Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rental Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose proposed bed-and-breakfast ordinance change; commission forwards recommendation on item G9
Summary
Multiple nearby residents opposed a proposed bed-and-breakfast (B&B) ordinance variant they said would allow event activity, large gatherings and non-owner operators; the commission voted to forward a positive recommendation on item G9 despite opposition.
Residents near a proposed bed-and-breakfast site urged the Opelika Planning Commission to reject an ordinance variant they said would allow event activity, commercial parties and non-owner operators; the commission nevertheless voted to forward a positive recommendation to City Council on the agenda item labeled G9.
Speakers from the neighborhood described concerns about noise, late-night events, porta-potties and increased traffic. Amy Hess, who lives at 601 North Tenth Street, said she had signed a petition on the understanding the use would resemble a small owner-occupied bed and breakfast and not a larger commercial event venue. Hess said she had been told the property would be similar to the Brownfield House and that she would not have signed if she had understood the current variant allowed larger events.
Philip Rauton, a resident who said he represents many nearby neighbors, urged commissioners to give a negative recommendation and described the proposal as “a glorified Airbnb plus an event center ordinance.” He urged two specific changes if the commission were to approve anything: require owner occupancy and prohibit events. He objected to language he said would permit up to 10 outdoor events a year with up to 200 guests and extended noise allowances, and he said neighbors viewed the proposal as effectively converting residential properties to event centers.
Jason Lance and George Purvis also spoke against the item, with Lance detailing concerns that the current draft did not match earlier model language presented at community meetings and describing the proposal as effectively an event center in residential zoning. Purvis asked why the commission continued to consider the ordinance if neighborhood opposition remained.
After the public hearing closed, commissioners took a motion on item G9. A motion for a positive recommendation to City Council was made and seconded, and the transcript records the motion as carried with "Aye." The record does not show the ordinance text that the commission forwarded, whether any conditions (such as owner occupancy or event limits) were added, or whether the item will return for revision before Council review.
