Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Building Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery begins review of vehicle-impact protection standards after Oswego incident
Summary
Staff recommended adopting building-code standards for vehicle-impact protection similar to Oswego’s, applying them prospectively to new construction and incentivizing voluntary retrofits; trustees debated scope, costs and liability before sending the matter to Planning & Zoning for a public hearing.
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Building Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Following a recent, high-profile crash in nearby Oswego, Montgomery staff briefed trustees on possible building-code or UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) amendments to require vehicle-impact protection at certain storefronts, new construction and other high-risk uses.
Sonya (planning staff) and Director Apt reviewed options used in Oswego and Sugar Grove, outlining standards such as bollards, metal barriers or decorative planters. Staff said they inventoried roughly 130 commercial structures and found about 35% either lack adjacent parking or already have protections. Given the diversity of existing building conditions, staff recommended applying standards prospectively to new construction and offering voluntary incentives—such as eligibility through the village’s MDF forgivable grant—for retrofits rather than a mandatory retrofit program.
Trustees debated applicability (commercial vs. industrial), which uses to include (outdoor dining, daycare play areas, senior-living entries), and how to implement standards (building code vs. zoning). Trustees discussed cost ranges — Sonya reported planters ranging from about $275 to $1,000 depending on size, while others noted bollards can range from several hundred to several thousand dollars depending on impact rating and mounting. Village counsel advised that code changes are generally prospective and that careful variance policies will be necessary because the topic implicates life-safety standards.
Board members asked staff to pursue detailed cost estimates, potential MDF eligibility, and a Planning & Zoning public hearing to refine applicability and enforcement before the board considers formal adoption.

