Greendale planning commission recommends denial of zoning change that would allow 'bakery stands' in parks

The Village of Greendale Plan Commission on an evening meeting recommended denial of a proposed zoning text amendment that would add a defined "bakery stand" to the zoning code and permit such stands in park districts.

The proposal, submitted in application materials under varying spellings, sought to add "bakery stand" to Section 17.03 and to revise Section 17.28 of the Greendale Zoning Code to allow no more than one bakery stand per park. The application packet identifies the applicant as the owner of the Salty Dog/Salty Farm stand (transcript shows alternate spellings). Attorney Michael Van Cluden, representing the applicant, said the draft limits a bakery stand to one per park, prohibits alcohol and potentially hazardous foods, disallows loudspeakers, and sets proposed hours at 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Staff policy testimony from Mike (Speaker 6) recommended denial, saying the Peapark District’s intent is to support park activities and amenities — such as beer gardens and concession stands tied to recreation — and that stand-alone retail is generally more appropriate in business zoning districts or temporary market venues. "My recommendation would be to deny the proposed Zoning Text Amendment," staff said.

Commissioners pressed on several points: whether the change would effectively open parks to broader retail uses, whether the use should be a permitted use (leading to clerk-issued permits) or a conditional use with more oversight, how aesthetics and parking would be addressed, and whether village parks should be excluded (limiting any allowance to county-owned parks). One commissioner asked whether the change might take business from existing village retailers; another called it a potential "Pandora's box." The applicant's owner (Speaker 10) said most products are packaged for home consumption but many items are suitable for immediate park users.

The commission considered a motion to table while the applicant narrowed the ordinance language. That motion failed on a roll call (three votes no, two yes, one abstention). The commission then voted on a motion to recommend denial; the record shows the planning commission's recommendation to deny passed 5-0-2. Staff said the planning commission’s record and recommendation will be part of the Village Board public hearing evidence; staff will publish the hearing notice and provide the hearing date to commissioners.

The commission did not approve the zoning text amendment and recommended that the Village Board deny the change, with staff to schedule the public hearing.