Ashland Ordinance Controversies

By: Ernie Wren
Over the years, the City of Ashland has grown significantly, and with that has come the adoption of new ordinances to address growing needs. With these changes, there have sometimes been complaints by residents that these ordinances are not enforced consistently or fairly across the city.

While this has been a consistent issue off and on over the years, it was recently re-surfaced via social media by a local business owner, and two board of aldermen candidates.

The Boone County Journal requested input from multiple stakeholders to provide this balanced summary of the issue and non-edited stakeholder responses, which are printed as received below. It is up to the readers to reach their own conclusions, as the Journal’s effort is to provide a strictly non-biased and informational service.

The original FB post: “We urge the City of Ashland and the Board of Adjustment to cease the persecution and harassment of Black Dog Outdoors, a local bait shop. The alleged infraction is the use of a gravel parking lot, which does not meet the city’s concrete requirements. The cordoning off of their parking lot with orange cones and markers has resulted in significant harm to their business and creates an unfavorable impression of our city.” (Candidate Loren Plank, Facebook, 03/01/2025)

Business Owner Comments: “I’m co-owner. Jeremy Lindsey is the primary owner. The vacant lot next to us is owned by him as an individual. It is not assoc with the business, even though the city has continually referenced it as being a part. The cannabis shop is a gravel lot and no it’s not grandfathered. That building was vacant for 5 yrs and the use of it changes, as it was a private office after the landscaping closed. And they’ve expanded and added gravel, all of which kicks it out of any clause.

And Deline that sells the mobile homes across the Hwy had added to his previous lot and created a new gravel lot. The city has 3 gravel lots that were absolutely created after 2004 when the ordinance was enacted. The maintenance shed, water shed and the vacant lot on redbud. All 3 are commercial zoned, not industrial which would make them meet the ordinance as well.” (Shell Nichols, Co-Owner, Black Dog Outdoors).

Ward One Alderman Candidate Loren Plank: Many of us have experienced a moment when we served ourselves more than we could handle, only to be reminded by a parent, “Your eyes are bigger than your stomach.” This principle also applies to municipal governance.
Over the years, the City of Ashland has continually approved housing developments without adequately addressing the necessary infrastructure to support them. The consequences of this policy oversight spanning a couple decades were on full display when voters rejected a financing proposal for the wastewater plant expansion several months ago.

A comparable situation now applies to the ownership of the Black Dog Outdoors Bait Shop. The owners have taken steps to improve their property, demonstrating a commitment to both their business and the community. They have repurposed their building, removed an aging house from the property, and laid down gravel for parking—enhancing both the aesthetic and functional value of the space. However, instead of receiving support from the city, they are being penalized. The City of Ashland, despite its own history of overextension, has now targeted the bait shop, insisting that the gravel parking lot be paved with concrete to meet code requirements.

Rather than working collaboratively with the business owners, the city has adopted a rigid enforcement approach. During my tenure on the Board of Aldermen, I witnessed firsthand the difficulties faced by Black Dog Outdoors. Owner Shell Nichols attended at least two board meetings to present her case, even providing photographic evidence of other gravel lots in town. However, her concerns were dismissed outright, with one alderman passing along the photos without even looking at them.

The city’s enforcement actions have been notably excessive. Reports indicate that the Chief of Police has been sent to the business as many as 12 to 14 times to issue citations, sometimes in the presence of customers—an act that has reportedly driven business away. Additionally, the city has mandated that the owners block off the gravel lot, to maintain a “dust-free” downtown. This decision has directly impacted the viability of the property, leading to the departure of a greenhouse business that once operated there.
Given these circumstances, it is reasonable to ask: which version of this property best serves Ashland residents?

The original state of the property, featuring an old, dilapidated house.

The improved state, with the house removed, a functional gravel parking lot, and a thriving bait shop and greenhouse business.
The current state, with barricades, an underutilized space, and discouraged business owners.

Many small business owners in Ashland already struggle with high rental costs. The city’s aggressive stance on a technicality unnecessarily hinders a local business, contradicting its efforts to encourage entrepreneurship. It is difficult to take the city’s support for small businesses seriously when one of the first establishments visitors encounter when they enter our town is a barricaded parking lot.

A more reasonable approach would involve compromise. The city and business owners could collaborate on solutions such as applying dust suppression treatments to the gravel lot. Such a measure would address concerns while allowing the business to continue operating in a manner beneficial to both its owners and the broader community. Rather than stifling small business growth, Ashland should seek solutions that foster a supportive environment for local entrepreneurs. Additionally, the city should consider softening the wording or removing altogether the provision regarding concrete parking lots.

Ward One Alderman Candidate Kent Dunwiddie: Being that I am not currently an alderman or privy to any of the issues facing the city at this time, I would need to know what exactly the issue is to be able to address or resolve the problem. As a candidate, if elected, I will listen to and try to address whatever concerns my constituents in ward 1 have. Unlike other candidates, I have no personal agenda. I am running as a citizen of the community to be a voice for the residents. I’m here, as we all should be, to be a public servant. I will simply do what is best for everyone.

City Administrator Kyle Michel: In short summary, Mr. Lindsey asked what the requirements were and elected to flagrantly ignore those requirements. City staff is required to enforce the laws set by the Board of Aldermen. We advised Mr. Lindsey of this as staff has zero authority to waive Code requirements.

The Board of Adjustment sided with City staff and upheld the hard surfacing requirement on this property citing the flagrant disregard for City staff’s authority on the matter and failure by the applicant to prove any type of hardship or alternatives that would offer the smallest deviation from Code. The argument from the property owner boiled down to “there are other gravel lots in town, therefore I am entitled to one too.”

You will note, as a result of the failed variance request, staff granted an additional 30 days for ownership to come up with a plan to bring the property into compliance. This request was ignored.

In an effort to arrive at an agreeable solution, Mayor Slinker and Alderman Lewis met on site with ownership sometime in October of 2023. Historically, a house existed on this vacant lot and had a gravel driveway. The Mayor and Lewis proposed that the gravel lot be removed and reshaped into a driveway leading from the Broadway approach across the vacant lot, to the paved parking lot. This proposal maintained the essence of the Code in that the preexisting gravel would not be increasing and still provided Lindsey with the access and utilization he wanted. My understanding is that Mr. Lindsey agreed to this compromise.

Fast forward to January 2024, Lindsey had not advanced progress on the lot nor offered any formal commitment to his agreement with the Mayor. When pressed on the matter, he advised staff that he intended to chip seal the lot instead. Attached is a letter from the City regarding this pavement alternative plan. The City allowed until June 1 2024 to chip seal the lot or provide an action plan. Again, Mr. Lindsey failed to adhere to this request and simply ignored us.

As such, a formal citation was first issued on June 4th, 2024. This particular Code violation can be cited for an infraction for each day of violation. Lindsey was cited 13 times for allowing the violation to exist. The City Prosecutor negotiated with Mr. Lindsey’s attorney to dismiss all citations under the understanding and agreement that the lot would not be used at all with citations continuing if the lot was observed to be used. Within 24 hours of this agreement and the dismissal of citations, the lot was occupied by Mr. Lindsey’s farmers market vendors. The police department has observed the lot being used one time since August 2024 and has issued one citation since in October of 2024.
To date, no additional citations have been issued, the gravel lot remains, and the City has taken no additional enforcement action. The variance request failed, Mr. Lindsey has made no attempt to escalate that matter to a higher court, as such the determination stands and the lot exists in violation of Code. If the lot is occupied, citations will be issued.

With regards to this claim that the City is harassing and persecuting one particular person for having a gravel lot. This is entirely untrue and is based on a misunderstanding of Code as it relates to hard surface parking requirements and frankly a misunderstanding of our ability to enact enforcement. I have zero ability to take historic action on any property in town, we can simply address issues going forward as they present themselves. And that is exactly what has occurred on this lot. A gravel lot was observed to have been built in 2023, in violation of Code, when the owner knew it was a violation of Code.

Gravel lots are not illegal within City limits. However, after the passage of hard surface parking requirements in 2004, it is illegal to build a new gravel lot or expand a gravel lot. The property in question argues that there are multiple gravel lots around town that are not dealing with Code enforcement which must mean that the property in question is being targeted and harassed. This train of thought is a logical fallacy at best. There is not a single property in town that has shown such flagrant and intentional disregard for City Code as this lot owned by Mr. Lindsey.

To speak to the gravel lots you have pointed out.

Mary Jane’s Place: Existing structure, zoned commercial, used as commercial. There has been no change to occupancy (occupancy from a zoning perspective means change in use classification, in example going from a residential home to general commercial), the gravel lot predates hard surfacing requirements, the lot has not expanded. Again, gravel lots are not illegal per Code. Had Mary Jane’s Place proposed to expand the footprint of the building beyond 500 sq feet, they would have triggered zoning compliance and a site plan submittal which would have resulted in bringing the parking lot into compliance with Code. They have not expanded the building or otherwise changed the lot in any way. As such, the gravel lot exists as a permitted non-conforming lot. It is grandfathered in. The property owner and proprietor are aware of this. Any substantial changes to the building or the gravel lot will result in the lot being paved or citations for violating Code.
Deline Perry Avenue Lot: Much like with Mr. Lindsey’s lot, occupying a gravel lot will result in citation. Mr. Deline is aware of hard surfacing requirements and has been subjected to Code enforcement actions. This lot has an existing grandfathered in gravel lot, they occupy this lot for parking.

Governmental entities are exempt from most zoning regulations outside of ones that specifically deal with safety. However, the School District is actively paving their lots and paves them as they expand them. For reference, the ongoing HS expansion is adding a ton of paved parking.

There are currently two lots in existence in the City that are in violation of City Code when occupied and used as parking lots. Mr. Lindsey’s lot and Mr. Deline’s lot. Both have faced Code enforcement action for their lots. In the case of Mr. Lindsey, the construction and occupancy of a gravel lot in violation of Code was deliberate, egregious, and intentional. He asked what was required to meet Code. He chose to flagrantly ignore those requirements. He persisted with this violation in spite of the City taking active steps to arrive at a compromise. In the case of Mr. Deline, he did not know the requirement of Code or ask. He was informed of the requirement and served with abatement notices in the same fashion as Mr. Lindsey. Much like Mr. Lindsey, he is aware that illegal occupancy of his expanded gravel will result in citation. To my knowledge, Deline’s operations specifically use the preexisting gravel lot for parking. Additionally, Mr. Deline to requests by the City and has actively worked to mitigate any infractions on his property with regards to hard surfacing requirements.

It is important to note that this specific Code section was brought to the Board of Aldermen in 2023. The Board is charged with legislative action. It is up to the Board to create the law that staff operates under. When pressed on this matter, the Board agreed that the hard surfacing requirements must stay in place and no sitting Aldermen between 2022 and present has brought forth a suggestion to amend Code in any way with regards to hard surfacing requirements. Staff is charged with enforcing the Code as dictated by the Board of Aldermen. If the Board disagrees with the hard surfacing requirements that exist in Code, they are charged with legislating change.

Under my tenure, staff has strived to apply the Code consistently and impartially. If there is a codified process, we follow it. If Code lacks a codified process, we suggest one be added. We want everyone to know the rules and understand how to follow the rules. We don’t want enforcement to be arbitrary and/or lack a grounding in law. Staff also goes above and beyond to address Code compliance in a collaborative manner with offenders. The last thing we as staff want to do is waste time and taxpayer money to engage in formal enforcement of Code compliance which involves police issued citations, court dates, tax liens, etc. In the 99% of instances, we can resolve Code compliance issues without ever needing to issue citations and start a formal legal abatement process. That is how we want it to be. We’re not heavy handed. We could simply start issuing citations when we first witness violations but that is not what we want for our community and not what our residents want. But at the same time, our residents want Codes and standards and they want them uniformly applied. We’ll continue to maintain that standard and expectation of uniform and consistent application.

For reference, our largest area for Code complaints and enforcement is with our nuisance weeds regulations. We field dozens of complaints each summer and take dozens of enforcement actions. Since my arrival, this has required two instances of formal abatement. Only one of which resulted in the City abating the weeds. Every other time the property owner mows their weeds when we remind them of the requirements of Code. This doesn’t always make the public happy as they expect and demand immediate results. When they call to complain they expect the lot to be mowed same day or next day. That isn’t how the process works. It is slow, it is intentionally slow. We make it slower by attempting to informally handle abatement and give property owners the benefit of the doubt. We want to be reasonable and work with our residents.

However, that only works when our residents our reasonable and work with us in turn.

Business Owner Michelle Nichols’ response to City of Ashland: I’m sure many have read the letter from the city regarding our vacant lot and my (Michelle) comments on Loren Plank’s post. The letter paints a Jeremy as a complete villain, well let me assure you that letter is full of false and inaccurate information. I have lots of documentation, pictures and emails that will more than show that Kyle’s claims are very inaccurate and some are down-right false. Let’s clarify a few items, hindsight is 20/20 and ignorance is not an excuse, do we wish we had inquired absolutely but we did not. Let me be very clear, we NEVER asked the city regarding putting gravel on the lot beforehand. Gravel was put down in Sept 2022 and April 2023, city inspector stopped in a couple times to ask plans for the lot and we were then informed of the ordinance requiring hard surface, at no point did the city inspector say stop, he only asked our plans. I (Michelle) said when we had the funds we will hard surface the lot but it’s expensive and the lot is for sale, so it would be crazy to put down a hard surface and then have to tear it up if the lot sold and new owner planned to build. City inspector says “great, all I need to know is that you have a plan”. Again, at no point did he say stop, nor did we receive anything in writing to cease until May of 2023 when he sent a letter that they would begin citing us for the violation if we didn’t provide a hard surface. At this point the lot was coned off and we filed for a variance (a whole story all it’s own, which is coming)

As we all know, with any situation there are multiple sides to every story, so here is our response to the letter that the Boone County Journal recvd from the city administrator. I will just address each paragraph individually:

He stated that we had asked about the requirements regarding a parking lot. Absolutely we never inquired, yes that was our mistake, Jeremy knew Boone County had an ordinance requiring “dust free” but we did not know Ashland had the hard surface requirement (ignorance is not an excuse, I am just providing info). But for Kyle to say we had asked about requirements is an absolute lie. Jeremy ordered gravel and spread it in Sept 2022, city inspector did stop in after Jeremy spread it and discuss the ordinance. The city inspector stopped in another time and again asked if we were going to seal it and I (Michelle) told him when we could get a bid and had the money we would seal it. Never once did city inspector tell him to stop putting in gravel, nor did we ever receive anything in writing to stop. In April 2023, Jeremy did put down addtl gravel to crisp up the appearance of the lot and as with any concrete or asphalt you need a base but again, we were still trying to save money to be able to afford a hard surface and the lot was for sale at the time. Again, we never were told to stop or received a letter to stop. Kyle stated that Jeremy said “there are other gravel lots in town, therefore I am entitled to one too.”, those words or insinuations NEVER came out of our mouth at all, that is a complete lie from Kyle. Anyone that knows either of us, knows full well our stance on “entitled”, that is not a word that we entertain at all. Which is most interesting that he now takes that approach, because in another email from Kyle to our lawyer, he stated that the Board of Adjustment declined our variance because we had built the bait shop without a permit (which is also false, we didn’t build the bait shop, the building was there when Mid Missouri Trolling Motor Repair, LLC purchased 505 E Broadway). As for hardship, an average individual doesn’t have $10-20k laying around to hard surface a vacant lot that is for sale, so yes it would absolutely be a hardship. But our variance meeting is a whole other story that I’ll cover in another piece.

“Staff granted an additional 30 days for ownership to come up with a plan to bring the property into compliance. This request was ignored…….” . Variance meeting took place in Sept 2023, we coned off the lot and ceased all use of the lot, no longer in violation of the ordinance. Remember the ordinance applies to parking lots, loading areas and driveways, to simply have a vacant lot that has gravel is not a violation of the ordinance. And to correct Kyle and his inaccurate timeline (showing he continues to provide inaccurate information, just making it to suit his agenda) we went back to the Board of Aldermen in January 2024 to again ask to change the ordinance to “dust free and eye appealing”, the board opted no change. The lot remained coned off, not utilized. After the meeting 1/2/2024, I (Michelle) recvd an email from the Mayor and Rick Lewis requesting a meeting to attempt to resolve the issue. We agreed to meet 1/5/2024 (not October 2023 as stated by Kyle), we had Tara from the Boone Co Journal present to be an outside, unbiased party (meeting fully recorded). During the meeting with the Mayor and Rick, we did agree to chip/seal the lot in the Spring. The city inspector had previously told us chip seal did not meet the requirements but the mayor and Rick agreed that since the city uses chip seal on city streets, that it we would be allowed to use it as well. They left and we were under the understanding that all was good, nope. On 1/19/2024 a letter was recvd from city inspector that stated that chip seal would only be a temporarily allowed and that in 2 years we would be required to tear it up and put down a permanent hard surface (none of which was discussed with the mayor), so no we did not proceed with chip seal the lot because again we were getting inconsistent information and no we don’t have the extra money to just tear up and dispose of the surface in two years. Kyle referenced the house that Jeremy tore down, which is correct but again he is incorrect when he stated that the old house had a gravel driveway. It never had a gravel driveway, proof being the CONCRETE driveway is still in place, Jeremy did not remove the concrete drive as it is MODOT compliant.

Kyle stated “fast forward to Jan 2024”, well since we didn’t go to the BOA till 1/2/2024 and our meeting with the mayor and Rick Lewis wasn’t till 1/5/2024 and come to the agreement with the chip seal, no we hadn’t taken any action at that time. Again, inaccurate info from Kyle. After the letter from city inspector which contained requirements, we had not agreed to with the mayor, no we didn’t proceed. But it was a very wet Spring and Jeremy was worked out of town, no he did not chip sea the lot because again having to tear it up in two years was not feasible, nor what we agreed to with the mayor and Rick.

Yes, a deadline of June 1, 2024 was given by city inspector and no we did not chip seal the lot. On June 3, 2024 (not June 4, 2024 as stated by Kyle) the police chief came in and informed us that he would begin writing tickets regarding the lot. We discussed the agreement with the mayor and Rick Lewis and the police chief proceeded to tell us that the mayor didn’t have the authority to make that agreement, so it was irrelevant and per city administrator he was to start writing us tickets.

Kyle mentions that 13 citations were written (we only know of 12), but that the city prosecutor negotiated with Jeremy’s attorney to dismiss all citations under the understanding and agreement that the lot would not be used as all with citations continuing if the lot was observed to be used and that within 24 hours of this agreement and dismissal of the citations, the lot was occupied by a farmers market vendor. Well, this is also very inaccurate, June- 6 citations, July- 4 citations, August- NONE, Sept- 1 citation, October- 1 citation and none since. Only two of the tickets were issued in correlation with the farmer’s market vendor, Sept (we were out of state, unaware she had parked on the lot), Oct she had her table on the lot, not a vehicle on the lot at all, remember the ordinance applies to parking lot, driveways and loading areas. No citations in Nov, Dec and so forth, the agreement for the dismissal of the citations was not presented to us until Jan 2025 (proof via email date) and absolutely we did not have a farmer’s market happening in Jan, therefore a complete lie that within 24 hours of the agreement we had a vendor on the lot.

Kyle stated that citations will be issued if the lot is occupied, so on one hand he says that the gravel lot itself is a violation and on the other he says if it’s occupied it’s a violation. This is the inconsistent communication we have incurred consistently.

Let’s skip ahead to Kyle referencing Mary Jane’s Place, in an email from Kyle he stated a gravel lot at a place of business that existed prior to 2004 was “grandfathered” unless the use of the business changed, the lot changed in size or if it was abandoned but he has also stated to others that a change of ownership would require the lot come up to code. The current owner purchased the property in 2022, the previous owner did have a business in the building but it had been closed for over 5 years and was used as a private office to the previous owner, the building was boarded up and vacant (pics avail for proof), Mary Jane’s did not open till April 2024. And also, avail are pics showing that there were trellis’ on the north side of the building but currently they have been removed and addtl gravel has been placed and increased the parking area. Again, presenting the concern that it is obviously up to city staff to decide which ordinances they choose when and where to enforce.

Referencing Kyle’s statement “In the case of Mr. Lindsey, the construction and occupancy of a gravel lot in violation of Code was deliberate, egregious and intentional” is absolutely absurd. Again, Jeremy never approached the city inspector at all about the lot, he simply ordered gravel and spread it. Kyle is blatantly providing false information to make Jeremy appear in the worst light possible. Not sure what Kyle is referencing with “occupancy”, it’s a vacant lot, there’s nothing to occupy.

Kyle references that they enforce code consistently and impartially, I would say differently. I can cite a few safety hazards that have not been addressed at all. In an email, Kyle stated that due to our gravel lot and non-compliance, an accident occurred. In actuality, a lady was driving out of the lot and turned too sharply and did drive into the ditch (pics of proof avail). Absolutely nothing to do with the lot being gravel, she was exiting thru the MODOT approved driveway that is concrete. But Kyle again providing inaccurate information and attempting to paint Jeremy as the villain.

Kyle also referenced that government entities are exempt from following their own ordinances, although difficult to enforce, there is an article that cites multiple court cases showing that cities do in fact have to follow their own zoning regulations. Google Missouri Land Use Law and it should pop up, but if not I will be have to forward it to anyone that requests.

Again this is in response to the letter the Boone County Journal received from Kyle Michel, city administrator. Overall, my intention is to show in inconsistent and inaccurate information in his letter. I will gladly show any and all emails, pictures and communications that we have supporting this response. One would think that if he went to the trouble to write that extensive of a letter, he would have made sure his information was correct but instead his intention was to paint the city as a saint and Jeremy as a villain.

There is so much more to our adventures with the city, I will be gladly be providing that story as well.

Opinion and testimonial pieces reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. Furthermore, opinion articles are subjective and as such, are not extensively evaluated for accuracy.