BELLE — Neighbors’ concerns about dust, drainage, property values and the future of their neighborhood dominated a Nov. 3 public hearing before the Belle Planning and Zoning Commission. Despite opposition, the commission voted 5–1 to recommend rezoning approximately five acres on Lehnoff Drive for a proposed storage development.

The hearing included a dispute over access to the property, questions about whether the developer’s promises would be enforced and a tense exchange in which resident Laura Gehlert used profanity while discussing concerns about her daughter’s health.

The commission’s recommendation now goes to the Belle Board of Aldermen. Applicant Tony Gieck seeks to change the property from agricultural, AG-1, to neighborhood business, B-1. The commission attached no conditions to its recommendation requiring the buffer, fence or drainage improvements Gieck described.

A previous variance granted by the city to him in 2023 recorded Gieck’s address as being in a residential zone when they changed it to business to allow him to park a semi truck there for his logging business. There have been no other official records found that mark the area in question as being in an agriculture zone.

The city hasn’t answered The Advocate’s multiple outreaches concerning zoning questions and claimed that they didn’t have a current map. Resident Paulette Fricke was told by Charro Reasor, city office manager-treasurer, that she would have to contact the Maries County Clerk, Rhonda Rodgers, to get the information. Reasor also suggested that the Meramec Regional Planning Commission (MRPC) might have the information she was looking for.

Throughout the hearing and subsequent meeting, participants returned to a question that remained unsettled in the discussion — how the city would ensure that the development addressed neighbors’ concerns after the zoning changed.

Fricke asked who would hold Gieck accountable for carrying out his plans.

“Who’s going to be held accountable?” she asked.

Gieck said he intended to follow through.

“Well, ma’am, regardless of what you think of me, I consider my word golden, he said. “I do what I say I’m going to do. Always have. I was raised that way.”

Fricke and other residents questioned whether those assurances were enough.

Gieck, who had asked only for a variance to allow him the parking of one logging truck, has also built what appears to be a commercial shop, and was recently storing heavy equipment on his property.

Residents describe effects on their homes

Opponents said the development would introduce commercial activity behind homes purchased for their residential setting. They raised concerns about security lighting, noise, traffic, trash, privacy and potential losses in property value.

“We bought in a residential area subdivision,” Fricke said. “That’s what we bought into.”

Another resident, introduced as Melanie Keeney, told commissioners that much of the family’s finances were invested in their home and urged them to consider what the change would mean for surrounding homeowners.

“This isn’t just a flippant decision to make because somebody wants to invest in their property,” Melanie said.

Residents also questioned what could happen if Gieck changed his plans or sold the property after rezoning. In response to a request during the hearing, a list of uses permitted in the proposed business district was read aloud. Those included self-storage warehouses, restaurants, retail stores, offices, hotels and automobile repair shops, among other uses.

An adjoining farm owner, Britt Rowe, submitted a written objection, which was read during the hearing. Rowe described restoring a farm that had been in the family since the 1920s and expressed concern that commercial development would diminish its value and agricultural character.

The letter also raised drainage concerns. Rowe said the proposed development sits above the farm and that water drains toward a pond on the property. Buildings, driveways and parking areas could increase runoff and carry sediment or contaminants into the pond, the letter said.

Dust discussion turns heated

Gehlert raised concerns about dust and its effect on her daughter, Chelsea. During a later exchange, she used profanity while recounting an alleged remark about activity behind her home.

“Okay, let’s don’t do that,” another participant interjected.

Gehlert continued, changing her wording to “mess with them,” and returned to her daughter’s health.

“I’m talking about my little girl,” she said. “She fought all her life to stay alive.”

The exchange became more tense when another participant argued that agricultural work could produce more dust than the proposed storage development. Others countered that traffic on a gravel drive could create dust daily, while farming activity would occur at different intervals.

The discussion also included comparisons between the proposed storage facility and uses that could occur under agricultural zoning. Participants raised the possibility of livestock operations, including a hog farm, prompting further objections from neighbors.

Gieck outlines drainage, screening and security plans

Gieck said the proposed storage development would use neither city water nor sewer service. He described a retention pond in the southwest corner of the property that would collect runoff, slow its release and allow soil to settle.

He also proposed a grass-and-tree buffer behind lots 17 and 18, estimating it would be 20 to 30 feet wide.

Gieck discussed security cameras, lighting directed along the buildings and motion-activated lights near the gate and perimeter. He said a fence, probably eight feet tall, would be installed as the perimeter and drainage work progressed. The property would not be fully fenced at the outset.

When asked about maintaining the access drive, Gieck said he would take responsibility and agreed to put that commitment in writing.

Gieck also challenged comparisons between the proposed development and an undeveloped field. He said 28 residential building lots had previously been contemplated there and asked how traffic and runoff from that many homes would compare with storage units.

Rebecca Withouse asked whether any neighboring property owner had told him they supported the project.

“I haven’t really asked,” Gieck said. “I figured if I own the property, I should be able to do what I want.”

Access dispute surfaces

Fricke questioned the proposed entrance between lots 18 and 19 and cited a court order governing use of an existing drive. She said the order addressed access for the property owners and disputed whether it permitted traffic from a commercial business.

Gieck offered a different interpretation. He said he owns the land beneath the gravel and that the judgment grants neighbors access to their shed without preventing him from using the drive to reach his property.

“Nothing in this judgment says that I cannot use that to get in and out of my field,” he said.

The hearing did not resolve the competing interpretations of the court order.

Commissioners weigh ownership and enforcement

Commissioner Ben Simpson spoke in support of allowing development while acknowledging the concerns raised by neighbors.

“For me, it’s balancing those concerns with property ownership and commitments from the property owner,” Simpson said during the meeting.

He pointed to Gieck’s commitments regarding vegetation, fencing, trash removal and water management.

During the hearing, Simpson also described his experience living beside the First Street storage facility. He said he typically sees only one or two vehicles there per week and expected limited traffic from an established storage operation.

Neighbors responded that Simpson had chosen to buy a home beside an existing storage business, while they had purchased homes before this proposal.

Commissioner Randy Frye also pressed for an explanation of what approval process would be follow rezoning. The discussion turned to building permits, inspections and whether the aldermen could review concerns about the development.

Participants explained that construction would be inspected in stages. They also discussed bringing a building permit before aldermen if specific concerns warranted board review.

However, the commission was told that the pending vote concerned the zoning recommendation and would contain no restrictions.

The commission ultimately announced five votes in favor and one opposed, forwarding its recommendation to aldermen. Stephen Bedwell was the lone nay.

Board of Aldermen meet again at 6 p.m. on Nov. 10 at the Lonnie Feeler Memorial Building.

Other business

During the meeting, a newly appointed commissioner, Adam Padgett, took the oath of office. The commission also approved its agenda and minutes from the Sept. 17 meeting.

Two property owners then outlined possible future requests for agricultural zoning.

One wanted the full property classified as agricultural to accommodate equipment storage and maintenance. A member of the Lewis family described plans for a small number of sheep and chickens, a rooster and a bee colony as part of the family’s homesteading lifestyle.

Those presentations were informational. The commission took no action on either request and noted that any future rezoning hearing would require notice.