Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees table review of proposed 361-unit storage facility at 1816 Melbourne after traffic and site questions
Summary
Trustees heard a presentation on a planned-business proposal for a 10-building storage facility at 1816 Melbourne, received a traffic study finding minor delay increases, and voted to table further review pending additional information and absent members.
Trustees of the Village of Swansea on Monday heard a presentation on a proposed storage facility at 1816 Melbourne but voted to table further action until the next meeting.
The applicant, Taylor Hatjewski, said the project would include 10 storage structures totaling 361 units, concrete foundations, 26-gauge steel walls and roofs, a gated Llewellyn entrance and on-site landscaping. "We would not have exterior lights to the development — they would be interior LED fixtures every 50 feet," Hatjewski said during the presentation.
Traffic engineer Nirav Patel of CBB told the board his firm collected AM and PM peak data and used standard ITE trip-generation methods for storage uses. "The study showed minor increases in delay, but nothing significant that required mitigating conditions," Patel said, while recommending that site civil engineers confirm intersection sight-distance and provide turning templates in revisions.
Dan, the village planning staffer who summarized the application for trustees, said the file included a site plan, photometric plan, traffic impact statement and stormwater/drainage report. He noted the Planning & Zoning board had previously held a hearing and voted 5–2 against the proposal on Aug. 5, 2025, but that staff review found the submitted materials met code and staff recommended approval to the trustees.
During public comment and trustee questions, residents raised concerns about the parcel adjacent to the development being left undeveloped and about the traffic study’s timing relative to neighborhood commuting patterns. One resident asked whether intersections to the east and west (including Sullivan Drive) had been examined; Patel said those intersections were not in the original scope and could be added in a revised study.
Trustee Jablonski moved to table the review to the next meeting, citing absentee trustees and outstanding questions for the applicant; the motion was seconded and the board voted to table the matter. Trustees asked staff to provide a list of follow-up questions to the applicant so responses can be provided before the next hearing.
The tabling means the village will not act on zoning or permit approvals for the site at this meeting; staff and the applicant will return with requested clarifications and any revised technical studies.
