Opelika council declines zoning amendment aimed at restricting bed‑and‑breakfast uses in residential zones

Opelika City Council considered an ordinance to amend sections of the zoning ordinance related to temporary uses and bed‑and‑breakfast operations but the proposed amendment failed after debate and a roll call vote.

The ordinance (second reading) was accompanied by comments from the planning commission’s chair, which staff reported as a positive recommendation to the council; planning commission chair Lucinda Cannon was cited in the meeting record as having spoken in support at the planning commission hearing. The item drew extended discussion on whether the proposed language would affect only one residential property — the Renfro House — or would be appropriately city‑wide.

A council member who identified concerns during deliberations said the amendment "literally only affects 1 property" and opposed singling out a single potential business. That council member also read into the record a written statement from Allison Kovac, one of the Renfro House proponents, describing the owners’ intended uses: short‑term overnight stays in five suites, limited indoor gatherings and occasional intentionally managed outdoor events, and a stated emphasis on preservation and neighborhood communication. In that written material, Allison Kovac described projected revenue splits and said, "We are committed to the following, partnering exclusively with local businesses ... preserving the historic integrity ... creating revenue for the city through increased lodging sales and land tax."

Other council members and the planning commission representative debated whether the amendment was a fair, general clarification of temporary uses or effectively a backdoor method to bar bed‑and‑breakfasts from residential neighborhoods. One council member urged the planning commission to bring forward a separate text amendment allowing bed‑and‑breakfasts under a conditional‑use permit and criticized the planning commission for deferring that broader amendment.

When the council called the roll on the ordinance amendment, several members voted "nay" and one member recorded an abstention; the clerk announced "Motion does not hear to approve," indicating the ordinance amendment failed to pass on second reading. The meeting record specifically notes a recorded dissenting vote by "Mister Ralph" and an abstention by "Smith." The planning commission’s earlier positive recommendation was noted in the record but did not carry the ordinance to adoption.

No new zoning language took effect at the meeting; interested parties were encouraged in the discussion to pursue broader text amendments through the planning commission and back to council for full consideration.