At Monday evening’s meeting, Eureka Springs City Council took on five proposed ordinances based on recommendations from the Planning Commission, some with mixed results.
Ord. 2269 had sailed through its first two readings. Its purpose was to clarify a section in Code that, as interpreted by some, requires a public hearing for every change to Code. Planning intended to clarify that public hearings would be required only for changes to specific plans as listed in that section of Code.
When it came up for the third and final reading, alderman Bob Thomas asked City Attorney Tim Weaver to respond to a claim that this ordinance was contrary to state law. Weaver replied, “In my opinion, it is not in conflict. Otherwise I would not have prepared it for you.”
Alderman Terry McClung disagreed that the ordinance was necessary, and ensuing discussion about the intent for the ordinance was not satisfactory to anyone. A motion was made to put the ordinance on its third reading, but McClung moved to defer a vote until they were all on the same page. Vote was unanimous to approve his motion.
Ord. 2270 attempted to modify the 200-ft. rule, limit tourist lodgings to the number of units originally permitted, and ensure a Bed & Breakfast owner or manager was on duty at all times.
This one met with objections from alderman Kristi Kendrick, who said the ordinance did not focus on one topic as it should but on three topics – it appeared to add tour homes as a conditional use in a residential zone, and she objected to the word “occupy” in its context. She said the document was not well drafted.
Planning Chair Ann Sallee told council, “Tell us what you want and we’ll put it in, but don’t keep sending it back.”
Alderman Mickey Schneider insisted there needed to be a workshop where members of the public can have their say. Sallee again repeated how many workshops Planning held with no one from the public in attendance as they worked on these changes. Schneider continued with how much misunderstanding was out there.
“I’ve never seen our lodging community battling it out like now,” Schneider commented.
Kendrick began to amend the ordinance but Weaver cautioned her, based on a court case he had on this subject, which led to a reading of the definition of a Bed & Breakfast.
At that point, McClung asked rhetorically if City Code doesn’t already cover the points of the ordinance.
Schneider had moved to replace “occupy” with “reside at” in the paragraph that stipulates “the owner or a resident manager shall occupy the premises.” Her motion failed 2-3, McClung, Kendrick and Thomas voting No.
Kendrick then moved to delete everything after Paragraph 1, and vote on her motion was unanimous. City Clerk/Treasurer Ann Armstrong read the ordinance for the first time as amended, and the vote to approve it was 1-5, Kendrick being the only positive vote, so the ordinance failed.
Ord. 2271 was up for its third reading. This ordinance added permitted uses to zones C-1, C-2 and C-3 and a Conditional Use to C-3. It passed unanimously.
Ord. 2272 focused on procedures required for a Planned Use Development, and it was approved on its first reading.
An ordinance with no number was to add “Tour Home/House Museum” as a Conditional Use in the R-2 and R-3 zones, requiring a B&B owner or manager to be on duty all the time and limit tourist lodgings to the originally permitted number.
When it got its turn, Kendrick objected right away and for the same reasons as for 2270.
Alderman Melissa Greene moved to assign the ordinance a number and put it on its first reading. There was no second, so it failed.
Greene, with dismayed resignation about the outcome of some of the ordinances, commented, “Maybe we should have a workshop about all this,” to which McClung replied, “And maybe we should leave a dead horse alone.”