| OCR Text |
Show 2 - REPORTING TIMES - JANUARY 15, 1997 MORE B&B SPLIT VOTE, from p.1 The following comments were made by Town Council members and some residents at the Jan Town Council where the prohibition of more B&B ’3 in the Town was defeated. Jayne Smythe: My personal issues are different from my public issues. I feel comfortable with Janie Tuft’s B&B application that is now on the table with the Planning Commission. I feel there is a need in the community for an additional B&B situation that is small and subdued and about 5 rooms. There are arguments like Jack was saying at the last meeting that if we allow B&B’s in Castle Valley there will be a lobby group and advertising and Castle Valley will turn into a tourist destination. Small 2 and 3 bedroom B&B’s are not the kind that generate enough funds to go out and advertise. This is a seasonal area and watching Tizzy’s operate, they had a hard time getting people. I have a hard time believing that by banning B&B’s we’re going to keep CV from the tourists. And it’s not just tourists. Thanksgiving we had family coming down and we didn’t privately owned. I feel as a resident there is a need for lodging year round with a more modest rate and modest have any place to put them. The CV Inn was either too accomodations for a person with a family. We had ll or 12 people coming down and no place to put them. Therefore we’re not dealing just with tourists. B&B’s I feel we don’ t have the infra—structure in place in the zoning ordinance to date that would be able to manage the B&B situation if it continued to be an open ended situation. We don’t have the where—with—all while formulating contracts and reviewing the ordinances to go further right now. The public side of it is I still feel the same about the infra—structure. There is a definite statement from residents in this community saying “no more B&B’s." For me that makes it pretty much out and dried. I suport what we have already operating. I’m very concerned about moving into bigger arenas Without firming up the review process and how would we deal with saturation in particular neighborhoods. I’m very willing to look at bringing it (B&B’s) back to the table and bringing it back in as a conditional use, but we’re a little unsure about some of our zoning ordinance and procedural process. I’m favorable to passing this change and maybe revisiting it later. Charlie Kulander. I can’t bring myself to vote for this. I have a lot of reservations about the all or nothing aspect of it. We’ re talking about banning something you’ ve been able to do for years. And the years you’ve been able to do it, we’ ve had one application for two bedrooms, so this isn’t a big problem. This is based on a sentiment, on a fear that in the future we’ll have a lot of B&B’s coming into Castle Valley. So I have a hard time getting rid of B&B’s just because of the way people feel about B&B’s here in the valley, because we are talking about prohibiting a manner of expensive or full, probably too expensive, probably both. can also be seen as a resource. We really wanted to put people in Tizzy’s, but it would compromise being on the Town Council. And as a result, nobody came down. That kind of struck home to me that maybe there is room for a couple of B&B’s in the valley. 80, taking all that into consideration, plus the fact that we can ban B&B’s and people are still going to go out and rent their rooms. I wonder if by banning B&B’s we’re not just getting that much nearer to creating a dysfunctional community. We’re talking lawsuits, we’re talking a lot of friction. All taken together, I’m just not ready to say that nobody can have a B&B in CV any more. It seems like it can’t be that draconian-where is the middle ground. It seems like there is so much sentiment on both sides of the fence that we should find a middle ground. I think that if we torque down on the number of rooms and maybe some additional safeguards, I think that we can allow people who want to start B&B’s to do so and I don’t think people are going to rush to our door to get business licenses for B&B’s. I would be very much in favor of a different path in dealing with this. Dave Wagstaff: I largely concur with Charlie in his arguments favoring the continuation of B&B’s in the valley. In good conscious I can’t strike out someone’s ability to eke out an existence around here. Furthermore many folks have spent much time working on a list of criteria that most logically defines and controls B&B operations and we’ ve had a recent example of that in the Tuft’s application and the many and sundry conditions that have been attached to that \ do it and have been able to do it in the past and may wake up tomorrow and find that they can no longer do it and it could operation to protect our rural character here. And my only ‘ very well be the difference between someone staying or is, but make one or two changes to the ordinance. That livelihood for some people in this valley that may choose to leaving. I feel a real heavy responsibility. The last two surveys were powered about B&B issues. suggestion for dealing with this, is to keep the ordinance as would be to reduce the number of rooms from 4 rooms to 2 rooms and from 8 guests to 5 guests. And I think that would effectively control the potential for the creep in the size and % ‘ but numbers don’t speak for themselves, they’re interpreted. And that first {B&B} survey was a poor turnout but it was scope that we have experienced in the one B&B example that t still a statistically significant turnout. There were numbers limit ones ability to construct and create a business and then sell it at business prices to the next people who want to maximize on their investment. And I really believe that with our existing ordinance and the changes I suggest, and with I’ ve heard comments that the numbers speak for themselves, there and they were in favor of B&B’s. I’ ve heard arguments that it was only one section of the community that voted. On the second survey the numbers were very much against B&B’s. B&B’s were not defined. And I would hazard a guess that a majority of the people who did those surveys didn’t know what the limits we have on B&B's are. We didn’t write in the size or scope. We also had a question in there “would you want a B&B next door to you.” I can’t accept numbers on a question like that because you can put anything-would you like neighbors next to you and most people would probably say no. So I’m really mixed up about these numbers. I know there’s really sentiment against B&B’s, but I go to a lot of B&B’s and there are no two or three room B&B’s, they just don’t exist. The smallest I’ ve been in is we’ ve got. And that means that we can through ordinance the process of attaching conditions, that we can maintain the valley we all want and still allow folks that option. Valli Smouse: I support the ordinance change to get rid of B&B’s. Jayne said a lot of whatI thought of particularly the lack of enforcement in what we have. I feel that getting rid of B&B’s is getting rid of one of those places that is very, very hard to enforce, very, very hard to keep track of. We can put 75 conditions on them and someone is still going to have to go over there and check it out. That was one of the problems in the past, that never happened. And with the ——More B&B Split Vote, p. 4 i |
