A bed and breakfast location will have to appeal to the Eureka Springs City Council if it wishes to maintain its Conditional Use Permit.
At its regular meeting held Tuesday, Oct. 8, the Eureka Springs Planning Commission voted to revoke the CUP of a bed and breakfast located at 8 Washington St. after the owners have failed to follow guidelines necessary to operate, commissioners said.
In a unanimous vote during the show-cause hearing, commissioners denied continuing the permit for the two-unit location.
Owners of the property, who live in Arizona, were scheduled to join the meeting by Zoom, but never logged in, commissioners noted.
“On AirBnB it is listed as a private residence, but it does not say anything about breakfast,” commissioner Ann Tandy-Sallee said. “It’s my understanding they don’t have a manager [who lives on site] and they’ve now converted part of the property to a long-term rental.
“I’m not sure we can help them.”
B&B regulations mandate that an owner or designated manager must live on the property and provide a breakfast daily, commissioners have maintained during years of discussions about the issue.
“The original CUP was for a two-bedroom, or two unit, bed and breakfast and the original owners lived on property,” commission chair Susan Harman said. “There are three, basically three apartments [at the property], but currently they have a license for a two-unit bed and breakfast.”
New owners purchased the property last year and the CUP was discussed at the Dec. 12, 2023 planning commission meeting, commissioners recalled.
“I went back and I reviewed the tape from the Dec. 12, 2023 meeting,” Tandy-Sallee said. “Although [the owners] did not attend, their realtor attended and was asked if they were going to live there. They indicated they would live there or they would have a manager live there. That has not happened and that is not a bed and breakfast and has become a tourist lodging.”
Commissioner Tom Buford said the property owner told Kyle Palmer, the city’s former planning commission director, that he had a manager living across the street.
“But Kyle told him the manager had to live on site,” Buford said. “So, she does not qualify as an onsite operator needed to meet the requirements. It looks to me like [the owner] has done nothing to meet the requirements.”
While the planning commission has done its part to revoke the CUP, an appeal can be made to the city council as long as it’s filed within 15 days of the planning commission decision.
Commissioner Michael Welch then made a motion for the commission to issue a cease and desist to stop operations at the property, but remaining commissioners felt the entire appeals process had to take place and that any such action would likely needed to be handled by the city council.
B&B ORDINANCE
A revised ordinance on bed and breakfasts, a topic that has had many workshops and discussions over the years, was presented to the planning commission at the Oct. 8 meeting.
Commissioners have been researching current, active B&Bs and a moratorium for adding any new properties.
While commissioners were to vote on presenting the revised ordinance to the city council, it was discovered that there was no wording that specifically mentions that breakfast has to be served in such a business.
“I know it says bed and breakfast, but there’s nothing in there that says you have to advertise as a bed and breakfast,” Tandy-Sallee said, “That you have to state on your website as a bed and breakfast.”
Wording should also be added that states that all advertising, even in social media, should state that the business is a bed and breakfast, commissioners said.
In the end it was opted to rework the document and perhaps have a special meeting to get it approved in hopes of presenting it to the city council in a timely manner.
The commission also approved a motion to present an “area development plan which will allow future growth in Eureka Springs.”
VARIANCE APPLICATION In a hearing by the Board of Zoning Adjustment before the planning commission, residents spoke out about a variance application request for new property planned at 19 or 21 Fairmount Street.
Both street numbers were used and discussed because the application submitted was unclear exactly which address was accurate.
One individual who spoke during public comments in the hearing said she thought she owned 19 Fairmount Street.
“There are not two properties,” said Cassie Dishman, new director of the planning commission. “When I came in last week, there was a certain amount of communication that said 19 and a certain amount that said 21, all referring to the same property. I was unsure which is the correct number or who to ask.”
Building contractor Travis Holloway represented the owners of the new construction at the meeting.
The plan was first submitted to the historic district commission for approval but a 2-2 vote delayed the project’s approval as some commissioners were concerned that the construction needed to go before the planning commission, something that’s not typically required.
“They didn’t have a real good reason to deny the house other than they just didn’t like it,” Holloway told BOZA when asked why he was denied by the HDC.
In the end, commissioners decided to arrange a site visit at the property with Holloway to make sure they had all pending questions answered.
BOZA also approved a tree removal request from the back of the property at 77, 79 and 81 Spring St.
The tree was two feet from the back of the building, commissioners were told.
