A recent denial of a Conditional Use Permit by the Eureka Springs Planning Commission is being appealed the city council.
Jonas and Jamie Funston, owners of a property at 8 Washington, failed to get the required four affirmative votes at the planning commission’s Feb. 25 meeting on a request to clarify the number of “units” they are utilizing.
Three commissioners — Michael Welch, David Buttecali and Ferguson Stewart — voted in the Funstons’ favor. The request failed to gain approval, however, when commissioners Tom Buford and Ann Tandy-Sallee voted against the request. Commissioner Susan Harman abstained, saying she lived near the property and was within the boundary of neighbors notified of the request.
The appeal is now on the agenda for the next city council meting, set for Monday, March 10.
A recent change in city ordinance clarifies the definition of a unit as a bedroom for two people, meaning the Funstons’ property has more units than is allowed by their current permit.
“When we went to purchase a property, we had applied for the transfer … to carry over, at which time that was actually valid for the per units, not per bedroom, and which was granted,” Jonas Funston said to commissioners via Zoom during a public hearing on the matter. “So, that’s how we’ve been running it up until just a few months ago when we received notice that I guess the guidelines had changed, that it was now a per-bedroom basis, which kind of changed everything.
“So, we had to go in and obviously do modifications to ensure that we’re in compliance on the website and on the platforms and that sort of thing. So it’s been taken down to currently two bedrooms total, so we’re requesting a third bedroom to be added.”
Jonas Funston said limiting his property based on new regulations is “hurting our business.”
“Because that chops quite a bit of rooms off that property,” he said. “But, we obviously wanted to be in compliance when we met with you guys.”
Jonas Funston also brought up the idea of his property being transferred to commercial zoning because of the number of units he rents out, along with the fact that there are numerous businesses in the area.
“Not saying it would be approved, but that has been done in the past,” Stewart said. “We’ve looked at things like that.”
After the CUP request failed to get a fourth affirmative vote, Stewart brought up the commercial zoning idea again.
“You know, your idea of a commercial zone is logical,” Stewart said. “I can’t say what will happen but it is logical and it makes sense and given … all the different activities there, there are currently commercial properties, this is a possibility.”
TREE REMOVAL OK’D
In other action by the Board of Zoning Adjustment, Lynn Wright, owner of 21 Fairmont, was approved to remove five trees for new construction.
“The trees are going to be pretty much right in the area of their building site,” said Paul Sutherland, city building inspector and code enforcement officer. “Some of these trees aren’t really good trees anyway, but it basically is right there close to where the house is going to go.”
The request was approved 5-0-1 with Buford abstaining with no explanation.
