Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conditional Use Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission removes sale-trigger clause from Watering Bowl’s conditional-use permit and recommends amendment
Summary
Owner Jeremy King asked the commission to remove language that voided The Watering Bowl’s CUP upon sale and to shift the permit into the business name; staff and the city attorney said enforcement of CUP conditions applies to successors, and the commission recommended the amendment to the Board of Aldermen unanimously.
Jeremy King, owner and founder of The Watering Bowl at 2615 South Hanley Road, asked the Brentwood Planning and Zoning Commission to amend his property’s conditional use permit so it would not automatically expire if the business were sold and so the CUP could be issued in the business name rather than his personal name.
King told the commission he’s operated the doggy daycare and boarding facility there for almost 12 years and that the original CUP included a clause that ‘‘the conditional use permit itself would become null and void if there were any discernible sale.’’ He said that after vetting potential buyers he favored a national operator and cited the buyer’s employee stock-ownership plan as a factor in his decision: "They offer an employee stock ownership plan... all of our employees ... are gonna have a stake in our business," King said.
Staff traced the CUP’s history, noting ordinance numbers and previous amendments. "This CUP was then amended in 2013...it was approved initially in 2012 and was amended in 2013 with ordinance 4434," staff said, and added that other CUP conditions would remain in force. The city attorney and staff confirmed enforcement extends to successors so long as original conditions are met.
Commissioners asked whether there had been recent noise complaints; King said a single complaint more than 10 years ago prompted a voluntary sound fence and that there have been no subsequent issues. Commissioners also sought clarification that the property owner — not the tenant — would be expected to address county/MDOT recommendations if the site were redeveloped; staff said such items would be reviewed at redevelopment and are not conditions on the current amendment.
After discussion the commission voted to recommend approval of the amendment, forwarding the item to the Board of Aldermen for final action.
The record shows the commission’s recommendation was unanimous on roll call.
