Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated debate over 'Venture Unknown' special‑use permit; board adds monitoring condition, declines blanket parking ban
Summary
A contested special‑use permit and zoning text amendment for a private business club at 1505 Fen Park Drive drew lengthy debate Sept. 12. The board approved a condition allowing select government agencies unannounced entry for inspections but rejected a motion to prohibit all off‑site parking agreements; the SUP remains subject to conditions, inspections and future review.
A lengthy and at times contentious planning and zoning discussion on Sept. 12 centered on a proposed special‑use permit (SUP) and zoning text amendment for a private business club operated by Scott Schuessler at 1505 Fen Park Drive (the applicant referred to the enterprise as Venture Unknown in filings).
Several aldermen pressed Schuessler and his representative about whether the business had been operating beyond the uses allowed by the property’s current zoning, citing a podcast and earlier statements that described plans for pickleball courts, an open bar and other amenities. Aldermen questioned whether the building’s layout, parking and fire egress were suitable and whether the business had pursued “ask forgiveness, not permission.”
Schuessler (participating by Zoom) and Jason Frye, an on‑site representative, said they intended to comply with code and fire requirements, would limit event sizes consistent with permit conditions (citing capping events at 49 during past events) and would work with city staff and the fire marshal to address safety items. Amy Stark, community development director, summarized recent inspections with the fire department that did not find code violations and noted that some issues had been addressed.
The board voted to add a condition to the SUP that allows specified government agencies (City of Fenton staff, Fenton Fire Protection District, and police/code enforcement) to enter the facility without prior notice for inspection and enforcement; the motion passed unanimously. A separate motion to bar any additional off‑site parking agreements failed on roll call after some aldermen said shared parking arrangements are common and the SUP/code already address parking reliability.
Board members stressed that the SUP would include conditions limiting occupancy and requiring completed construction and fire‑safety work before expanded use is authorized; code enforcement was asked to monitor compliance. The board indicated the SUP and related text amendment would be subject to the conditions agreed and could return to Planning & Zoning for further public hearings if violations occur.
Next steps: conditions added to the SUP will be drafted and presented in ordinance form; staff will continue coordination with the fire marshal and code enforcement before any expanded use is permitted.
