At the Charles County Board of Appeals hearing on Oct. 23, it was insisted that a man who kills a few hundred animals a year at his 10-acre property is running a slaughterhouse. I imagine a slaughterhouse as a big, bustling complex with hundreds of animals on-site and multiple guys in white coats standing around with clipboards, with big conveyor belts spitting out shrink-wrapped packages of meat at a dizzying pace.

Everyone at the hearing, including the board, knew that Rick Turner’s business was nothing like that, but the board still determined his business to be a slaughterhouse.

But not to worry, because even though the rules say a slaughterhouse needs at least 20 acres, and access to an arterial road, neither of which Turner has, he need only accept the designation, ask the board for variances on those two issues, and he may continue operations. We know this because Board Chairman Frederick Mower said he “wasn’t in the business of putting people out of business” and didn’t want any action taken against Turner while he was preparing his application.

Mower indicated Mr. Turner’s variances would likely be approved if submitted, and at the end of the hearing, some of Turner’s relieved supporters applauded.

Although it appears that Rick’s Place will be allowed to continue, the details revealed at the hearing drove home yet again how stupid, inadequate and economically restrictive our zoning system is.

First off, some might wonder why Turner had to accept the slaughterhouse designation instead of being, say, a butcher shop. The answer is that Rick Turner’s property is zoned agriculture conservation, and butcher shops aren’t allowed in an AC zone, only in commercial zones. One board member said that Mr. Turner’s services didn’t fit the agricultural zone because they are commercial in nature. I guess she doesn’t think farmers sell the things they grow and raise.

Others might wonder why he had to be categorized at all because he doesn’t really fit in any category.

The answer is that the zoning regulations are so inflexible that he must be forced into a category.

In the words of inspection and enforcement official Reed Faasen, “If it’s not on the list, it’s not legal.” However, the zoning “technician” from Mr. Faasen’s “customer friendly” department was authorized by law to save the day by performing the highly technical act of simply putting Turner’s business “in the next closest use” on the list a slaughterhouse.

However, forcing a man’s livelihood into a classification that doesn’t fit him, just because there isn’t an accurate description of what he does on some government list, is sorely misguided. I do not know the future implications for Mr. Turner with either state or federal laws, and I don’t think the board knows either.

Did they check to make sure that there isn’t (or won’t soon be) a state or federal rule that says if the county officially calls Rick’s Place a slaughterhouse, then the state or feds must call it that too, and suddenly require upgrades or changes that he can’t afford? Or is that type of checking just another job for Mr. Turner’s attorney to do?

To me the lesson is this: Real people do not always fit into the categories that planners concoct. No list could ever describe all the innovative ways that 100,000 free people might discover to provide a good or service. We need to stop depending on such inadequate lists. Also, if jobs matter, we should realize that forcing everyone to “get legal” with a license, and a permit, in the proper zone, actually restricts job growth because it increases business start-up costs.

In this environment, businesses are slow to form, hard to relocate and hard to repurpose if relocation isn’t an option all of which makes it hard to adjust to changing economic conditions.

I understand that some folks believe very strongly in all this planning, zoning and regulation, and that’s their right, but they can’t at the same time say that they are doing all they can to create jobs.

Tom deSabla, La Plata