A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Planning agency refers proposed Tractor Supply site in Kingsbury with stormwater and soils note

March 31, 2026 | Washington County, New York


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Planning agency refers proposed Tractor Supply site in Kingsbury with stormwater and soils note
Planning staff presented a referral for a proposed 21,533‑square‑foot Tractor Supply retail store at 3686 Boy Avenue (applicant: FIC 188 LLC). The plan calls for a commercial building with front display space, banked parking, an infiltration basin and connections to an existing water main. Staff said the applicant reported no wetlands on site but highlighted substantial changes to on‑site hydrology, including runoff directed by swale and underground gravity pipes into a proposed infiltration basin.

The agency said the parcel sits within 500 feet of New York State Route 32 and is adjacent to a state building, which, along with the site's proximity to a busy summer traffic corridor, prompted questions about circulation and public safety. A member asked whether an existing residence and pool would be demolished; staff confirmed the residence and pool would be removed and the parcel subdivided for the project.

The planning staff recommended the referral be treated as a matter of local concern with a note that the applicant confer with soil and water to verify whether there are regulated wetlands or other hydrologic constraints not evident in the application materials. One board member noted the site's sand substrate may promote infiltration but acknowledged that rerouting flows and converting swales to underground storm sewer represent significant hydrologic changes.

A motion to forward the project as a matter of local concern with the suggested soil‑and‑water consultation was seconded and approved with no recorded opposition. The agency recorded the referral and asked staff to include comments on stormwater management, pedestrian access (sidewalk placement), and the proposed propane tank in its referral letter.

The agency did not make a permit decision; the action recorded in the meeting was a referral for local comment and recommended technical follow‑up.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee