By Nicky Boyette – The Planning Commission had another marathon discussion at its Jan. 24 meeting trying to sort out what to do about the situation at 12 Lookout Circle. In front of commissioners were applications for Conditional Use Permits for a one-unit tourist lodging and a wedding establishment. One hang-up for commissioners was the property has been the site of weddings for years without a CUP, and the lodging unit in question has been rented as a tourist lodging since mid-2012, also without a CUP.
The property belongs to John and Julie Van Woy. When they bought it in June 2000, weddings and receptions had been occurring regularly on the property, and the Van Woys continued the practice. They claimed at the Jan. 10 Planning meeting they had been unaware they needed a CUP to be a wedding establishment until it was brought to their attention in December 2016.
The Van Woys have a CUP for a five-unit tourist lodging on the property, but the unit in dispute was a sixth rental unit, therefore in violation of their CUP. Julie Van Woy told commissioners the unit was constructed in 2012 as a home for her mother, but her mother had become too frail to stay there by the completion of construction, so they advertised it as a rental. They did not, however, apply for a CUP to use the new building as a tourist lodging. When they became aware of the violation, they immediately stopped renting it and applied for CUPs for both the one-unit tourist lodging and to be a wedding establishment.
Another complication for Planning was the fact the property, which is in the R-1 zone, is used frequently for receptions and events, some of which are staged by the Crescent Hotel according to an agreement the Crescent has with the Van Woys. There are four different buildings on the property the Van Woys rent out.
According to chair Melissa Greene, events at the site sometimes violate the Quiet Use restrictions for R-1 zones and create parking problems for neighbors. She read a letter dated Dec. 12, 2016, from next-door neighbors Jeff and Kathy Collins citing parking anxieties, late night noise and other annoyances.
Greene claimed Collins had aired his complaints several times to the Police Department and City Hall, and he spoke at the Dec. 7 Historic District Commission and Jan. 10 Planning meetings. Commissioner James Morris pointed out that complaints came from just one neighbor and no one else. Jodie English Brown, representing the Crescent Hotel, and Julie Van Woy both said they had not received complaints.
Commissioner Ann Sallee commented the applicants already have a CUP for a five-unit tourist lodging and she had no problem adding another unit, but Morris said this situation was different because of the relationship with the Crescent Hotel.
“It is not a clean CUP when another entity is involved,” Morris contended. “So many strings attached.” He said Planning had never faced a situation like this, and because of involvement of the Crescent “there is a conflict of interest in there somewhere.”
Commissioner Susan Harman said she had no problem with adding a sixth unit of tourist lodging, but even if there had been no complaints, there still was the fact that for five years the sixth unit operated without a CUP.
Greene wanted to table the decision for an extended time, maybe six months at least, to allow Planning time to sort out the complications, but City Economic Development Coordinator Glenna Booth advised against an extended postponement out of fairness to the applicants. Greene at least wanted to wait until the complainants were back in town so they could speak again, and Morris wanted all commissioners present.
Harman wanted resolution of whether leasing part of the property to the Crescent for events represents a transfer of the CUP, which would be a violation of City Code.
Commissioners agreed to table their decision on the CUP for the one-unit tourist lodging until the Feb. 28 meeting.
As for the Wedding CUP…
The Van Woys also applied for a CUP to be a wedding establishment. Greene pointed out weddings and receptions had been going on there without a CUP for the 17 years the Van Woys owned the property. She admitted the property is a “stunning place to hold a wedding,” but over and over, Quiet Use restrictions for a residential neighborhood had been violated.
Greene suggested Planning table discussion for six months until the Van Woys and the Crescent returned with a comprehensive plan for compliance.
Brown responded that almost all weddings the Crescent Hotel is involved with are performed on hotel property, not at Lookout Cottages. There are receptions there, but with small gatherings and acoustic music if music at all, and the Crescent sends a security person to the site if needed.
The question arose regarding a maximum number of attendees at the site, and Booth replied that number would be set by the fire marshal, but since the site did not have a CUP the fire marshal would have no reason to establish a maximum.
Greene said she did not want to stop weddings or receptions, but insisted there must be guidelines in place. She said commissioners should either table discussion or deny the application until there is a plan.
The vagaries of defining compliance on parking commanded its time until Greene reiterated she wanted to table a decision for six months so Planning could sort out the details. Booth again said the long wait would not be fair to the applicants.
Brown stated the Crescent tries to be a good neighbor and she was disappointed she had not been made aware of issues before now. She said the Crescent would comply if Planning put guidelines on weddings and receptions, but pointed out there are guests who are not at the site through the Crescent.
Greene still wanted more time and wanted the Collinses to be part of the discussion. Morris replied they cannot cater their decisions for one individual, and recommended they convene a workshop to sort out the issues. Sallee suggested they get an opinion from the city attorney.
Harman recognized the situation Planning was putting the Crescent and the Van Woys in by delaying a decision. There are bookings that Brown would have to rearrange. Brown said she could provide both a list of planned events in February and a sample contract she uses to help resolve issues, but Morris contended Planning did not have the right to allow events to continue if there were violations of City Code.
Sallee moved to table the discussion of the wedding CUP until Feb. 28 and get an opinion from the city attorney. She also suggested they get a copy of the arrangement between the Van Woys and the Crescent plus a list of planned events at the site.
Though an agreement to defer seemed to be near, the Gordian knot of complications circled the table until Harman said they should make a decision ASAP. The vote on Sallee’s motion was unanimous, and commissioners agreed to convene at 5 p.m. before the Feb. 14 meeting for a workshop to unravel the tangle.
Final business
Commissioners discussed need for a complaint form citizens could file with City Hall so commissioners would have more of a history related to issues like the one commanding so much of their last two meetings. Harman presented the one Building Inspector Bobby Ray uses, and wanted to use his form as a starting point to develop placed on the city website.
Next meeting will be Tuesday, Feb. 14, at 6 p.m. The meeting will be preceded at 5 p.m. by a workshop on the issues stirred up by the two CUP applications for 12 Lookout Circle.