Unless the intent was to eliminate a car wash as a desired use at 9545 Ogden Ave., it’s hard to understand the rationale behind village trustees denying a longtime Brookfield business owner a zoning variance to dramatically improve his property.
But that’s what happened Monday night, when Brookfield trustees unanimously turned aside a request for a variance to renovate the Brookfield Express Car wash at Ogden and Eberly avenues.
What’s strange about the denial is that trustees seemed OK with the project and suggested that had the owner gone through a planned unit development (PUD) process they’d be all for it.
Trustees argued that the owner, William Klump, had not proven “hardship” under the zoning code and used that standard as the reason why they voted against the proposal. This despite the fact that virtually the same board overturned a recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals to reject a zoning variance sought by the builders of a condo project in the 3600 block of Forest Avenue back in 2006.
It could be argued that the car wash owner inherited a hardship since the existing building on the property already was non-conforming. He was asking merely to extend the non-conformity, not create a new one. The Forest Avenue condo project did just that-created non-conformity by not including enough onsite parking.
We completely understand that the village wanted to exert a greater amount of control over the process by urging the owner to go through the PUD process. But then, they didn’t do the same with respect to the Forest Avenue condos, a project that will have much greater impact on the surrounding neighborhood-if any of the units ever sell.
But the car wash owner seemed absolutely willing to abide by the village’s wishes regarding design, landscaping and traffic. If the zoning board wanted to write those conditions into its recommendation of the variance, we’re pretty sure the owner would have agreed.
While we have no interest in casually granting zoning variations as if they were favors, at some point trustees have to determine whether what is being asked for passes the common sense test.
This is one case where a strong argument could be made. The plan would have improved the look, access, safety and economic viability of the business while not creating any new non-conformity. The business owner was flexible and accepted changes to his plan that drove up his costs.
If the village could have gotten written assurances that the plan as accepted was the one built, we can see no reason why that plan should not have been granted its variance.
To top it off, this board has handed-on a silver platter-a campaign issue that will resonate with voters next spring. As Ogden Avenue continues to stagnate, this village board was unwilling to accept a common-sense request to improve a longtime business.
Unless, of course, the idea was to discourage a car wash at that village gateway. If that’s the case, we can’t wait to see the plan. We’re guessing it’ll be quite a wait.