The Brentwood Board of Aldermen Monday evening approved the site plan for 2533 – 2539 Brentwood Boulevard — a block of four businesses — a new owner is planning improvements. The businesses are at the corner of Madge Avenue.
The owner, Robert Hagen, built a stockade fence along the parking lot and the vacant lot to the west, but stopped the fence at the back of the building, where dumpsters are stored. City code states a fence should them from view when commercially zoned property abuts residential, but the vacant lot is zoned planned development, so a fence isn’t required.
Resident, Louise Charboneau spoke to the board, representing a neighbor on Madge who said she has a view of the dumpsters and wants to fence to continue, to block the view, even though she isn’t next to them.
Alderman David Plufka said he agreed with Charboneau, that the fence should go the entire way — he was the only official not to vote to OK the site plan.
Hagen said he has removed stumps and bushes, and the back of the building will look good. He said a fence isn’t necessary — that it’s an additional expense he doesn’t need to take on. He said to run the fence the rest of the way would cost him $4,000. Alderman Maureen Saunders suggested Hagen build the fence even though he’s not required to, but he wasn’t interested.
Andy Leahy questioned if this condition can be grandfathered to a new owner, and City Attorney Kevin O’Keefe said it can be grandfathered with a change of ownership; that only a change of use, or zoning, can force compliance to a code.
Leahy tried twice to make a motion to give the owner approximately nine additional months to construct the fence so he wouldn’t have the cost immediately, but Thornton wouldn’t allow the motions, because each time, Leahy referred to the property as being not to code, which Thornton said it is.
The business in the block are the Pasta Pronto, Clock Masters, a vacancy, and according to Thornton, his wife’s State Farm insurance agency. He said the lot they bought at the corner of Brentwood and White, where they had originally planned to build her office, was never approved to build on by the state.
God bless America and BwOOd tOO. Over a fence .. really.?.
Instead of a fence, have him build a wall. Not a little wall but a really really really big wall. Not 50 feet but 48 feet and hey, make Mexico pay for it!! Seriously, there are other options for natural barriers to unsightly things. Hedges, shrubs, trees, and bushes are a good idea. And maybe just maybe we could get a fountain over there too!
I love your thinking. Natural growth is a great idea. If i am not mistaken, it comes down to who pays for it. I would not like to look down my street and see a dumpster. Promise i am not picky….that ship sailed years ago. But the business developer has made a clear case for why erecting a fence should not be his cost to bear. I still think the businesses should be given a tax moratorium for B’wd taxes allowing the fence to be built without penalizing the owner Right now, i see that crazy compliance adherence to meet the code as diminishing the home owners property values. I would like to hear from the City why they should not support the residents and new businesses, using coffers of General Funds revenue, using tax waivers to the business (most welcome) and satisfy all the residents affected by this mess.
There are “slats” available in neutral colors (even green) that slide into the chain link fence thats already there. Ive used them on two occasions for exactly this application. Reasonably priced and can be installed in a matter of hours. You’re welcome.
Judging by the way the article is written, it really sounds like the property owner is in compliance with zoning requirements. It seems then there are possibly three solutions: (1) change the zoning language; (2) change the zoning of the adjacent property; (3) sweeten the pot to entice the property owner to extend the fence. You can’t force a property owner to build a fence that he doesn’t want to build when the law is on his side.
@Lincoln Douglas–(love the screen name). There have been too many historically dismissive P&Z ordinances waivers, and against the residents. You cite the codes correctly, but waivers for those same codes that protect residents property values were issued.
CHRIS—-I HOPE YOU ARE LISTENING.
P&Z efficacy in representing the balance of commercial zones, abutting residential zones, needs to be agreeable to both business and residents. Historically, it has not. We do not want to lose the business interest of the eatery. Nor do we want residences acquired with life savings and work to be devalued as RE. One solution would be a tax bye for “X” amount of time so (in this case) building the fence would not harm the investor and make the residents happy.
If Chris is going to court industry as aggressively as he has, with no long-term interest in staying in Brentwood, and with a stronghold on RE investments, should show respect for the neighborhood residents who will remain in B’wd. Historically P&Z waivers for deals already promised have been messy. I understand there are new people in training to replace the mayoral lockstep P&Z. This can be resolved without a backlash. Residents just want respect and peace between residential and commercial growth. Chris is NOT doing that. Give a tax bye to the commercial interest, with an extension as proposed by Alderman Leahey–and identified by Alderman Saunders as “good neighbor policy.” We are a residential community with commercial investors. Do you really think Chris will be living in Brentwood 5-7 years from now? Bet my kidney he won’t. B’wd is a stepping stone for Chris and an alderman, to enhance their resumes. NOT good enough. Thank you.
Maureen – If I understanding correctly, you think this was a horrible decision cooked up by the mayor, correct? Then why did the DISCIPLINE AND ETHICS of Aldermen Manestar, Saunders, Leahy and Krammer all vote yes on this? Why did none of them second the poorly worded motion by Alderman Leahy? These are the people you praise over and over, yet they all voted yes on this subject.
How could that be???? Maybe, just maybe, you don’t know what the heck you are talking about. When you watch the meetings do you have the actual volume on or just make up what you want to believe is being said?
So before you post again, think long and hard, if this was so bad, then why did the saints and saviors of the board vote 7-1 in favor?
Truth, come out of the closet and i will respond to you. I know exactly what i am talking about. maureen
By the way I doubt that the shed behind the business is permitted or is or compliant with zoning.
Sounds like he’s lying about the cost of a fence. I’m surprised he hasn’t figured out a way to make the city pay for it. That’s what you get an you get a candidate who is pro business, that automatically makes them anti citizen.
I watched the BOA meeting–and was very pleased with Louise Charboneau’s presentation that this dumpster is slum decorum for the residents. Equally, Alderman David Plufka, who supported her, has been making regular, balanced decisions. I don’t always agree, but his positions are well thought out and fair to the residents. [btw, you should have gone on vaca and let the next meeting move on as scheduled–i THINK we can survive without you, esp. with Aldrman K. taking your place.] Oh, we have so much to cover…
I DO find Chris to regularly shut down discussions, consistent with an autocrat, and do whatever he wants. If Chris had the DISCIPLINE AND ETHICS of Aldermen Plufka, Manestar, Saunders, Leahy and Krammer, he indeed would recuse himself on issues where his private interests are enhanced by City decisions. Conflict of interest as an “excused” governing style for Chris is wrong. Chris, you have a management problem. You are only under control because aldermanic “fact checkers” and “detail-oriented” thinkers are still on the board. But as an autocrat, you do not like to be questioned. Leaves me wondering if Rocky Ritter is not just another minion, to displace one of the two fact checkers and detail oriented ald. who keep you in line. Nothing about you surprises; old “schoolyard bully” is you.
Does Chris recuse himself for conflict of interest? NO. Those ethics are beyond him. He treats ethics like an entitled exception for himself. He FAILS to give a full airing to persons with opposing views. Chris treats and tolerates unprofessional disdain, both to Aldermen and to the public who have rights to speak. Chris shuts down reasonable discourse and does what he wants. Chris’motivation is pathetically opportunistic, embarrassingly undisciplined, not interested in ethics, OR in B’wd. What interests Chris is his own personal financial agenda, ego and gravitas to his minions. His failures to listen to aldermen who ACTUALLY represent due diligence for their wards, a fleshing out details is too bad for us. AND CHRIS, JUST REMEMBER, IF YOU EVER GO AFTER MY FAMILY AGAIN TO ATTEMPT INTIMIDATION OR BULLYING OF ME –all true–BECAUSE MY POSTS—also very truthful, just remember you have a family too. They have my sympathies. But STAY AWAY FROM MY FAMILY. You stooped to calling out incorrect personal information of a private citizen, for purposes of intimidation and bullying me. Take a good look at YOUR family, Let me know how bad you want this to get. You would be surprised how dispassionate i really am about you–YOU JUST NEED TO FIX YOUR PROBLEMATIC, SELF-SERVING, SELF-INDULGENT MANAGEMENT STYLE. My offer of how to have me never post about you again, still stands. Let me know if you’ve forgotten it. Or are you just afraid your second would be good at your job, while you are on vacation? Insecurity made everyone change THEIR schedule vs. leaving your second to carry on as ususual when you were unavailable. maureen
Probably nothing, but the business owned by Mrs. Mayor sure does seem to come up a lot.
I think Mr. Mayor should consider recusing himself from any dealings the city has with regard to Mrs. Mayor’s business affairs.
I certainly don’t know enough about this to accuse anyone of anything. And I’m not doing so. In fact, I welcome anyone who runs a business in Brentwood, so long as the staff doesn’t wear body paint. But wouldn’t it be better for appearances sake if Mr. Mayor steered clear of this kind of thing?
That way, no one could think that he’s self-serving.
I read the posts about Brentwood politics because I enjoy the drama. The mayor is frequently accused of being self-serving, and it’s been hard to tell if that’s accurate. This article shows that he’s willing to obstruct council people from voting on an issue that’s not in his financial interest. The cost of the fence need not be $4,000. How about building a fence just long enough to shield the dumpster? Mayor Thornton’s character is really starting to show and I hope the citizens of Brentwood can see this for what it’s worth–lack of integrity.
The code would have to be changed to force him to build a fence. And why does everyone think they have a right to force private property owners to do something just because they don’t like the way something looks. Put yourself in his shoes first. What if I didn’t like the color of your house? Should I complain and you be forced to paint it a different color? What if I don’t like the sweet gum balls falling off your tree into my yard? Should I complain and you be forced to have the tree removed? No, because it’s your property, it’s none of my damn business.
The question is why was the mayor comnenting and run a part of the meeting with a building where he and his family say they have a lease?
I don’t have a problem with that as long as he’s not casting a deciding vote.
What about denying a vote? He certainly did that.
Because the motion being made was as if the property were in violation of code. It is not, therefore there is no need to give the property owner extra time to build a fence that he is not legally required to build. That is protecting the city from a lawsuit.
RH Resident–you have a keen eye on how Chris operates.
Four thousand dollars seems unreasonable to complete the fence. Looking at the photo showing the length of the rear of the building is ugly and unslightly. To me if I lived there all those years I would have complained to the city a fence needs to be installed as soon as possible, or shut down all the businesses until the fence. The dumpsters alone are an eye sore!