Zoning Needs Teeth Or It Is Pointless

I'm conflicted about the local zoning ordinances in Cape Girardeau.

I personally like the concept of zoning. As a property owner, the idea of zoning gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. It gives me hope that I have protection and actual rights for the property that my wife and I own, that a slumlord can't just buy any nearby house and shoehorn in as many renters as will fit into it.

But sadly, I feel the local zoning ordinances often tend to be both toothless and pointless with an excessive amount of rules and often just as many exceptions-to-the-rules.

Take for instance the issue of slumlords. The spiffy new zoning code that is currently before the City Council has tightened up on how many unrelated people can live in a house -- in most of the city -- but it's actually loosened the rules in some parts of town where there are now designated "Increased Occupancy Overlay Districts."

These overlay districts which primarily are located around the main campus of the University and a couple of large areas bordering the bridge route in South Cape will now use a sliding scale based on the number of bedrooms in a given property. A 5-bedroom house that previously could only legally house five unrelated persons can now be home to eight.

And that's eight unrelated persons. If some of them are related -- no matter how distant -- they're exempt.

Since the city of Cape Girardeau has no occupancy permits, it's quite legal to rent a 2-bedroom bungalow to a family of 12 including cousin Jebediah, even though Jeb may be a cousin 5 times removed.

Then there's the case of Section 30-42 of the zoning ordinances that pertains to signage. This section regulates nearly every aspect of how signs may be used around town from their size to where they may be placed and every possible nuance in between.

When this section of the zoning ordinances was updated in the spring of 2006 it caused a bit of a ruckus. A lot of business owners were upset with its restrictiveness and 5 months later a number of those changes were rescinded by the city council.

But the Cliff's Notes version of Section 30-42 of the zoning ordinances that remains, still weighs in at approximately 5,675 words that I believe are haphazardly enforced.

For example, at the end of Section 30-42 is a list of specifically prohibited signs. It says that a sign is prohibited if it is "attached to, or placed on, a vehicle or trailer parked on public or private property."

Of course, there are exceptions to this rule including that "the primary purpose of such a vehicle or trailer is not the display of signs." The ordinance also mandates that "the vehicle or trailer is in operating condition, currently registered and licensed to operate on public streets when applicable, and actively used or available for use in the daily functions of the business to which such signs relate."

Sounds pretty clear to me.

Yet, for the last 8 months or so, a double-decker bus covered with signage promoting a bar -- The Pink Galleon -- has sat in the Town Plaza parking lot right next to William Street. I go by there several times a week and it's always parked in the same place, day or night.

It appears to be in complete violation of the signage section of the Cape Girardeau zoning ordinance, but there it sits.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't have a grudge against this bar. I actually kind of like the bus since it reminds me of ones I've ridden while visiting England. Granted, I don't see the correlation between it and the name of the establishment. Shouldn't they have a large 3-masted sailing ship promoting the business instead? Perhaps, actual galleons are not that easy to come by.

But even if they had a massive wooden sailing ship sitting in the parking lot of the Town Plaza -- presumably painted a sickly shade of magenta -- one would think it too would be in violation of the local zoning ordinances.

Actually, that would probably be a legal "grey" area.

While you and I know that a galleon is a "vehicle" -- albeit an archaic one -- neither the old nor the new zoning codes define exactly what a "vehicle" is.

And a business could argue that the wooden ship advertising their establishment was in fact not a vehicle, but a sculpture dedicated to the brave men who once plied the waters of the Mississippi in their galleons searching for gold and The Fountain of Youth.

This particular issue has perplexed me for months. I even stopped at the bus to get a closer look when I noticed its license plate. It has one of those historic vehicle plates issued by the state. Perhaps, that is the loophole -- the exception-to-the-rules -- the business' owners are using to justify parking their signage-covered bus right next to one of the busiest streets in the city.

In Missouri, vehicles with historic plates may only be driven a limited amount each year. Since, the bus is "historic" and it needs to be parked somewhere, then why not right next to William Street?

But this made me curious. What exactly is a "historic" vehicle?

According to the state of Missouri, any vehicle can be eligible for historic plates if it is older than 25 years and "is owned solely as a collector's item" -- whatever that really means.

Of course, this got me thinking. If "historic" vehicles are exempt from zoning -- as they apparently are -- it would help cost-justify this sweet ride I found on EBay.

It's a 1979 International school bus. The listing says it stalls out and needs a tune-up and all the seats are gone except the driver's, but that's OK. I'm not planning on driving it much after I get my historic plates from the state for my 31-year-old collectors item.

No, I plan to park my collectible in my backyard where I can admire it every morning. And to help with it's upkeep -- historic vehicles need lots of maintenance to keep them in tip-top shape -- I may rent it out to some nice immigrant family with a half dozen kids and grandpa.

Maybe even cousin Jeb.