New nanobrewery wins permit OK

New nanobrewery wins permit OK

SAVOY — One legal hurdle cleared. One to go.

The Savoy Village Board, on a 5-1 vote, approved a special-use permit this week for Triptych Brewery.

Triptych's owners still must acquire a liquor license before their operation can open.

There was some opposition to the nanobrewery being located at 1703 Woodfield Drive, particularly from residents of The Arbours, the subdivision backing up to the property.

The issue required a two-thirds vote from the board because more than 40 percent of nearby residents objected to the action.

A provision was added to limit the tavern special-use permit to the Triptych Brewery owners and to not allow the permit to stay with the property. Village Manager Richard Helton made the suggestion because the Triptych owners said if they were to leave the location in the future, they did not want someone else to be able to come into the location and use the permit without permission.

Trustee Jan Carter Niccum, the only board member to vote against issuing the permit, expressed concerns, not about the concept of the nanobrewery, but about the location. Niccum said the issue of the new Illinois Video Gaming Act was of concern to him. Because the nanobrewery would hold a liquor-pouring license, it would be eligible to have up to five game terminals, unless an ordinance was passed prohibiting the games.

Niccum also stated he had concerns regarding the licensing. He would like to see, and anticipates, a special license being created for a microbrewery.

In other news, the board approved the final plat for the Marketplace at Savoy, the development project on the corner of Curtis Road and U.S. 45. After demolition began, a safety issue arose, delaying progress for several days. The issue has been rectified, and demolition will continue. Due to the postponement, the date the land will be turned over to CVS has been pushed back to June 2. The property was originally promised to be ready by May 28. Helton said he does not believe the delay will be a deal breaker, and he expects the CVS project to continue.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mark Taylor wrote on May 18, 2012 at 11:05 am

The friendly, upstanding, moral small town of Savoy is being turned into an evil suburb of Sodom and Gommorah on the Prairie. All the GOOD residents of Savoy must rise up and prevent this den of inequity from rising up in their midst.

virgil g wrote on May 18, 2012 at 12:05 pm

We need to keep pool tables out of River City!



virgil g wrote on May 18, 2012 at 12:05 pm

Where's Dick Van Dyke when we need him?

je wrote on May 18, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Are you for real?  Sounds to me more like a den of self righteousness and judgement.  

It is a commercial property, right?  Not sure why residents nearby that moved next to it have that much ground to stand on with this complaint.

I'm sure you'll still be welcome to worship spirits at the brewery.


Mark Taylor wrote on May 18, 2012 at 1:05 pm

SAve your socialistical sarcasm. SAVE SAVOY FROM SIN!

kiwifuz wrote on May 18, 2012 at 4:05 pm

You are aware that alcohol has been for sale and available in much larger quantities for a while in Savoy, right?

I have no doubt that much more alcohol, beer or otherwise, has been purchased and consumed between Walmart and BW3 than will probably ever be at the nanobrewery.

Oh wait, it's CVS that you're against right?  That bargain booze they sell is going to send Savoy right to he**!

At least Savoy is looking out for their tax base and bringing in business.  If you're anti-business move to Urbana!

Savoyard wrote on May 18, 2012 at 8:05 pm

Thanks village trustees for ignoring the wishes of the citizens of Savoy. At the public hearing, only two residents of Savoy spoke for the nano brewery, the rest of the people for it were  from Champaign and Urbana with two coming from Rolling Acres! Everyone else, including the residents of the neighborhood next to the site, spoke against it. Even the owner of the proposed nano brewery said that some people would find the aroma from the brewery "objectionable" (his word). People in Savoy are not anti-business - they just thought that this was an inappropriate site for a manufacturing plant. Not so 5 trustees who apparently represent everyone BUT residents of Savoy. 

virgil g wrote on May 21, 2012 at 10:05 am

Like a child screaming when getting a shot, sometimes, just because you complain, doesn't mean that you are right. 

The village board is doing what they think is best for Savoy, could the location be better, yes, would it be better for Savoy if it was in Champaign or Urbana, no.

The board did represent Savoy, they knew that bringing in business, is good for Savoy.

Jay Pea wrote on May 22, 2012 at 8:05 am

Your assertion is disingenuous at best. The hearing process on this matter spanned three public meetings. I don't know what went on at that final meeting, though I understand the business owners and many of their supporters felt they had already spoken up, so simple repetition was unnecessary. I do know that at each of the first two meetings many more people spoke in support of the new business than against, including more individuals from Savoy for versus against. It's a matter of record, as are the numbers of signatures on petitions from people from in Savoy and in the nearby demographic. The News-Gazette has previously reported the petition signers from Savoy alone at 120 supporting the business versus "over 50" against (as far as I know those numbers and signatures had not been verified, so take that as you will). An addition several hundred people from the larger Champaign county area spoke or signed petitions in support of a local business which will add to the bottom line of the Village of Savoy.

What I find most telling are the nearby business persons who initially opposed the issuance of a special use permit based on misinformation from a third party. When they actually talked to the business owners and got the facts they dropped their opposition. How many of those opposed to the business can say they got first-hand information before forming an opinion?