It would be easier to understand turning down a new business in downtown Jamestown if there was massive public outcry against a zoning variance for the business.

It would be understandable, too, if the majority of the oversight board disagreed with the variance in question.

Neither of those things happened with Robert Sanders’ request for a variance to open a small tattoo parlor and art gallery at 100 to 120 N. Main St. The central business downtown district doesn’t allow tattoo services, so a variance was needed. Sanders’ proposal was to move his tattoo parlor, Prophecy Tattoo, from the edge of the city on Foote Avenue into the downtown. The shop would have had two tattoo stations tucked into the rear of the business while the art gallery took center stage. Sanders told Zoning Board of Appeals members 80 percent of the space would be for the gallery while tattoo hours would have been by appointment only.

One person spoke against the proposal while the Zoning Board received a petition signed by dozens of city residents in favor of the variance. Three of the four Zoning Board of Appeals members voted in favor of the variance, but a unanimous vote was needed because only four of the board’s seven members were at the meeting.

Two things should happen.

First, Sanders should submit his variance request again in hopes of a hearing before the full seven-member board. If there is a massive public outcry that leads the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the variance, so be it. Second, perhaps the Zoning Board of Appeals should re-think making decisions when a four-member quorum is present. The Zoning Board of Appeals properly followed its process and rules; the problem is that its process and rules violate the rules of basic common sense in this instance. Allowing one vote against a proposal to subvert three votes in favor of the proposal sends a bad message — that the odds are stacked against entrepreneurs trying to make a living.