Nicky Boyette – It was a déjà vu revival for the Planning Commission at its April 26 meeting. For the second meeting in a row the meeting began with a Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for a one-unit Bed & Breakfast, and similar to the previous meeting, commissioners were treated to a long line of citizens with opinions. There was also a spate of letters read into the record. Even though this application was different and elicited strong support, the outcome again was to deny the application.
Applicants were Jaclyn Cross and Stephen Scott Dobbins, who want a CUP to use their cottage at 5 Kirk as a B&B. Cross stated they live on the premises, there were three parking spaces and she was aware of the need to maintain harmony in the neighborhood. She contended her B&B would contribute to “the greater good of the community.”
Several opponents, as they did at the April 12 meeting, cited traffic issues on a narrow street, parking concerns and additional noise in the neighborhood. LauraLee Wilcox stated she spoke for many others in asking the commission to protect residential neighborhoods. Betsy Rodier noted the impact on traffic would extend to the adjoining street, and Leigh Short claimed visitors at the proposed B&B would be unfamiliar with the tight turn on the street and might present a traffic hazard.
A letter from Glenda Satterfield stated the B&B would be a commercial venture in a residential area and would affect nearby property values. Joann Wintery argued against having out-of-town guests in their quiet neighborhood. Gwen Bennett pointed out there was a platted section of Kirk Street running onto the property and between the two structures thereby making the application contrary to City Code.
However, Mark Mattmiller said the applicant was a local entrepreneur with new ideas providing a room within walking distance of downtown. He maintained the B&B would not devalue properties, and warned his prospective real estate clients draw inaccurate negative conclusions about the town from statements espoused by naysayers.
Beau Satori pointed out the building was built as a guest lodging many years ago, and he was in favor of the CUP. He said might parking be tight, but parking is tight all over town. Attorney Tim Parker said in his letter that Cross was very detail oriented and should do well with a B&B. Others spoke up for Cross as being respectful and well-deserving, and Miranda Smith called the B&B “a hidden oasis… and a great addition to our town.”
In all, public speakers were evenly split for and against the application. Among the letters, 12 were favorable and six were opposed. After the Public Hearing, Pat Matsukis took a broader view in her public comments. She reminded commissioners, “Recognize this is not about whether Jackie is a good person; it is about the rules.” She said there needed to be further conversation at city hall about home businesses, and the city needed to pursue action against illegal B&B owners. But above all, she insisted the commission should stick to the rules. “And if you can’t define it,” she commented, “put a moratorium on it until you can.”
Commissioners got their turn to speak and asked Cross to clarify the parking situation and the fact that two buildings are on the property. Commissioner Melissa Greene read from City Code regarding B&Bs that if there are two residences on the same property, there can not be a street, alley, right-of-way or green space between them. She wanted Cross to prove the two residences sit on one undivided property. She said even though she was a proponent of B&Bs, she would have no problem voting No if she saw a problem.
However, she stated the owners live on the property, they are contributing members of the community, and “we need some young spirit,” so she said she could support the application.
Commissioner James Morris claimed he saw no negative impact on that neighborhood with the cottage being used as a B&B. He also asserted the complaints “don’t hold water” that a B&B there would make the traffic worse; in fact, he said it might provide more control.
Regardless, he insisted there must be a balance, and the answer must come from existing City Code. He said the CUP would not change the area into a commercial area and it would not change the zoning as some claim. Morris admitted, “It is hard to be fair,” but said there are rules and for him it comes down to one question: “Is it within our current regulations to grant this CUP?”
Greene moved to grant the CUP with the condition the owners prove it is one property only. Vote on her motion was 3-1 to deny the application, Greene being the only Yes vote.
On May 10, for the third meeting in a row, there will be a Public Hearing regarding a CUP for a one-unit B&B. The next application is for 8 Washington Street.