Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery trustees accept plan-commission conditions but reject ordinance to allow 8-bay loading facility at 420 North Main
Summary
The board accepted the planning commission's recommendation for PCC 2025-018 with conditions but voted 0-5 against waiving first reading and approving Ordinance 21-52, citing concerns that an eight-bay truck loading facility would not fit the downtown and would increase truck traffic.
Trustees accepted the planning and zoning commission's recommendation for PCC 2025-018 — a variance to allow an eight-bay loading facility at 420 North Main Street LLC — but then voted down the enacting ordinance, Ordinance 21-52, by a 0-5 roll call.
Planning staff told the board the petitioner sought a variance because an eight-bay loading facility is not allowed in a front or corner side yard under the unified development ordinance; the plan commission recommended approval with conditions that the facility operate only from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays and that perimeter shrubs be at least five feet. "The petitioner is seeking a variance to construct an 8 bay loading facility," planning staff said during the discussion.
Several trustees said the proposal conflicted with the village's long-term vision for downtown and raised safety and neighborhood impacts. Trustee Geier said, "I'm not in favor. I don't think it's good for the neighborhood. It doesn't fit in with the plan downtown, and I don't like the additional truck traffic. I don't like the fact that trucks are gonna have to... to back in off the roadway." Another trustee noted that seven houses sit adjacent to the property and questioned whether eight truck bays were appropriate for a downtown block.
The board first voted to accept the planning commission's recommendation (motion moved by Trustee Brzozhka, seconded by Trustee Youngerman), which carried 5-0. Later, a motion to waive first reading and approve Ordinance 21-52 failed on roll call, 0-5 (Trustees Maraszek, Berzasca, Geier, Bauman and Youngerman recorded "no").
Because the board declined to enact the ordinance, the variance will not be implemented by legislative action at this meeting; parties interested in pursuing the project may return with modified plans or conditions for future consideration. The board did not set a follow-up date on the record before adjourning.
