At its regular evening meeting of Tuesday, July 16, the Warren County Board of Supervisors faced just one public hearing. That was a request for the termination of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) issued to Roman sem*nov for Short-term Rentals at 259 Cashmere Court Road in the Skyland Estates Subdivision in the Happy Creek District. The termination request was forwarded by Zoning Administrator Chase Lenz based on neighboring property owner complaints about illegal tenant parking in what appears to be a hilly, rural-based subdivision.
The agenda packet staff summary explained the evolution of the situation: “Conditional use permit 2023-04-02 for a short-term tourist rental at 259 Cashmere Court was approved and issued by the Board of Supervisors on July 18, 2023. Since that date, Planning staff has received a total of 8 separate incident reports from the Warren County Sheriff’s Office for the subject property, 5 of which document separate violations of Warren County Code §180-56.4C, which restricts the parking of vehicles in or along rights-of-way for short-term tourist rentals. The incident reports were requested by Planning staff on Monday, February 26, 2024, upon receipt of a complaint for which the complainant indicated the Sheriff’s Office was contacted.
As remotely connected Supervisor John Stanmeyer lurks over his shoulder, Zoning Administrator Chase Lenz presents staff summary explaining reasons for his recommendation to revoke the sem*nov Short-term Rental, a recommendation the county planning commission unanimously disagreed with.
“Planning staff immediately contacted the applicant and encouraged them to take measures to enforce the parking restrictions to resolve this issue. Planning staff received the final incident report dated April 27, 2024, confirming a fifth violation of Code §180-56.4C. Upon receipt of the final incident report, Planning staff initiated conditional use termination procedures.”
However, an exploration of the Conditions attached to the permitting showed that parking parameters were not specifically included. And in a perhaps surprising development, following its public hearing on the matter the county planning commission forwarded the permit revocation request with a unanimous vote NOT to recommend revocation of the sem*nov permitting.
Once the public hearing was opened by Chairman Cheryl Cullers it became apparent that there was a distinct conflicting perspective on the parking violation notification and reaction by the Short-term Rental owners, punctuated by apparent personal hostilities between the complaining residential neighbors and the out-of-town, D.C.-based Short-term Rental owners.
First permit holder response
First up was Short-term Rental co-owner Scott Frost (36:47 linked video mark). He opened by questioning the timeline presented in the staff summary by Zoning Administrator Lenz, saying rather than September of last year, he and sem*nov were not notified by the planning department of the parking infractions until February 26 of this year, at which point there had been “up to eight separate incidents”. He added that prior to that February notification they had received no notice from, not only the planning department, but also neither the Sheriffs Office who responded to the complaints, nor the neighbors who made the complaints.
Frost then asserted that once notified, he and his co-owner had taken “pro-active steps” to keep tenants from parking at the bottom of what he termed their “steep driveway, intruding onto the public right-of-way. He said that neighbors with similar steepness issues also tended to park in a similar manner to how their rental tenants were, to deal with the steepness issue. He also observed that a previously unmaintained “flat area” of their property had been “refinished” by Skyland Estates, so that renters could access that area to park, avoiding the steep driveway altogether.
“All of the Sherriff’s reports that were included in the documents you have were minor in nature. Revoking a Conditional Use Permit for minor violations that we did not know about seems to set a pretty bad precedent for operations,” Frost said in summary of his and sem*nov’s perspective. Following a series of questions from the supervisors, it was the other side’s turn.
Co-owner of the Short-term Rental property, Scott Frost, explains the timeframe of notice of the parking violations being conveyed to his and partner Roman sem*nov’s attention by the county planning department. Below, the war of words is on after neighbor contradicted what Frost said about the timeframe of being notified about tenant parking violations, as Frost and sem*nov listen from the front row.
Neighbor’s counterpoint
On the opposing side of the issue, second public hearing speaker Jean-Marc Curel illustrated the wide gap in perspectives. Directly contradicting the previous speaker, he claimed Frost and sem*nov had known about the problem “for a year” dating back to the original sheriff’s office filings on the complaints.
“I tried calling the manager for the property, hung up all the time,” Curel claimed, adding that all those neighbors who had issued parking complaints had “reached out to these people for the past year. Enough is enough. They have had such a negative impact on our community, it’s ridiculous.”
As his time expired, Curel added, “You folks here have all the evidence, a mountain of evidence, against these people. They’re from D.C. They are not part of our community. They do not care about us. That’s all I have to say, thank you.”
Gary Smullen, president of the Skyland Community Corporation, noted sem*nov and Frosts’ D.C. residency then stated that when they initially came seeking support for their purchase of the property his understanding was that it would be as a permanent residency, which in retrospect he found somewhat misleading. Questioned during his remarks, Frost said he was a part-time resident of the property while still based out of D.C., as is his co-owner.
Smullen noted the steepness of the involved sem*nov/Frost driveway, observing that he had trouble negotiating it with a 4-wheel drive vehicle. “So, people are naturally not going to fight that,” he said.
Two perspectives on Agenda Packet graphic illustrating illegal parking on narrow Kashmir Court right of way.
“The problem with this property is, Kashmir Court is only about 10-feet wide. It’s actually too narrow to make a turnaround at the end,” Smullen observed. Noting that “nobody” residents or short-term visitors, should be parking in the Kashmir Court right of way, in concluding, Smullen added, “I would just say that there needs to be … consequences at some point when there are a number of violations.”
Second Permit holder response
Final speaker was co-owner Roman Semonov (50:15 mark linked county video). He opened in a noticeable accent observing, “Our neighbor, Mr. Curel, he accused us of lying and violating some rules and regulations, telling that I broke promises to him.” Gesturing toward the seated Curel, sem*nov added, “I am meeting (him) for the second time in my entire life at this meeting.” He then pointed out that Curel had been a prominent opponent of the original issuance of the permitting for the short-term Rental for their property.
“I am not a developer from the city, as Mr. Curel says. I am a long-time public servant; I hold security clearance. My character and my trustworthy was never (before) under question, so, it’s adding additional nerves to me,” sem*nov told the board of his demeanor at the podium. He then reiterated his co-owners point about the traffic violations all being minor.
Roman sem*nov, in whose name the agenda summary indicated the Short-term Rental permitting is in, presents his side of the argument with neighbors whom he said have opposed his and partner Scott Frost’s Short-term Rental permitting from the start.
“They were all resolved by the police immediately. No one contacted, neither myself nor my husband nor our property manager until, I think it was in February. Mr. Lenz called me and said we already had four traffic violations. After that we started looking into them. We spent a lot of time and effort and capital to fix the underlying issue. And as a result of that you can see there was no other violations registered,” sem*nov said once their efforts in fixing the alternate access point, likely with the referenced help of the Skyland Community Corporation, was accomplished.
He added that it was the same small group of neighbors, we believe he said “three”, who had opposed their Short-term Rental permitting from the start, who were filing the complaints and urging their permitting revocation.
Middle Ground
With this wide discrepancy in perspectives and the multiple variables at play in the initial permitting, as well as the planning department response to neighbor complaints and resultant traffic citations, the board moved toward a middle ground at this point.
With some advice from County Attorney Jason Ham, North River Supervisor Richard Jamieson eventually made the motion to table the matter for further consideration and review of county departmental processes in regard to this permitting and the complaints leading to the staff suggestion the sem*nov CUP be revoked. After observing that he believed established residential neighbors should have “paramount consideration” in dealing with Short-term Tourist Rental issues, Jamieson added, “But I am not satisfied that this has gone according to plan because there is no plan. There is no clearly marked pathway to get to this point. So, it feels kind of shot from the hip,” Jamieson observed of a process that resulted in disparate recommendations from staff and from the planning commission regarding whether or not to rescind the permitting at this point.
After stating he was “sympathetic to the neighbors” Jamieson added, “The permit holders have made some very reasonable points in my opinion. And they’ve said they can address these problems. So, my inclination is to make a motion to table it until there’s an ability for us to work out what the proper procedures are that everybody’s got to go through.”
The supervisors discuss clarifying permit revocation processes and terms, as current targets of a staff-recommended revocation, Roman sem*nov and Scott Frost, listen in front row of public seating. As noted previously, the planning commission voted unanimously NOT to recommend permit revocation following its public hearing on the matter.
“I would second that,” Fork District Supervisor Vicky Cook said as Jamieson finished. There was additional discussion and queries of the county attorney but eventually Jamieson made the motion to table, seconded by Cook. And on a roll-call vote that motion passed by a 4-1 vote, with Happy Creek Supervisor and Vice-Chairman “Jay” Butler casting the lone dissenting vote.
Other Business
Several agenda items were added at the meeting’s outset. They included approval of a Resolution regarding Fire & Rescue/Emergency Services suggested implementation of conditions regarding the existing severe drought conditions. On a motion by Butler, second by Cook, it was approved unanimously after a background presentation by a Fire & Rescue departmental representative.
The board also announced another appointment to fill a vacancy on the County-overseen FR-WC Economic Development Authority. That appointment is Robert Cullers. Noting the last name, Board Chairman Cheryl Cullers noted that while she is not directly related to the candidate, he is a “distant relative” of her husband. So, as a precaution to any complaints she abstained from the vote. On a motion by Jamieson, second by Cook, Robert Cullers was appointed to the EDA for a term expiring February 28, 2025, by a 4-0 vote with the chair’s abstention.
A six-item Consent Agenda was also passed unanimously as amended, with two items removed at the request of Fork District Supervisor Vicky Cook. Those items were: Item J-2. Social Media Archiving Subscription services (ArchiveSocial); and Item J-3. FOIA Management Software (NextRequest) through CivicPlus – both presented by Deputy County Administrator Jane Meadows. Those two pulled items were tabled for additional information after Supervisor Cook complained that the board did not receive enough information on those topics to approve as part of the Consent Agenda.
Meadows explained that as is normal procedure, involved staff had done the background research and leg work to make an informed recommendation to the board. And she added that a summary of that information assembled by staff had been previously presented to the board. Chairman Cullers called Cook out for belaboring Meadows publicly over what she perceived as business-as-usual procedures, pointing out that an email summary of the research and recommendation had been received by the board members. A testy “my free speech” exchange between the chair and Cook (launched at 49:42 video mark) punctuated the end of the discussion.
Watch the County video for all the business and discussion of the evening.
Print PDF 📄
