Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Enterprise car‑remarketing facility held after neighbors raise fuel, noise and screening concerns
Summary
The Enterprise Town Advisory Board agreed to hold a proposed Enterprise vehicle‑remarketing facility (UC250120) after residents expressed concerns about an on‑site fuel tank, vehicle repair and visibility of an 8‑foot security fence. The applicant agreed to submit revised plans and the item was continued to a future Enterprise TAB meeting.
The Enterprise Town Advisory Board on March 26 voted to hold a proposed Enterprise vehicle‑remarketing facility (UC250120) after residents raised concerns about fuel storage, vehicle repair activity and site screening. The board agreed to continue the item so the applicant can submit revised, final plans before the board and county review.
The applicant described the proposal as a secured lot where rental vehicles withdrawn from fleet service are temporarily stored and prepared for off‑site sale. Basic operations would include one small office, limited on‑site reconditioning work (minor repairs and windshield or dent repairs), employee parking and loading for car‑haulers. The applicant stated vehicles would be driven onto the lot one‑by‑one and removed by haulers; haulers could visit the site up to four times a day when cars are being shipped.
Neighbors expressed strong concerns about an on‑site fuel tank, the possibility of vehicle repair and remediation activity near private wells, and whether an 8‑foot fence would be a chain‑link appearance or a solid screen. “If that is correct, that is a serious problem because fuel tanks always have the possibility of leaking. Those people to the north have domestic wells,” said John Hyatt, a resident who opposed the proposal. Other neighbors said the fence and grade differences could mean headlights would shine into nearby yards if the wall were built at the applicant’s elevation.
The applicant said they will submit revised plans that will show detached sidewalks, added right‑turn pockets and revised screening and that they were willing to avoid loading on the street and to limit repair work. The transcript shows comprehensive planning flagged conditions that would prohibit vehicle repair and on‑site fuel storage; the applicant said they would address those conditions.
Given the number of outstanding plan details and neighborhood concerns, the board adopted a motion to hold the item and return it to the Enterprise TAB at a later date; the motion carried. The applicant asked to return with revised plans and the board set a future Enterprise TAB meeting for continued consideration.
