Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning agency sends Kingsbury tow‑yard site plan back with fencing and zoning concerns
Summary
Washington County planning agency referred a proposed tow‑yard at 1132 Dix Avenue in the Town of Kingsbury back to the local planning board as a "matter of local concern," citing screening, zoning classification, and permitting questions; one member abstained from the vote due to a family relationship.
The Washington County Planning Agency voted to return a proposed tow‑yard site plan in the Town of Kingsbury to the local planning board for further review, citing questions about screening, permitted uses and required permits.
Agency members discussed a project submitted for 1132 Dix Avenue by an applicant identified in the packet as Charles Kathleen. Staff told members the application was for a lot to store towed or impounded vehicles. A staff presenter said the change of ownership and a short vacancy period triggered the agency-level site plan review.
Members raised several concerns. Agency members asked how the use was being classified under the town’s zoning (the lot is in LDR‑25 with a COM‑1A commercial overlay) because the overlay’s listed permitted uses do not explicitly mention automobile tow yards. Members also pressed for more information about ingress and egress, the expected scale of tow trucks (staff said the applicant would use a flatbed tow truck), and whether an opaque fence or other screening would be provided. Staff confirmed the applicant told them the lot would not be paved and that vehicles would be kept on trays to reduce dust.
A member noted the federal/state/municipal motor vehicle registration process and said DMV permitting or registration requirements for repair/impound operations should be confirmed. One member referred to the so‑called “Lady Bird law” in discussion of screening requirements; staff recommended screening be clarified for the planning board. A member also noted previous applications for similar uses had limited the number of vehicles on site; the packet referenced a limit of about 20 cars and storage durations of roughly one to two months or less.
One planning agency member abstained from the vote after disclosing a family relationship to the applicant and citing advice from counsel. The motion on the floor — to return the site plan as a matter of local concern with recommended notes about fencing, confirmation of permitted use, and any required DMV/repair‑shop registrations — was seconded and carried. The chair announced the motion carried with one abstention.
The agency’s review is advisory: staff explained the planning agency’s comments are nonbinding recommendations for the local planning board to consider when it takes its formal action.
Members indicated they will ask the Town of Kingsbury planning board to clarify the proposed use classification, require details on screening (an opaque fence was specifically referenced), and confirm any applicable permitting or registration requirements before the project proceeds.
Votes at a glance: the agency moved to return the Kingsbury tow‑yard site plan to the local board as a matter of local concern; the motion was seconded and announced carried with one abstention.
