Okay. They are working on a highway corridor amendment to the zoning ordinance. They want it to include all properties w/ frontage on the road, or w/in 500’ of the road. So they write: “…shall apply to all lands with frontage along and within 500 feet of…” Let’s call these conditions A & B, respectively. This is telling me that
A and B => ordinance applies.
But this means that if one doesn’t have frontage, but is within 500’, the ordinance doesn’t apply. This is contrary to the intent of the authors, since they want property w/in 500’ to be regulated.
Is there a formal way to demonstrate the difference between these? Basically, at the very least, is there a way to show a proof and say, “Figures don’t lie!”
Also, what is a good informal way to make this understood. I’m running into this a lot w/ the ordinance, including applications of DeMorgan’s thm [¬(A & B) = (¬A or ¬B)] for example, and I need good strategies for understanding, explaining, and arguing the effects of the ordinance language. E.g., here is a bit of recent email exchange that took place:
Ugh. So, more broadly speaking, are there any good sources for me to access to make these types of issues easier for me to understand? Easier to explain? And also any quick references for me to utilize when I’m unsure?
The AND vs. OR thing I opened with still applies, and I’ll need to get this clear in the next couple of days. However, don’t feel shy about helping me w/ the more general issues I mentioned.