Board debates screening, berm heights and variances for Route 20 trucking facility
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Members discussed zoning petition 10B1 for a trucking/storage site on Route 20, agreeing to break the item into separate votes (conditional use and variances), debating berm and screening heights, lighting controls and traffic/entrance considerations; one variance requires a three‑quarter majority because the ZBA recommended denial.
The Committee of the Whole spent substantial time discussing zoning petition 10B1 — a proposed trucking and outdoor storage facility on Route 20 — focusing on screening, berm heights, lighting and separate votes for conditional-use and variance questions.
Board members agreed to break the overall petition into multiple votes so the conditional use, the paving/grindings variance (which the Zoning Board recommended for denial) and the vehicle-storage allowance could be considered independently. Planning staff said the grinding-in-lieu-of-paving variance received a negative recommendation at the ZBA and would therefore require a three‑quarter majority of the full county board to approve; the storage-of-unowned-vehicles variance carried a positive recommendation (6–1) at the ZBA and would need only a simple majority on the county board.
Several members proposed increasing screening along the west edge that faces residences, with suggested total berm-plus-plantings heights ranging from 8–15 feet depending on the edge; members also asked staff to add shielding requirements so lights are not directly visible from neighboring properties and to explore sensor-controlled lighting so security lights do not remain on 24/7.
Traffic and safety concerns were raised: some members said the entrance/exit lanes at the site do not appear widened in the applicant drawings and that semi-truck movements at night require careful lighting and access design. Members asked staff to draft clearer conditions reflecting higher berms on the west and south edges and to confirm what screening and lighting the applicant intends to provide before the Tuesday voting meeting.
What remains: The committee agreed to present the item on the regular zoning agenda with separated votes and to clarify the proposed conditions and screening language in the packet for the upcoming meeting. No final county-board votes on 10B1 were recorded during the committee session.