To the Editor,
Hermann has a zoning problem. Not a new one — a long-standing one. And the frustrating part is that we already know how to fix it.
Earlier this year, the city adopted a new Comprehensive (Strategic) Plan prepared by professional planners. One of its central recommendations is simple: zoning should better reflect existing land use, commercial activity should be intentionally concentrated in appropriate corridors, and residential neighborhoods should be clearly protected.
That sounds reasonable. It sounds like common sense.
Yet at the Board of Aldermen meeting on February 9, the Board denied a rezoning request on East Second Street that fit those principles almost perfectly.
Planning and Zoning reviewed the request and recommended approval by a 5–1 vote. The property sits in an area that has always been mixed use — long before zoning existed in Hermann. It is surrounded by commercial zoning, includes nearby properties already rezoned for higher density, and sits squarely in what functions as a commercial corridor.
So why was it denied?
We were told it might “open the floodgates.” But that fear misses the point of good zoning. You don’t prevent floodgates by denying individual requests one at a time. You prevent them by clearly defining where commercial use belongs — and where it does not.
Intentionally rezoning commercial corridors on the east side of town would actually strengthen the city’s ability to protect the more residential west side. It gives the city a clear, defensible line: commercial activity goes here, residential neighborhoods are protected there.
That is exactly what the city’s new plan calls for.
Instead, the board cited parking concerns — even though the applicant proposed six off-street parking spaces, the same number the city previously accepted for that exact location. The Mayor also suggested the owner reapply for a Conditional Use Permit, despite the fact that Conditional Use Permits are no longer allowed under our zoning ordinance.
That raises a fair question: are zoning decisions being made based on the rules we actually have?
This isn’t academic. Poor zoning and reluctance to fix it has real costs.
The city spent more than eight years — and a significant amount of taxpayer money — fighting my business, the Captain Wohlt Inn, over activities that were already legal. In the end, the board unanimously rezoned the entire street to C-1 commercial anyway. The zoning was wrong to begin with, and everyone eventually knew it.
Why did it take nearly a decade and a mountain of legal fees to get there?
The same pattern keeps repeating: delay, denial, litigation, and then eventual correction — at far greater cost than if we had simply acted proactively.
Meanwhile, guesthouses have proliferated on the west side of town, not because zoning made sense there, but because the board voted to allow them. Why are we pushing uses into residential neighborhoods while resisting them in areas that already function commercially?
Is that really the best outcome for Hermann?
The Comprehensive Plan we just adopted gives us a roadmap. It calls for aligning zoning with reality, supporting tourism and investment where it already exists, and protecting neighborhoods through clarity — not avoidance.
This isn’t about one property or one owner. It’s about whether Hermann is willing to make thoughtful, forward-looking decisions instead of repeating the same costly mistakes.
If we want to protect our residential neighborhoods, encourage responsible investment, and stop wasting taxpayer money, the answer isn’t complicated.
We already paid the experts.
We already have the plan.
Now we just need the will to follow it.
Brant Wilkins, Hermann
