Warehouse woes in Montgomery

Planning board agrees to go into further analysis

By Nadine Cafaro
Posted 6/6/23

Proposals for warehouses intended near a residential area in Montgomery have not exactly sat well with residents. In fact, residents and neighbors have shown up to every planning board meeting …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Warehouse woes in Montgomery

Planning board agrees to go into further analysis

Posted

Proposals for warehouses intended near a residential area in Montgomery have not exactly sat well with residents. In fact, residents and neighbors have shown up to every planning board meeting recently to state their opinions on it, and over a week ago, they’ve gotten the most hopeful news yet from the Village of Montgomery Planning Board, who decided to be a little more thorough.

The project in question is four warehouses along the northwest side of 211 by Union and Weaver Street. If approved, two 60,000 square foot (35 feet high) warehouses, and two 80,000 square foot (45 feet high) warehouses would be constructed for various uses. The project has been in the works for years and the applicant, several months ago, received a height variance in order to move forward.

The interactions between residents and the planning board regarding this project have not been consistently positive. Because of the prominent resistance to this project from residents, especially neighbors to the warehouses, they most recently decided to allow people to talk “by row” with a three minute time limit. In the past, the meeting has taken brief pauses to allow everyone to cool down and reconvene. One resident has even gone as far as petitioning to see Planning Board Chairman Kevin Conero out of office.

The bottom line: many Montgomery residents do not want to see these warehouses constructed and they feel that the planning board isn’t on their side. Conero has stated at past meetings that the planning board isn’t trying to hide the warehouses, but rather, mitigate them based on code.

At the most recent planning board meeting, however, residents finally got some welcome news.

At the meeting, the planning board was presented with some newly updated or revised studies, including a noise and parking analysis. Michael P. Bontje, B. Laing & Associates sound senior engineer, conducted the sound study for the project and provided some context. He measured the decibels at night, and by raising a planned sound attenuation wall from six to eight feet, it would reduce noise by 2 decibels.

Ross Winglovitz, principal of Engineering and Surveying Properties and a representative for the project, noted some parking updates, as residents were wondering where all of the large trucks are going to go. He mentioned there would be additional signage preventing trucks from going around the buildings and only through them. They also plan to prohibit left turns to prevent traffic on residential roads.

On top of this, they aim to plant double evergreen trees that would provide some mitigation for the light.

Conero asked about hours of operation, which the project does not intend to have based on the sound mitigation.

Of course, plenty of residents still took their chance to state their concerns and ask questions.

Union Street resident and Co-Chair of the Montgomery Democrat Committee Karina Tipton told the planning board, “It is something you can do,” when discussing the enforcement of set hours. In Tipton’s opinion, many issues could be solved if there are operating hours.

Christopher Ladanyi, Weaver Street occupant, referred to the village’s comprehensive plan. He stated that this project negates things in there, like preventing traffic congestion.

Village of Montgomery Board Trustee Walter Lindner also spoke at this meeting, asking “What are alternatives that people want to see?” He claims that residents need to say more than just “I hate commercial buildings.”

The planning board, after several more comments about the noise changes not actually reducing sound and continuing concerns about traffic and hours of operation, went into a client attorney session.

When they came out, Conero announced that they will get a second opinion on noise by using an outside, independent noise analyst. They will obtain a traffic consultant to further handle traffic concerns. The board will look into legalities on the possibility of imposing hours of operations on site, and finally, look into aquifer types by hiring a consultant.

The next planning board meeting will be on June 28.