Shed removed, charges dropped against Briarmoon
JANESVILLE — At the city's request, a Rock County judge has dismissed zoning ordinance violations against K. Andreah Briarmoon over a shed she owns.
"It came to our attention that the shed was removed, and we had staff verify that it was removed," said Tim Wellnitz, assistant city attorney.
"Based upon the compliance that was gained upon the removal of the shed, we decided to ask the court to dismiss the citation."
The judge dismissed the case April 30.
The shed was on property that Briarmoon owns at 332 S. Academy St., diagonal to her residence on Locust Street.
The shed violated a city code that prohibits an outbuilding on property without a primary dwelling.
Briarmoon was cited with five counts of violating the ordinance. Each count carries a $249 fine for a total of $1,245.
"What the goal for us the whole time is to get compliance," Wellnitz said. "She complied, so we asked the court to dismiss the citation."
The city discovered April 22 that the shed had been removed.
The judge also dismissed a counterclaims filed by Briarmoon.
If the case sounds familiar, that's because it is.
Briarmoon fought with the city for years because she refused to tear down a shed on property she owns at 1402 W. Court St. The city condemned the structure and tore it down in August 2006.
related STORIES
- Missing woman found in ...
By GAZETTE STAFF 02/07/12
- Janesville police seek missing ...
By GAZETTE STAFF 01/25/12
Jul 1, 2009 at 4:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Whew. I know I'll be sleeping better tonight.
Jul 1, 2009 at 4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bob and Walker - could you please call the city and inform them of the violations you see? They don't actively patrol looking for violations, they rely on citizens to call in with complaints. That's why Karen has the city all over her, she's made lots of enemys who call the city and complain when they see her breaking the law (I'd like to say I called on her, but alas, I live too far away to keep an eye on her)
Jun 17, 2009 at 3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
When the electorate votes for councilmembers they are voting for anyone one of them to be council president. The council president is effectively the mayor. He or she is much easier to replace by another councilmember. This system doesn't have the political baggage that a mayoral system has.
Jun 17, 2009 at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
The president of the city council is Bill Truman. Truman is a truck driver and resides in the Fourth Ward. The president of the council is effectively the mayor. He or she and the other councilmembers are elected by the people. Then the councilmembers elect the president. It's called democracy.
Jun 16, 2009 at 7:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Not a personal vendetta. But I do resent that she slanders people in the city administration and on the city council. They have families.
The entire thing about her stemmed from her renters' complaints about her and the condition of her property. If you know of problem properties then complain about them and hope that those owners don't do a B'moon on the city administration and the city council.
And I do resent her efforts to damage the reputation of the Fourth Ward. You should too.
Jun 16, 2009 at 5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
She targeted the city. She manipulated a situation to draw attention to herself either way it played-out. If you knew anything about her, you'd know this.
Complaints by her own tenants began the carriage shack problem. The city went out of its way to accommodate her. She did everything she could possibly do to exacerbate the problem.
The city complies with the council's wishes. If the city was as wrong as you claim, there would be substantial opposition to what the city is doing.
You have tunnel vision.
Jun 16, 2009 at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
bobwood, you disagree with her claim that the city is on a bulldozing rampage. Then you defend her my saying she is being singled-out. At least you disagree with her claim that the city is on a bulldozing rampage.
Repeated complaints about problem properties should get the best results. There are a lot of fine-looking, well-kept homes in the Fourth Ward. The owners of those properties should organize to do something about the shabby ones.
Jun 14, 2009 at 2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
The city should go check out the property at 266 Riverside St. There is a huge hole in the roof and the garage roof is collapsed. It has been that way for some time.
Jun 13, 2009 at 4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
To end any confusion, the city tore down her "Carriage Barn" years ago on her property on Court st (across from Voigt music center) the big purple house with a business sign out front even tho there is no business.
This story is talking about the "Shed" behind her actual home on locust st. The shed was on land behind her house and apparently she tore it down herself.
As far as I know she doesn't have any more sheds or garages or carriage barns so this should be last of that fiasco.
Jun 13, 2009 at 11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
justsaynotomath - this is a different shed, not the one the city tore down.
Jun 12, 2009 at 5:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
genrene and hannah, you are both correct.
Did anyone see what SwissChick wrote that was deleted? I hope she didn't say anything bad about me!
;~)
Jun 12, 2009 at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
justsaynotomath,About the same time that her 1st carriage house was in question with the city, they were talking to me about mine to fix it up. The city went out of their way to work with me and the repairs/updating did not cost much at all. Although I do not agree with everything the city does all the time, I am more than positive she had ample time and help from the city to fix both of her sheds, all she had to do is talk with the city calmly and as an adult, which obviously she cannot.
Jun 12, 2009 at 10:17 a.m.
Jun 12, 2009 at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
The shed in question in this story is different than the one on Court. The city went out of its way to help her comply in the matter of the first shed. She manipulated the matter only to draw attention to herself. justsaynotomath, you don't know the story behind the first shed.
Jun 12, 2009 at 8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
The city could still have made her pay $1245, but didn't. There is no city agenda to give her a hard time. Her act of removing the shed is proof that she brings these problems on herself and that these problems are easily resolvable or preventable by her. Look at her properties on Court and Locust. They are shabby. If she had her way and if the city gave into her, Janesville would look like a shanty town.
Jun 12, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
The city discovered April 22 that the shed had been removed. The judge dismissed the case April 30. Shed removed, charges dropped against Briarmoon Thursday, June 11, 2009
Why did it take so long to get this published in the paper?
Jun 12, 2009 at 7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
I am positive that with all the problems that she gave the city through the years, the city will continue to find problems for her to fix. I'm just wondering which side is holding the score card???
Jun 12, 2009 at 6:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Did she have to take out a permit to tear it down?
Jun 11, 2009 at 9:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well, not knowing the situation, but using the noggin... typically, when there's a fire or something that doesn't affect the detached buildings, they are left when the ones affected are torn down. JMO
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.