Eureka Springs Times-Echo Tom Buford, a member of the Eureka Springs Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Adjustment, continued to abstain from voting on a tree cut request at the body’s latest meeting held Tuesday, Sept. 9.
Despite recent questions by members of the city council about the repeated actions and whether it warrants a removal, the group’s chair made it clear that he supports Buford’s decisions.
“… It’s kind of an assault on all commissioners that decide they’re going to stay their ground on an issue,” planning commission and BOZA chair Ferguson Stewart said at the end of the Sept. 9 meeting regarding the comments, initiated by council member Steve Holifield at an Aug. 25 meeting.
“I think that’s a great honorable thing that a commissioner wants to stay his ground,” Stewart continued. “I don’t believe, I personally do not believe that is a violation of conduct. If you watched the last [council] meeting, one of our commissioners here was basically talked about and I think that the councilman, who I respect very much, is wrong. I think it is not a violation. … You’re here because you have your own individual ideologies. We’re all volunteers here, and to suggest that someone is not doing it for some other reason than a cause, and I think we need to back each one of us up.
“ … I will back each of you up. There’s no problem there.”
Buford has been abstaining on tree cut votes for months, a practice that began shortly after the city council approved an appeal on a tree cut request that BOZA — and Buford — had originally voted to deny.
During a discussion about a tree removal appeal at the Aug. 25 council meeting, Holifield brought up the continual abstaining by Buford when it comes to tree-related votes.
He said he watched the Aug. 12 BOZA meeting and that it was a “perfect storm.”
“Two people weren’t there, one person recused himself, and then just four people were left …,” Holifield said. “…. But also I’ve noticed in several of the last meetings, the same person recuses himself on every tree cut permit. Can you tell me why a commissioner is refusing to vote on this issue?.”
“I do not know why that commissioner is continuously abstaining,” planning director Cassie Dishman responded at the Aug. 25 meeting. “You would have to speak to that commissioner yourself.”
Holifield asked city attorney Heather Owens if continuing to abstain for no reason was an ethics violation.
“Is that a violation of the Code of Ethics if a person just decides not to vote on certain issues or ordinances on the commission?” Holifield asked. “We have a commissioner that says he’s not going to vote on any permit on a tree cut. Is that a violation of the Code of Ethics? Can we remove that commissioner?”
Owens said the council does have the authority to remove any commissioner.
“We’ve been told we have to have due cause,” Holifield said. “Is this due cause?”
Owens said she would look into the city’s Code of Ethics.
“I’m not suggesting that tonight, but this is a consideration we have again, we have commissioners and they’re refusing to do something because they don’t agree with city code, then we have a problem,” Holifield said. “This was a perfect storm, and if this person had voted one way or another we might not even be discussing this tonight.”
“Is he just voting no, or is he abstaining?” council member Terry McClung responded.
“He’s abstaining,” Holifield replied.
“That’s a no,” Mc-Clung said. “I don’t like that. I’m sorry.”
Mayor Butch Berry agreed.
“Basically there’s a no vote, but he should vote,” the mayor said. “That’s my opinion.”
Owens said after some research at the table that the council could remove a commissioner “on recommendation from the mayor and majority of the council if you feel it’s in the best interest of the city.”
“That is the standard in your ordinance,” Owens told council members at the Aug. 25 meeting.
The issue was not brought up at the most recent council meeting held Sept. 8.
BOZA FOCUS ON TREES Tree removal requests again were the focus of the BOZA meeting held Sept. 9.
Commissioners approved the removal of one tree at 314 Spring St. by a 4-0-1 vote with Buford abstaining.
The tree was previously hit by another tree and is starting to uproot and leaning over the structure on the property, commissioners were told.
Another tree request, for a single removal at 21 White St., was tabled because of a mixup in the application paperwork and will be addressed at the next BOZA meeting scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 14.
During BOZA public comments, two residents spoke about their displeasure with a recent approval to cut a large maple tree at 20 Armstrong, saying the large tree is popular in the city and many are upset that it was approved for removal.
Commissioners were requested to reassess the situation, but did not revisit the issue during the Sept. 9 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION The planning commission unanimously approved the transfer of two Conditional Use Permits for a bed and breakfast located at 60 Hillside.
The property, Arsenic and Old Lace Bed and Breakfast Inn, was recently purchased by Victoria Dansby, who will live at and manage the business.
The commission approved a CUP to maintain the bed and breakfast status. A second CUP was approved for Dansby to have home occupancy massage therapy offered for guests who stay at the bed and breakfast.
Dansby is a licensed massage therapist, she told commissioners.
Before the vote, commissioners clarified that massage therapy would only be offered to guests who are staying at the property and not the general public.
SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES
Commissioner Ann Tandy-Sallee requested an agenda item at an upcoming meeting to be a discussion regarding regulations on sexually oriented businesses in residential areas.
The topic was one commissioner Susan Harman wanted addressed too, she said, adding she’s trying to figure out if anything in city code covers the issue.
“So in some cities, they have determined what they think are sexually oriented businesses and where they can be and where they can’t be,” Harman said. “The majority of the concern I had was what happens if my business sells? It’s for sale. Could anybody turn it into whatever they want in a residential neighborhood? Right now, I can’t find anything in the code. …” Scott Price, the newest member of commission, said the title of the topic was offensive.
“… I think the title is a little loaded, because sexual-oriented business tends to discriminate against minorities, as in homosexuals, which I am,” Price said.
“That’s what I’ve looked up, and that’s how they’re described in ordinance,” Harman responded.
“Well, I find it offensive,” Price replied.
That wasn’t her intent, Harman said.
“I’m just saying because we, you know, it’s estimated that 30 percent of the population of Eureka Spring are in a sexual orientation of you know homosexuality, lesbians, trans,” Price said, later adding that the phrase is “a trigger for us.”
“I think the only reason why I used [the title] is because that’s what it’s called in a couple of other towns,” Harman said. “That’s what they’ve named that ordinance, so, you know, I wouldn’t … I mean, I can understand why maybe you feel that it’s offensive, but just know that that was not the intent. The intent is to find out if there’s anything in our books to prevent something coming into a neighborhood, a residential area, that would be offensive. …”
