Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Replat topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lodi council’s bid to fast-track lot replat fails on 3–3 tie; first reading advances
Summary
An attempt to suspend readings and immediately adopt a replat ordinance for two village lots deadlocked 3–3; the measure advanced on a subsequent first reading after the property owner described plans to build a shop and neighbors raised concerns about potential future uses.
A motion to suspend the three-reading rule and adopt an ordinance to replat Village Lot 905 and part of Outlot 28 failed on a 3–3 roll call at the April 14 Lodi Village Council meeting, halting an effort to fast-track approval for a property owner who wants to consolidate lots for a new shop.
The replat ordinance would create new Lots 1272 and 1273. Council Members Miller, Ridenour and Gorglione voted to suspend the readings and adopt the ordinance immediately; Council Members Surrarrer, Double and DeMell voted no, producing a tie that prevented emergency passage. The council then declared the ordinance’s first reading; the first reading passed unanimously, advancing the item to the regular ordinance process.
Why it matters: the owner told the council he plans to build a new shop and had previously met with the planning commission, which suggested keeping a conforming residential lot separate while consolidating commercial parcels. Neighbors said they are worried about potential future uses — one adjacent property owner objected to the prospect of “another impound lot” in the village — and Mayor Robert Geissman reiterated that any future building plans will require zoning review and public notice through the planning process.
Council Member DeMell raised a separate governance concern during the discussion, stating that a communication from the village solicitor had implied an official would be “unconstitutional for not voting a certain way.” DeMell read the solicitor’s message aloud and said he found the tone intimidating; other council members said the communication was not intended to single out the named member.
The council’s decision to allow the first reading preserves the applicant’s ability to proceed through zoning and planning steps while ensuring neighboring property owners will receive formal notice and an opportunity to comment at subsequent hearings. The council did not take a final vote to adopt the replat ordinance at the meeting.
