...

But, not only do I oppose the idea of a temporary accommodation for this parking lot, I also oppose the special use permit for it altogether. I support our land use plan ... Surface parking lots in our downtown area are just generally a bad idea and really should be avoided. That's what our land use plan says and that's what I support.

The scariest part of all of this, to me, is that I know (the commissioners backing the temporary permit) to be fundamentally fair and even-handed in (their) dealings so, how do you grant this one special use and deny the others that are sure to follow?