East Central Reporter

Village of Montgomery Planning and Zoning Commission met April 3.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

I. Call to Order- Chairman Hammond called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.

II. Pledge of Allegiance- All present gave the Pledge of Allegiance.

III. Roll Call

Absent: Marion Bond

Present: Tom Yakaitis, John Ott, Mike Hammond, Mike Baum, Mildred McNeal-James, Joe Yen Also present: Village Attorney Matt Walters, Senior Planner Tony Farruggia, Secretary Jill Hoover, Trustee Ben Brzoska, Trustee Dan Gier, Trustee Steve Jungermann, Trustee Doug Marecek, and members of the audience.

IV. Approval of the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of April 3, 2025. Motion: Motion was made by Vice Chairman Yen to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 6, 2025.

Commissioner Yakaitis seconded the motion.

Ayes: Yen, Yakaitis, Ott, Hammond, Baum, McNeal-James.

Nays: None

Abstain: None

Motion carried.

V. Public Comment Period.

Chairman Hammond opened the public comment period. No one asked to speak, so Chairman Hammond closed the public comment period.

VI. Items for Planning and Zoning Commission Action

a. PZC 2025-004 Special Use and Variations for (Pet Place)

i. Public Hearing and Consideration of an Amendment to a Special Use - Animal Boarding

Chairman Hammond asked for Village Staff to present its report.

Senior Planner Farruggia gave some background. The owners of Pet Place (“Petitioner”) are proposing to expand their Animal Boarding business by expanding their dog run areas to the west side of 2051 Mayfield Dr (“Subject Property”). One new dog run, in the side-yard, would be enclosed by six (6) foot, vinyl-coated, chain-link fencing, and the other new dog run, in the front-yard, would be enclosed by four (4) foot, vinyl-coated, chain-link fencing. The front-yard dog run would primarily be used as a members-only dog park, and for occasional events. Only small dogs would be allowed in the front-yard dog run without an owner present.

Senior Planner Farruggia explained the existing Special Use predates the Unified Development Ordinance (“UDO”) but was obtained by a previous Animal Boarding business located at that site. The proposed amendment and Variances would allow Pet Place to expand the dog run areas. While there are residences nearby to the west and south, there is an undeveloped B-2 parcel between the Subject Property and these residences that accommodates a storm sewer line. Therefore, no landscape or fence screening is required by the UDO. Despite the lack of screening requirements, the Petitioner has expressed willingness to provide landscape screening along the sidewalk on the northwest side of the property.

Senior Planner Farruggia further explained the Subject Property is currently zoned B-2 Regional Business District, with a Special Use for Animal Boarding.

Senior Planner Farruggia noted the Petitioner is requesting three (3) variations from the Use Standards for Animal Boarding. The UDO states that fences for Animal Boarding are required to be a minimum six (6) feet in height. The previously granted Special Use required any fencing to be eight (8) feet high. The Petitioner is requesting that the minimum height be lowered to four (4) feet for the fence in the front yard. The UDO requires that fences in the front yard be a maximum of four (4) feet in height. The requested fence Variance would resolve this conflict. The fence would be aligned with the north edge of the parking lot, approximately nineteen (19) feet from the sidewalk, and would be vinyl-coated chain-link. The Petitioner is not required to provide landscape screening but has agreed to plant landscape screening along the sidewalk in front of the fence. The UDO restricts the number of dog runs to two (2). The petitioner is requesting three (3) dog runs: the existing dog run, a new dog run with a six (6) foot fence, and a new dog run with a four (4) foot fence that would primarily be used as a members-only dog park.

Staff recommends approval of the Amendment to the Special Use and Variations including the conditions and the Findings of Fact outlined in the Staff report.

Chairman Hammond opened the public hearing for public comment. There were no questions from the public, so Chairman Hammond closed the public hearing.

Chairman Hammond swore in the Petitioners Matt and Desiree Bruns.

The Petitioners noted they are excited about expanding the existing fence area. They clarified; they will never have dogs in the fenced area overnight. The fenced area is a daytime area for the dogs to run and play, there will always be a staff member supervising the dogs when outside. Ideally, they would like to use the front area to enhance their membership model. If someone purchases a membership, an added perk is to be able to use that as a community dog park. A benefit of that would be available to the members of the facility, meaning they would be vetted. Therefore, the dogs there will be known for being good at play and will have gone through the vaccination requirements. At a typical dog park there is no way to know if the other dogs are dog friendly or vaccinated.

The Petitioners explained, they would like to host events in the front area as well. Events to bring your dog and play bingo, or have a food truck, or a movie night. Additionally, they would like to have more adoption events, they have already had two adoption events inside the facility due to the recent weather and mud outside. There were approximately 30 dogs and it was crowded inside the building. They would like to be able to use the outside area to be able to give them additional room to take the dogs outside to look and play with them and walk around the area but still be contained. The Petitioners have also been in contact with some of the low-cost mobile vaccine clinics, they plan to use the inside area for the actual vet work and the outside area to be used as the waiting room.

The Petitioners further explained they have already contacted some fence companies about the safety of the dogs; including minimum gaps underneath the fence, as well as where the fence adjoins together, all gates will be self-closing, it is a double gated entry. There will be no access to the front of the building without going through a fence, so there will be very little risk of a dog getting in or out of the facility that shouldn’t be. The outside area will also be used in an event of a fire.

Chairman Hammond asked the Commissioners if they had any questions or comment.

Commissioner Yakaitis asked the Village if there is a limit to the number of dogs can be in this facility.

Senior Planner Farrugia stated there is not currently a limit on the number of dogs but believes there may be state requirements.

The Petitioners added, currently the only city with limits on the number of dogs per square footage is the City of Chicago. The general guideline is 15-20 square feet per dog. They have done the math for their play area, and they have decided to go up to 25-30 square feet per dog. Which puts the maximum number of dogs in the play area at 20 dogs. The only time there were more than 20 dogs there was during the adoptions. They were mostly puppies; they do have dogs of various sizes. Their plan is not to increase the capacity by much, in the event of bad weather or extreme temperatures the dogs will need to be inside. They pride themselves on having a smaller facility, they know all of their dogs and it is safer.

Vice Chairman Yen asked the Petitioners about using the outdoor area for boarding overnight.

The Petitioners stated they will not, they have different spaces inside the facility that the dogs are isolated from each other unless the owners have more than one dog and approved them to be together. They added the term boarding implies overnight stay; daycare is the term they use during business hours. There will be no overnight boarding outside.

Commissioner Yakaitis asked, when they use the term daycare and you expand the fences, how many hours they are expecting the dogs to be out there.

The Petitioners explained depending on the weather, including temperatures and the amount of mud they may not be out there at all, or only going to the bathroom. They are looking at ways to have shade for the dogs, gazebos or some sort of shaded structure until the trees mature.

Commissioner Yakaitis asked if during the daycare, the dogs would be outside all day.

The Petitioners stated on beautiful spring days they may be outside all day, but every day, they will not be due to the weather. Daycare is only during business hours which currently fluctuate. Their playgroups also fluctuate in size throughout the day, some dogs only come for a couple of hours.

Commissioner Yakaitis said his assumption is you would take a limited number of dogs that could be housed inside your building.

The Petitioners confirmed they always must account for severe weather.

Vice Chairman Yen asked about dog noise, barking is it just Village Ordinance they would follow?

The Petitioners explained when dogs are playing, they are running and chasing you do not get a lot of the barking you would get when a dog is in their backyard alone. The employees occupy them, when you have a barking dog, that is not usually the situation.

Commissioner Yakaitis asked Staff, if they do the events they mentioned like food trucks and movie nights; would that have to be a separate item brought to the Village?

Senior Planner Farruggia stated yes, that is not a part of the special use.

Chairman Baum noted a concern of the four-foot fence, he prefers it to be six-foot all the way around.

The Petitioners explained they are open to a six-foot fence, they started planning for that and learned that the four-foot fence would be better, it would also match the neighborhood.

Senior Planner Farruggia stated it was Staff recommendation, it would be more of a minimum deviation and better fulfill the intent of the broader ordinance. That being said it does not mean it has to be four-feet.

Commissioner Baum mentioned there would be smaller dogs in the front with the four foot fence. Isn’t a small dog going to jump over it?

The Petitioners noted that realistically any dog can jump over any fence, the question is why? Whatever is on the inside of the fence structure can be more enticing than what is on the other side. Dogs want to be with them, they have toys, other dogs, and dogs are social. The dogs they take in are play group dogs. They have gone their rigorous vetting process and have passed. They are not going to be taking a dog that is going to jump over a fence. One of the screening questions they ask is if the dog has ever tried to or successfully escaped a six-foot, four-foot or eight-foot fence; so far none of their pet owners have answered yes to that question. They know their current customers and they have vetted their dogs. Jumping over a fence is going to be unlikely because they have employees out there and they have enticing things on the inside of the fence.

Commissioner Baum stated he would still like to see at least a six-foot fence along the west side, closest to the single-family homes.

The Petitioners explained their plan is to keep it four-feet in the entire front area. To follow up on that, the other side of that fence is a ditch, so it drops down relatively quickly. They do not believe there is anything on that side of the fence that would entice a dog to jump over, there is a retention pond where the fence is located, it is going to drop off relatively steep there.

Commissioner Baum understands that with a four-foot fence from the road because you do not want to drive by a canyon, but on the west side a six-foot fence would make sense.

Vice Chairman Yen asked what type of fence it will be.

The Petitioners stated it will be a vinyl coated chain-link fence. They have talked to several different fence companies; it will be commercial grade. Their experience is that with a solid fence, dogs are curious what is on the other side, they can hear and smell but not see. Additionally, with the chain link, from inside it gives it a more open view which they like. For the look of it they stated the vinyl-coated chain link is their preferred option.

Vice Chairman Yen remembered they mentioned a shaded structure, he asked if there will be any other structures?

The Petitioners explained there will be no more permanent structures, only items on top of the ground like sunshades, umbrellas etc.

Commissioner Yakaitis asked Staff if that is something they should pass by the Village when they decide.

Senior Planner Farruggia explained it depends how big they want to go, if they are going with something along the lines of a gazebo as mentioned earlier, they would need a separate permit. The igloos mentioned earlier would not require a permit.

The Petitioner asked if the gazebo would need a permit if it was not attached to the ground.

Senior Planner Farruggia stated the Village would require it to be attached to the ground. The Petitioner asked if a pergola would require a permit.

Senior Planner Farruggia stated yes.

Commissioner Ott suggested canvas tarps or something like that, they would not need a permit.

Senior Planner Farruggia explained an umbrella or something similar would not need a permit.

The Petitioners noted they treat all the dogs like they are theirs, they would not want the dogs sitting out in the sun all day. If they are panting and overheating, they would not stay outside. It is just the two of them, not a large corporation. The dog and owners are all like family to them.

Vice Chairman Yen asked Staff, if the Petitioners are someday very successful and go somewhere else. Would anything restrict the new owners from using the area differently?

Senior Planner Farruggia explained if the use would require different approval, then yes. Vice Chairman Yen then asked if they could put large dogs in the front. Senior Planner Farruggia stated no it is specified in the Staff report.

Chairman Hammond asked if there were any further questions or comments. There were none.

Chairman Hammond asked for a motion.

Motion: Motion was made by Vice Chairman Yen to approve the Amendment to the Special Use for PZC 2025-004 with the conditions listed in the Staff Report and adoption of the Findings of Fact outlined in the report.

Commissioner Ott seconded the motion.

Ayes: Yen, Yakaitis, Ott, Hammond, Baum, McNeal-James.

Nays: None

Abstain: None

Motion carried.

ii. Public Hearing and Consideration of multiple variations from the Unified Development Ordinance, including:

1. Variation from Section 9.02.B.2 to allow animals to be located in the front yard.

2. Variations from 9.02.B.2 to allow three (3) dog runs instead of the maximum two (2).

3. Variation from Section 9.02.B.2 to reduce the minimum fence height in the front yard from six (6) feet to four (4) feet.

Commissioner Baum asked to amend the height of the fence from four feet to six feet on the western boundary.

Chairman Hammond asked the Petitioners if they would be ok with that.

The Petitioner said it would but then they would feel like they would need to have larger dogs in the front area so then they would need to go back to the previous motion. As it stands now with the four-foot fence area, it is appropriate for smaller dogs. Typically, dog parks have lower fences for transparency purposes. That is why they originally went with the four-foot fence. They did visit the dog park in the Sports Complex, it is four feet.

Chairman Hammond asked about locating a six-foot fence on the west side.

The Petitioners agreed, but do not understand the reasoning, if a dog were going to escape it would just go over to the four foot-side.

Commissioner Ott asked Commissioner Baum for clarification on the reason for the six foot request.

Commissioner Baum stated better screening from the single-family homes.

Commissioner Ott explained it is a chain link fence which is see-through. He was in agreement until he learned it was a chain link fence.

Commissioner Yakaitis suggested staying four-foot because if he were a homeowner there, he would rather see a four-foot fence than a six-foot fence in a backyard.

The Petitioners went into detail about issues with the current solid fence. They noted they do check for fence gaps daily for safety before letting any dogs out.

Chairman Hammond opened the Public Hearing for Variations. No one wished to speak, so Chairman Hammond closed the Public Hearing.

Chairman Hammond asked the Commissioner for any further questions or comments. There were none.

Chairman Hammond asked for a motion.

Commissioner Yakaitis asked if everyone was in agreement of the fence staying at four-feet? Commissioner Baum answered yes.

Commissioner Yakaitis made a motion to approve the Variations for PZC 2025-004 Pet Place with the conditions listed in the Staff Report and adopting the Findings of Fact outline in the report.

Commissioner McNeal-James seconded the motion.

Ayes: Yakaitis, Ott, Hammond, Baum, McNeal-James, Yen.

Nays: None

Abstentions: None

Motion carried.

Chairman Hammond stated this item will be forwarded to the Village Board on April 7th.

VII. Community Development Update/New Business

Senior Planner Farruggia noted that Popeyes is in their hands now, Staff is now waiting for them. There are a couple of new projects for next month, Spartan Athletic Complex for Aurora University is looking to annex in the adjacent property that is there. There is a petition for a smaller solar farm in the vacant area along the south side of the Gilman Trail tucked in behind the housing there. Coming up could possibly be a text amendment to address some of the issues that came up with Wayside Cross which has currently been tabled by The Board. We are going to look at the text amendment, probably next meeting to see how that might move forward.

Chairman Hammond asked if the Commissioner had anything. There was nothing.

A guest in the audience stated he missed the time to speak at the public comment period. He asked if we could go back to it, it is about Wayside Cross.

Chairman Hammond stated that is sitting with the Village Board right now.

Senior Planner recommended looking for the next agenda, otherwise it will be going to the Board for their second discussion. He noted there were some Board Members there he could talk to.

The guest then asked if the rezoning had already been figured out.

Senior Planner Farruggia said no, the final vote will be from the Village Board and has not taken place. The Board tabled the issue to see whether or not some of the concerns can be resolved, that is what is being worked on right now by the Petitioner.

The guest then asked if the Commission is no longer involved.

Chairman Hammond advised we will be involved in the text amendment that comes up, so if you want to come up and talk right now that is fine.

Chairman Hammond reopened the public comment period.

Chairman Hammond swore in Mr. Edward Barens of 206 Hartway Court.

Mr. Barens thanked the Commission for changing the agenda. He has called this neighborhood home for the past 13 years. They bought their house in 2012; it was abandoned and in disrepair after the foreclosure crisis. They replaced the roof, fixed the floors, painted every room, they made the home theirs. They chose Hartway Court not just because of the house, but for the neighborhood and the beautiful open space surrounding it. The field, the trees, the baseball diamonds, the landscape is not just scenic, it is part of the community’s heartbeat. Now the heartbeat is seemingly under threat, despite overwhelming concerns of the residents, it seems the proposed Urban Youth Ministries Center from Wayside Cross Ministries may move forward. To make this happen you will have to rezone a residential area into a business zone. That is not just a technicality, it is a permanent change to the character of their neighborhood. It is happening because possibly a sweetheart deal between Wayside Cross and Saint Olaf’s Church. With such a deal in place no real effort has been made to look elsewhere by Wayside. The day after the last Village meeting, he walked less than a quarter mile up Douglas Road. He found two empty lots for sale, four vacant commercial buildings, three adjoining with land. All suitable for this program, this youth activity center. Any logistical challenges, solvable with the same bussing system they have already used for over a decade at Saint Olaf’s. Another resident listed nine alternative addresses at an earlier Village meeting. He located, photographed and contacted realtors in one morning. But they were told no other options exist, of course not. Why would they walk away from a good deal like this. Then there is the traffic issue, even Trustee Doug Marecek admitted there has always been a traffic problem with or without the new center. That’s like saying there has always been a fire, so what’s a little more gasoline. That is not planning, that is short sidedness. At the March 24th meeting we heard from two individuals praising the love of the neighborhood. They spoke glowingly of its charm, while actively working to rezone their own residential property, 251 Sherman into a business so they can open a banquet hall. This means late night events with loud music, and even more traffic. Their generous offer to sell their acreage at 251 Sherman to the Youth Center if Saint Olaf’s plan falls through. Let’s call it what it is, it is positioning, buttering up diplomacy. Designed in making their own design go down easier when their time comes. Here is what happens if the Youth Center should fail. That rezoned business lot could become anything, a Planet Fitness Youth facility, not a thing yet, but think about it, it is not that far-fetched. Once rezoned the door is wide open, let me be clear, no one hear is against helping kids, but placing this center here in the middle of a residential area is not the only way and it is certainly not the best way. We are not just asking to be heard, we are asking for leadership, leadership that listens, leadership that plans with foresight, leadership that values long term community health over short term convenience. If you vote for this, you are not building a youth center, you are building distrust, you are paving over voices and calling it progress. We don’t call that progress; we call it a tragedy.

Chairman Hammond restated to keep an eye out for the item on the agenda for either the Village Board or for the Plan Commission.

VIII. Next Meeting:

The next meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission will be on May 1st.

IX. Adjournment: With no further business, Chairman Hammond adjourned the meeting at 7:49PM.

https://www.montgomeryil.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_05012025-743