Nicky Boyette – Kathy Martone and Gary Toub had applied to the Planning Commission at the April 12 meeting for a Conditional Use Permit to turn the cottage on their property at 23 Elk into a one-unit Bed & Breakfast. Eight residents spoke against the application and 17 letters, also in opposition, were read into the record. One letter supported the application, but commissioners voted unanimously to deny it.
Martone and Toub appealed the decision at Monday evening’s Eureka Springs city council meeting. Again there were speakers, but this time supporters outnumbered opponents 5-2 with one neutral suggestion of not granting any more CUPs for B&Bs until Planning has time to settle ambiguities in City Code.
Denise Ryan claimed she never saw any problems when the cottage was a guest lodging before, and there were no parking issues. Also, the application complied on every point with City Code.
Laura Lee Wilcox, however, stated she was speaking for overwhelming opposition to the CUP. She said it would infringe on a residential neighborhood and violate the city’s 200-foot rule. She urged council to keep residential neighborhoods safe and secure. “The people have spoken,” she said.
Betsy Rodier insisted granting the CUP would set a precedent that would allow future CUP applicants to violate the 200-foot rule. She contended laws were being manipulated, adding that the application has been opposed by many neighbors.
Chris Fischer looked at the bigger picture. He said potential lodgings could be beneficial to the city, but suggested aldermen put a moratorium on these kinds of CUPs until Planning can work over City Code and settle the apparent issues.
Randall Fairbanks and Linda Gray both commented the applicants are conscientious people who improve the properties they are associated with. Gray said Martone and Toub were an asset to the community and she was grateful to have them here.
Jaclyn Cross also supported the application. She remarked there seems to be fear surrounding CUPs for B&Bs, and it is becoming trendy to oppose them. She did not see the logic in pushing away businesses that would boost the economy. She contended a B&B at 23 Elk would safeguard the neighborhood by ensuring upkeep of the property.
Marsha Yearsley advocated for the CUP. She gave a brief history of the property and said the cottage was built to be a guesthouse. She also pointed out there seemed to be a conflict of interest because some opponents have tourist properties of their own.
When council got its chance on the subject, alderman James DeVito asked city attorney Tim Weaver what were the possible outcomes available for council. Weaver replied council could send the matter back to Planning, or vote one way or the other, but if council chose to vote, its decision could be appealed in circuit court.
Alderman Mickey Schneider asked a few questions of Planning chair Steve Beacham and commissioner Melissa Greene about their preparation for the April 12 meeting. Beacham reported commissioners had as much as ten days’ notice to see the site, but not all commissioners knew about the letters until they were read at the meeting. Greene stated she had heard discouraging words on the street ahead of time but “was pretty stunned” by what happened at the meeting. In her view, she suspected some of the comments were misleading, but took the speakers at face value. She said because of what she has learned since the meeting she would vote differently if there were another vote.
Beacham agreed commissioners had suspected some of the opposing commentary was exaggerated, but “there is more to it than how people yell at us.”
He said the line in City Code regarding the 200-foot rule, which prohibits a CUP from “the same or similar” business, is confusing. There is a tourist lodging next door to 23 Elk. He said for him it brings up the question, “Is lodging lodging? We struggle to know the impact of this.”
DeVito moved to send the application back to Planning, saying he was concerned with the change of opinions. He said other folks originally opposed to the CUP have told him they have a new point of view, and because of misinformation, it would behoove council not to make a decision.
Alderman David Mitchell commented he was also concerned with the impact of the word “similar” in its context in City Code.
Alderman Joyce Zeller was not convinced sending the issue back to Planning would achieve anything. As far as she was concerned, there was no conflict with the 200-foot rule. She saw the B&B and the tourist lodging next door as very different operations. She also was bothered by the number of people who had changed their minds. But in her view, the cottage had been a guest unit before, the applicants complied with every regulation and nothing was improper. She thought the brouhaha surrounding the application had become too personal, and was prepared to approve it the application.
Schneider stated it was not fair for the applicants to have to wait for a process to unfold. She insisted they discuss the issues at that moment and take action.
Mitchell took the slower approach because he saw “similar” as a “huge discussion.” He advocated for Planning to have a chance to revisit the issue. He said that the applicants deserve an opportunity to be heard in “a more rational environment.”
Vote on sending the application back to Planning for further consideration was 4-1, Zeller voting No.