Nicky Boyette – In response to concerns there are violations of the requirements of having a Conditional Use Permit or a legally non-conforming status in Eureka Springs, city hall conducted a thorough review of all conditional use permitted properties and found there were indeed 10 properties which appeared to be operating in violation of City Code. Letters were sent to property owners by Glenna Booth, city economic development officer, pointing out the apparent violations, and five property owners settled their cases. At its June 28 meeting, the Planning Commission held Show Cause Hearings for the other five properties.
- 4 Armstrong
Booth’s letter regarding the B&B at 4 Armstrong stated, “… advertising gives no indication this is a Bed and Breakfast lodging that meets the stated requirements of serving meals and having an innkeeper on site.”
Owner Beth Martin Smith showed commissioners the contract with the on-site manager as evidence there is someone on site. Smith also stated since some guests prefer privacy to having meals served to them, guests are asked if they want breakfast cooked for them, but meals were indeed available. Also, although the CUP is for a one-unit B&B and the advertisement offers three bedrooms, Smith said she rents all three rooms as one unit to guests, usually a family.
Commissioner Melissa Greene was satisfied conditions of the CUP were being met and moved to close the hearing. Other commissioners agreed.
- 6 Douglas
Issues at 6 Douglas included whether an innkeeper lived on site or whether meals were being served. Also advertising referred to the lodging as a condo and there was no signage indicating the B&B was open and in business.
There was a question the owner actually received Booth’s letter in time to respond or be present at the hearing. Greene reported a neighbor had claimed the owner, Damon Henke, did actually reside at the property, but commissioners decided to defer the hearing until the next meeting to give him a chance to respond.
105 Jordan
Booth’s letter regarding the B&B at 105 Jordan Dr., called A Garden of Dreams, stated there had been no CAPC tax collections submitted since October 2015, which indicates being delinquent and discontinued use for more than the allowable 180 days. In addition, Internet research revealed advertising offered a “hotel status” option which would violate the CUP.
Co-owner Denise Gallia told commissioners she had altered her website to clear up the status of her establishment. She maintained she had restored her standing with the CAPC. She also said she had been out of state for a family necessity during which time her computer and all business-related files were stolen. In addition, she was a victim of identity theft. Gallia said she normally is closed November through February because it is difficult to get to her cottage during the winter.
Commissioners agreed to leave her case open pending clearance from the CAPC verifying she is up-to-date with her collections.
19 Judah
The letter to owners William and Virginia Voiers stated, “Internet research indicates the Gaslight Inn is advertising six rental units with an innkeeper living next door.” Lujan pointed out the CUP was issued for five units, so the Voiers cannot advertise for six units. The Voiers tried to explain that more than one bedroom is rented as one unit, but commissioners reiterated the advertising must be brought into compliance with what the CUP allows.
Lujan stated their decision would be held in abeyance pending proof of corrected advertising.
38 Prospect
This property was being scrutinized because no CAPC tax collection reports or tax collections had been submitted since May 2015, nor was there any evidence of advertising or signage to show the B&B was still in business and accepting guests. Also there did not appear to be an owner or manager living on site.
Attorney Tim Parker represented the owners who live out of town. Parker distributed a sheet showing a list of expenses incurred by the owners during remodeling of the premises. He said there had been no tenants because repairs were in process so the property could be operated again.
Lujan told Parker the owners must communicate to the CAPC that they are not operating. Because they did not, they have been out of compliance with requirements for keeping the legally non-conforming status and could lose it. Lujan stated the owners need a letter from the CAPC to clear this up.
Greene commented that owners must still turn in tax forms even when not operating.
Parker replied the CAPC taxes collected had been zero because the property was being renovated. He did not see why not reporting zero collections should be a concern to anyone, but this oversight could be easily corrected. Parker again pointed out his clients had been renovating the property during this time as the list of expenses indicated.
Harman commented reporting is a condition of being able to keep the legally non-conforming status. Regardless of repairs, license holders should know the rules, so they either forgot them or chose to ignore them. Nevertheless, to keep the permit, the owners must abide by the rules.
Lujan stated a letter from the CAPC would be needed to clear up the tax delinquency.
Parker was not satisfied with objections being raised while his clients were trying to bring their business back into operation.
There was also the matter of no owner or manager on site, a requirement of maintaining legal status. Parker commented, “Why would you have an onsite manager if you’re not open for business? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard in my life.”
Again, commissioners pointed out what City Code stipulates regarding keeping a CUP or a legally non-conforming status, and Lujan finally remarked, “They [the owners] have not complied as far as we can see.”
Harman stated there are rules to follow for holding a CUP.
“The rules are stupid as hell… and you’re acting stupid,” Parker remarked.
Lujan at this point called for a halt to the discussion, and commissioners voted unanimously to revoke the legally non-conforming status of the property at 38 Prospect.
Parker remarked his clients would appeal the decision. “You wonder why people don’t come here and spend money, and you get this horseshit,” he said.
That being settled, Parker slammed the door behind him as he left.
Public comments
Susan Porter reiterated concerns for preserving the residential nature of neighborhoods, and urged the commission to continue to update City Code. She commented when commissioners are considering an application for a CUP they look at whether it is good for the city, not just whether it is good for the applicant.
Alderman Bob Thomas told commissioners he appreciated the challenge they accept being on Planning. “I very much respect the time and effort each of you puts into arriving at any decision.” He also asserted, “I have no doubt… you always have the needs of the city and the city’s best interests foremost in your minds.”
Other matters
- Lujan announced there is a seat vacant on Planning.
- Lujan said he was very upset at comments he considered “rude” made three times during Monday evening’s city council meeting that Planning would not be able to handle the task of satisfactorily revising City Code to bring it up to date. He pointed out their work during the meeting as an example of what they can accomplish.
Next meeting will be Tuesday, July12, at 6 p.m. There will be another workshop on revising City Code at 5 p.m. preceding the regular meeting.