|
WHY? Explanation by Doug Tracey, lodging owner, committee member
Subject: Tourist Home Special Exception Hearing
On November 26th (now March 25) at 7:00 PM in the County Office Building the Board of Zoning Appeals will formally be
presented with a revised Tourist Home/Bed and Breakfast Special Exception proposal amending the 1997
Resolution 97-01. Recall this document is the work of a committee headed by Evelyn Kent. There are
clearly many items in this proposal that would be detrimental to those owning or planning to own tourist
homes. Further, it is my belief that the restrictions proposed will minimize further tourist home development
thereby affecting both our local tax base and tourist volume.
The intent of those of us who served on the committee and were "pro" tourist home was to try and eliminate
some of the ambiguities that previously existed when applying for a special exception and to insure health
and safety issues were consistently applied. Those who were opposed (and the count was 9 anti and 3 pro)
wanted to significantly reduce, if not eliminate tourist homes both existing and new. Even though it is not
mentioned in the attached document there are those on the committee who intend to ask that existing
tourist homes not be grandfathered under the terms in which their special exception was granted. This is
particularly true of the new proposal that requires annual inspections.
I have highlighted the areas of the attached proposal that differ from the existing code. I have also listed
below an overview of some of the proposed changes. Please pass this document on to any other tourist
home owner along with an invitation to attend the hearing. Recall the significant presence of the tourist
home owners last fall prevented the proposed moratorium from taking place. I might also suggest that you
invite any contractors, cleaners or others that you employ in the care of your Tourist Home. These folks can
testify to the value of the Tourist Home to the local economy beyond the obvious tax and tourist issues.
"Definitions" - this language was primarily lifted from existing code and represents no significant change. The
area of concern is the paragraph that denotes a Tourist Home requires both a Special Exception and an
annual renewable permit.
"Conditions" - The existing code contains both "Guidelines" and "Conditions" for securing a special
exception. The idea is to have some hard and fast things you must do and some others that would allow the
BZA to have flexibility. The proposal eliminates all Guidelines and change them to Conditions (i.e.
mandatory). The belief of those proposing this change is that the Guidelines provide too much leeway for the
BZA and can result in inconsistent decisions on the Boards part. They also claim that this is the primary
concern of may of the citizens who are concerned about Tourist Homes. Since the Board tends to treat
today's Guidelines as Conditions anyway there probably isn't much harm in this change.
Condition H - This change would restrict Tourist homes from being located on private roads. My argument
with this is that given the poor quality of many of the County maintained roads that private roads may indeed
be of higher quality. In my opinion this should be stricken and the Board should be given the latitude to
make this call on a case by case basis.
Condition I - Doubles the distance between both existing Tourist Homes and existing residences. This
change will have a dramatic affect on any future Tourist Home growth. The argument for this is that Tourist
Homes are growing at an "alarming rate" and remaining unchecked "every home in the County will become a
Tourist Home thereby eliminating the neighborhoods as we now know them". I have listed below some
statistics regarding Tourist Homes over the last 10 years. As you can see the current annual average
number of new Tourist Homes, over the last 5 years, since the current ordinance was passed is 5.6, in the 5
years prior to the new ordinance the average annual growth was 12.4 per year. I this proves that the current
ordinance is doing it's job to the extent the goal is to reduce growth.
Condition J - The significant change here is that it is proposed "No Tourist Home shall be permitted in a
"Private Recreational Development". My argument was that a Private Recreational Development may be
exactly where the County may want to encourage Tourist Home growth. If one meets the current zoning
requirements to construct a Private Recreational Development then one should be able to allow overnight
accommodations.
Condition O - This institutes an annual "permit" process for each Tourist Home. My primary objection to this
is that 1) It should not pertain to existing Tourist Homes and 2) The results of a failure to pass inspection is
far too severe. The idea that one would lose their Permit and Special Exception because of two failed
inspections of unspecified gravity is completely unfair. I proposed that this be treated similar to Health Dept.
inspections of restaurants whereby the inspector has the ability to close an establishment if gross violations
are found and not rectified but once fixed the business can reopen. I believe that if this language is left
unchanged a anti-tourist home Planning Director could effectively shut down any Tourist Home.
The last page that starts with "Conditions" was language that was proposed for handling the approval of
unbuilt Tourist Homes. What it was supposed to say is that if you propose new construction a Tourist Home
to the BZA and are granted a Special Exception then you must build what you said you would build vis-a-vis
your submitted plans. What is attached seems to broaden the control of the BZA regarding any change one
might make to the property once it has been approved for a Special Exception.
My conclusion after sitting on the Committee there really isn't much that is changing that adds value and
that the current code is sufficiently restraining growth. When considering the cost of likely litigation that will
occur should this be passed I think we as tax payers are better served leaving the existing code in place.
Note there was no electronic copy of the
proposed code so the attached copy
was keyed from the draft I
received as a result page numbers may not match that of the originals being provided to the Board. There is
also a Tourist Home Inspection form that was not available electronically. If you are interested in seeing this
form before the hearing please e-mail your fax number and I will send it.
Thanks,
Doug Tracey
| 
