Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Troy planning commission holds hearing open on 2931 Union Street land-use amendment after notice error
Summary
The East Troy Plan Commission halted action on a request to allow personal and professional services — including a hair salon — at 2931 Union Street after staff found property-owner notices required by village ordinance were not mailed. The applicant and business owner may return at the Feb. 10 meeting; staff will send the 300-foot notices.
The East Troy Plan Commission on Jan. 13 held open a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the 2931 Union Street Plan Development District after staff reported the village failed to mail required notices to properties within 300 feet.
The commission’s action pauses consideration of a general development plan amendment that would allow personal and professional services — such as a hair salon — in the former school portion of the church/school building at 2931 Union Street and would add a multi‑tenant monument sign. The commission voted to adjourn the hearing to its Feb. 10 meeting and directed staff to mail the 300‑foot notices before that meeting.
The hearing closed after a staff memo disclosed the notice omission and explained the ordinance’s language allowing unintentional failure to mail notices does not automatically void proceedings. Oren, the village zoning administrator, told commissioners the village published the class‑2 paper notice required for public hearings but did not mail the owner notices within 300 feet. He said the ordinance allows the Planning Commission the option to adjourn the hearing to allow those notices to be sent.
The applicant, identified in the packet as Steve Lambrecks, described difficulty leasing the property as strictly office space and said allowing personal and professional services would create more leasing opportunities. He said prior approvals allowed office use and that a 2023 amendment had permitted retail in the sanctuary portion of the building.
Local business owners who spoke at the hearing supported the change and described minimal parking impact so far. Annette Roady, who said she owns three businesses in the village, told the commission she has “never seen … parking be an issue there.” Sarah Weymayer, who identified herself as owner of Divine Hair Studio and said she has operated in the space for about three weeks, said: "I was unaware that any of this was an issue. I was really excited about opening my business there" and described appointment‑only operations with three staff, saying client parking has been manageable.
Staff and the applicant acknowledged parking is a central issue. Oren reviewed the PDD language that currently exempts on‑site parking for uses in the church/school building and noted that staff recommends specifically excluding hospitals, medical offices and veterinary clinics because those uses have higher parking demands. He summarized code parking guidelines for similar uses: office space is typically counted at one space per 300 square feet, and other commercial uses are measured by maximum capacity (one space per three persons) — figures staff cited for commissioners’ consideration.
The zoning administrator also told the commission the village learned via complaint that a hair salon had been operating in the school portion without formal permits. "The hair salon is there without permits or approvals from the village currently," Oren said; he added that approval of the PDD amendment would allow the business to seek the proper occupancy and approvals.
Because the required property‑owner notices were not mailed, several commissioners and members of the public asked that adjacent property owners be notified and given an opportunity to comment in person at the rescheduled hearing. The commission’s motion to adjourn the hearing to Feb. 10 at 6:30 p.m. and to require staff to mail notices to property owners within 300 feet passed unanimously.
The Feb. 10 meeting will reopen the public hearing; comments already made were entered into the record and will be available to the commission and village board. Staff said the salon could continue to operate while the application remains pending and that, if the commission approves the amendment after the rescheduled hearing, the business would then be able to pursue the required permits and occupancy certificate.
The file for the application is listed in the packet as application 2024‑17 for 2931 Union Street Plan Development District. The commission’s recommendation on the general development plan amendment will go to the Village Board for final action if the commission chooses to forward it after the Feb. 10 hearing.
