Can Brunswick City Council Be Trusted with Its Latest Development Plans?

Persistent rumors of financial interests tied to Market 42 have long cast a shadow over Brunswick City Council, and now a proposed Special Project Development is amplifying residents’ doubts about the council’s integrity. Law Director Dennis Nevar outlined the ambitious project, which spans six parcels zoned for commercial and medium-density residential use. The development envisions 43 two-story attached townhomes with garages, 239 residential apartments across two 3-story buildings (60 units total) and four 4-story buildings (179 units total, including six detached garages), and retail spaces totaling 14,883 sq. ft. along Center Road—8,140 sq. ft. for Building "A" at the northwest corner and 6,743 sq. ft. for Building "B" at the northeast corner—plus a 6,000 sq. ft. Building "G" near Pearl Road. Three of the 4-story buildings will feature garages below the first floor, aiming to blend residential and commercial vibrancy in Brunswick’s evolving landscape.

Yet, beneath this vision lies deep community skepticism, fueled by allegations of self-interest among council members, notably Councilman Brandon Lambert and Vice Mayor Nicholas Hanek. Market 42, a $15 million mixed-use project at 2099 Pearl Road set to open in spring 2025, has already stirred controversy with claims that Lambert and Hanek hold undisclosed financial stakes. Lambert, Ward 3’s representative since at least 2021, is allegedly launching Pasta Fresca, LLC, within Market 42’s food hall, with his wife Anita Lambert as statutory agent. Hanek, Ward 2’s councilman and Vice Mayor since 2022, is rumored to be a silent shareholder in Market 42, possibly masking ownership through NRW Law Offices. These allegations, if true, suggest both played key roles in approving a project that could personally enrich them, raising serious questions about their impartiality.

Public records offer no trace of Lambert disclosing his interest during discussions, such as the July 21, 2022, Planning Commission meeting where he supported Market 42, stating, “there is nothing outside the realm of normal for this development and there is no cause for concern.” Similarly, no evidence shows Hanek revealing his alleged stake while overseeing council proceedings. Ohio’s ethics law, Section 102.03 of the Revised Code, mandates transparency for financial interests that could sway decisions, and Section 2921.42 prohibits unlawful stakes in public contracts—though Market 42 appears privately funded, the principle of disclosure remains critical. Without official confirmation of wrongdoing, these claims linger as troubling yet unproven, intensifying local unease.

Community frustration is palpable. A Change.org petition with over 400 signatures opposes Market 42’s density, citing 18 paired villas exceeding zoning limits on an 8-acre site, alongside traffic and wetland concerns. Residents now fear the new Special Project Development will echo these issues. John Doe decried the council’s rejection of a Boston Road and I-71 interchange, warning, “Traffic will be a nightmare without it—why block a solution?” Jane Smith pointed to “whispers of secret deals” from Market 42, suggesting a pattern of opacity. Kirkwood demanded, “No more building until safety forces and street departments can meet current demands,” reflecting a broader call for infrastructure over expansion. Bill Ohlrich accused, “Our leaders care more about dollars than us,” while William Sparenga proposed, “Maybe it’s time for new council members who actually listen.”

The council’s silence only deepens the rift. Neither Lambert nor Hanek has publicly addressed these allegations, despite repeated calls for clarity from residents. Lambert’s comments in 2022, like noting it would cost developers “$350,000 to remove one unit,” hint at support for Market 42’s scale without acknowledging his alleged stake. Hanek, as Council President, likely chaired votes on the project, yet no recusal is noted. This lack of transparency fuels suspicions that personal gain trumps public good, a sentiment echoed in the petition’s plea to protect Brunswick’s character over unchecked growth.

For the new development, trust hinges on openness. Residents aren’t just worried about traffic or density—they question motives. If Lambert and Hanek influenced Market 42 for profit, what’s to stop them now? The council’s rejection of the interchange, a practical fix for traffic woes, feels suspicious in this light. Without clear answers, Brunswick’s latest venture risks becoming another flashpoint in a growing divide. The Ohio Ethics Commission (614-466-7090) could probe these claims, but residents must push—silence from 4095 Center Road only widens the gap.