Enterprise TAB approves Maverick gas station use permit, denies two driveway and canopy waivers

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board on Jan. 29 approved a use permit (UC240720) and limited waiver relief for a proposed Maverick gasoline station and convenience store at the east side of Jones Boulevard and south of Madura Avenue, but rejected two specific engineering waivers and denied the project’s design review.

The approved actions allow a retaining/decorative screen wall deviation and a single landscaping waiver (waiver 2c), while the board voted to deny waiver 2a (reduction of the 200-foot separation from a residential area for the fuel canopy) and waiver 2b (certain driveway/throat depth deviations). The board also denied the design review; the motion passed on a recorded voice vote described in the meeting as 4‑to‑1.

The board’s action means the applicant may move forward with the use‑permit entitlement but must return with design corrections or obtain the denied waivers on appeal. Chair (name not provided in transcript) said the applicant will still need to “convince public works” that the driveway and canopy details are safe before a final approval can issue.

Rich Piggott, representing Maverick, told the board the project team had revised the driveway throat and stacking dimensions to address public‑works concerns and that the site’s configuration and local street (Jones Boulevard) should mitigate impacts on the adjacent residences. Piggott described changes including increasing a problematic throat depth from about 5 feet to roughly 10.7 feet and providing wider drive aisles to avoid queuing onto the public right of way.

Several board members questioned the canopy location and safety near nearby residences. One member suggested flipping the convenience store and canopy to resolve circulation and safety concerns; another said the canopy setback reduction was “unmotivated” given public‑works concerns. A board member who supported the use permit said Maverick sites are typically well‑landscaped and that waiver 2c and the decorative wall were acceptable. The board’s motion approved waiver 1 and waiver 2c, denied waivers 2a and 2b, and denied the design review, with the motion announced as carried.

The board did not set aside final building permits; staff advised that additional public‑works signoff and any revised design review submittal will be required before the site can obtain certificates of occupancy.