Commission denies conditional‑use permit for proposed TR Cruz Auto after concerns about across‑street parking and business plan

The Kenosha City Plan Commission voted Jan. 8 to deny a conditional‑use permit for a proposed vehicle sales facility at 5514 22nd Avenue, following extended discussion about parking, safety and the applicant’s business plan.

Applicant representatives said they were preparing a parking plan and that an adjacent parcel would provide additional spaces. Neighbors and commissioners, however, said that the two parcels were not yet coordinated and that relying on an across‑street lot posed public‑safety and land‑use concerns. “Without that parking lot you could not survive,” one commissioner said during debate, arguing the proposal was not sufficiently synchronized across the two properties.

Several commissioners also questioned the applicant’s financial projections. One commissioner reviewed the plan of operation and said it anticipated selling 20 vehicles in a year at roughly $950 profit per vehicle, while startup costs and labor suggested little or no first‑year profit. “The business plan doesn’t appear to be genuine,” the commissioner said, adding the numeric estimates did not support long‑term viability.

Staff told the commission that plans for the adjacent lot were not yet in the city’s files and that the commission previously had asked the owners to coordinate the two parcels. Commissioners debated deferring the item to allow the parties to produce coordinated materials and a comprehensive plan, including a realistic parking arrangement. After an initial deferral motion was retracted, the commission moved to deny the permit; the motion passed by voice vote.

Commissioners who supported denial cited a history of conditional‑use permits for automotive uses that were difficult to enforce once granted and said the commission should be cautious about approving uses that could later be problematic to reverse. Commissioners who favored deferral said more time could allow staff and applicants to produce a comprehensive plan, but ultimately a majority favored denial based on the information before them.

The denial was recorded as the commission’s formal action on the CUP; the transcript records a voice vote in favor of denial and does not list individual vote tallies.