By Nicky Boyette – It took two-and-a-half hours of point, counterpoint, claims and rebuttals but the Planning Commission decided not to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for a 5-unit tourist lodging at 12 Lookout.
Discussion at the Jan. 10 meeting began with interim chair Melissa Greene pointing out five possible violations of City Code regarding the property owned by John and Julie Van Woy. Greene’s issues included operating six units of tourist lodging with a CUP for five units; operating as a wedding establishment without the required CUP; violating the quiet use requirements incumbent upon CUP holders; operating beyond the definition of a tourist lodging; various parking and safety violations.
Greene read a letter from neighbors Jeff and Kathy Collins who claim to have witnessed weddings and receptions at the site, and community events and family reunions bringing in many visitors, creating parking problems. The events last till late and there seems to be no oversight. The occupancy rate for the five-unit tourist lodging is not monitored, either.
Greene reported the owners advertise the site as a wedding venue though they do not have a CUP for a wedding establishment. She witnessed an event at the site that a guest said was a wedding reception, and there were parking violations and violations of the quiet use stipulation (firecrackers, loud music, activities past 9 p.m. in a residential zone).
She also reported a cottage was built as a residence for an elderly relative but was quickly advertised as a rental unit that became the sixth unit rented under the five-unit CUP.
Attorney Wade Williams represented the owners. He claimed the owners immediately ceased renting the sixth unit when they were apprised it was a violation. They also took another unit off the rental list and brought in an individual to provide 24-hour security and monitor the quiet use obligation.
Williams acknowledged the Crescent Hotel rents 12 Lookout Circle for events, and John Van Woy said they have a room rental agreement with the Crescent. Commissioner Ann Sallee said it would be useful for commissioners to see a copy of the rental agreement. Commissioner James Morris agreed. He said, “We’re put in a dilemma here… there have been several violations of the Code. It’s obvious.” He asked why no citations had been issued.
“Because it’s not a violation,” Williams responded. “There have been no witnesses except the chairman, and the evidence laid out so far is, in my opinion, incorrect.” Williams presented several nuances of language in the law to substantiate his claims.
Julie Van Woy stated there were weddings going on there before she and her husband bought the property. Commissioner Susan Harman pointed out, however, the owners of a property and a CUP should know what the rules are.
Williams redirected the conversation to assert that parking is not the Van Woy’s issue, and claimed all building code violations have been corrected.
Morris stated that Planning has a duty to act when they become aware of violations, and this case represents a history of violations. However, he said his decision would not be based on history, and he was glad to know some violations were corrected.
Greene was steadfast in reminding the commission that weddings were being held without the CUP, and gave Van Woy’s own comments to the Historic District Commission as evidence.
Williams stated he was concerned the waters were getting muddied, but then he stirred them by saying to Greene, “It also concerned me that you, as chairman, are taking steps to investigate and then provide testimony to this body.” He continued that the sixth unit had been taken off the rental list, a 24-hour monitor was on site because of the past noise issues and parking problems.
He also contended the Van Woys were operating appropriately regarding weddings. Weddings occurred on the property before they bought it, and they have continued. He said the Van Woys would get whatever license the city deemed appropriate regarding weddings. Furthermore, upon receiving the revocation notice, the Van Woys applied for the appropriate CUP to operate a wedding establishment and a CUP for the sixth unit tourist lodging.
“We’re not here to tell you there have not been violations,” Williams stated, but reiterated the owners have made efforts to come into compliance whenever they were alerted to noncompliance.
Greene acknowledged the site is a beautiful venue for weddings and events, but she was still concerned about complaints from the nearest neighbors. She recommended allowing the CUP to stand but with conditions.
John Van Woy got his chance at the microphone, and commented, “I really believe we’re being misrepresented here.” He claimed weddings and guest lodgings were happening on the property when he and his wife bought it, and they continued what was going on. They thought they were in compliance, and they continued to improve the property. Their other neighbors have never complained, and he has never been approached directly by the Collinses.
He admitted he did not apply for a CUP for a tourist lodging when the additional cottage was built, but the structure was intended to be for his mother-in-law. Upon completion, she told him she would not be able to live there, so he advertised for renters, not intending anything illicit.
Van Woy also claimed the primary complainants have put their property up for sale, and he sees these complaints as “a parting shot.”
“It concerns me you did not know what the rules were,” Harman again stated. “There were several big things you should have done your homework on and you didn’t.”
Greene suggested the CUP should remain with the following stipulations: no weddings, receptions or events for a year. Then apply for the wedding CUP.
Williams asserted the owners might have no problem with a probationary period while they continue to get all the violations cleared up. After all, they have already stopped renting the sixth unit and they are not conducting any events at the site. However, he said waiting a year was not acceptable.
Morris suggested a 90-day probationary period, but his motion got no second.
After a brief recess, Harman moved that Planning not revoke the CUP for the tourist lodging at 12 Lookout Circle, and that Planning establish a process for complaints “because we should never have gotten to this place. It irritates me as a commissioner I have to decide on this without a full history.”
Greene added to the motion that all City Code relating to the situation at 12 Lookout Circle is followed in full.
Vote to approve the motion not to revoke the CUP was unanimous, 6-0.
Regarding the possible view of city council on the suggested complaint process, Harman stated, “I would hope they would approve a process that would prevent commissioners going through what we did tonight. It was not fair to us to be in this position.”
Commissioner Tom Buford agreed a more complete paper trail would an asset.
In summing up the experience, Greene said, “It made me sad to have to go through this, but until we start enforcing our Codes, nobody is going to follow what we put out there.” Commissioners voted unanimously to develop a process for making complaints regarding Code violations accessible.
Commission elections for 2017
Chair – Melissa Greene; Vice-chair – Ann Sallee; Secretary – Susan Harman.
Next meeting will be Tuesday, Jan. 24, at 6 p.m. At the beginning of the meeting, there will be public hearings on two CUP applications for 12 Lookout Circle, one for an additional one-unit tourist lodging and one for a wedding establishment.