The Sayreville Planning Board voted to deny the site plan application for Tinon Auto Service Inc., a proposed bus maintenance facility at 2069 Highway 35, after extensive public comment and testimony about past violations, stormwater problems and neighborhood impacts. The denial followed testimony from the applicant, the applicant’s engineer and multiple residents during the board’s hearing on the application (PB25‑01).

Board members and residents said the question of whether the applicant would follow promised site remedies and regulatory requirements was central to their decision. The board heard testimony from the applicant’s attorney, the applicant’s engineer and company representatives about design revisions and operational commitments; residents presented사진 and eyewitness accounts alleging repeated unpermitted activity on the property between the last hearing and the current meeting.

The revised plan presented by the applicant reduced on‑site bus storage from 10 stalls to 6, reoriented buses so exhaust faces away from residential neighbors, expanded the vegetated buffer between the commercial area and adjacent homes from the ordinance‑required 50 feet to 130 feet, and proposed a six‑foot vinyl fence around the storage area. The applicant’s engineering testimony included commitments to regrade the southern property edge to redirect stormwater into the existing on‑site subsurface infiltration basin, to inspect and, if necessary, vacuum or repair that basin, and to prepare an operation and maintenance manual for long‑term performance. The applicant also pledged no bus washing or on‑site sanitary waste disposal, and presented a contract with Lorco (Lorco Petroleum Services) to remove waste oil, batteries and tires.

Neighbors disputed both past compliance and the sufficiency of the proposed fixes. Residents presented dated photographs they said showed multiple buses on the property, trucks washing buses and asphalt grindings and compacted millings placed on site. One resident, Bob Duffy of 111 Merritt Avenue, told the board he counted 32 alleged violations between the August meeting and the current hearing and said prior enforcement against an earlier owner took four years of legal action to resolve. Another resident, Jeffrey Short, submitted photographs he dated and labeled in evidence showing what he described as millings and contaminated soil, and alleged ongoing runoff to Merritt Avenue properties.

Board professionals noted several commitments by the applicant and recommended conditions, but at least one board member said they remained unconvinced the CME (board engineering firm) list of site deficiencies had been fully addressed. The applicant’s attorney and engineer said their plan sought to reverse prior unauthorized modifications and to restore and improve the site: converting a nonconforming single‑family structure to office/storage use, landscaping the former unauthorized southerly driveway and offering a restrictive covenant vacating any southerly ingress/egress rights, and moving and reorienting bus parking further from homes.

Testimony about operations included hours of operation limited to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays, occasional Saturday hours from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m., no overnight shifts, and a stipulation that maintenance and repairs occur only inside the building. The applicant said buses serviced at the site would be company‑owned vehicles only, and that more extensive cleaning or sanitary disposals occur at the applicant’s off‑site depot in Brooklyn or at another New Jersey facility. The applicant confirmed a contract with Lorco to remove waste fluids, batteries and tires and said routine trash removal would occur within the permitted hours.

After public comment and deliberation the board moved to deny PB25‑01. During roll call members recorded their votes to deny the application, citing unresolved credibility concerns about the applicant, continuing stormwater/groundwater and site remediation questions tied to the CME engineer’s report, and the history of alleged unpermitted on‑site activity. The board’s resolution denying the application followed that roll call vote.

The applicant and counsel said they had pursued corrections and submitted revised plans and that many elements of the plan were intended to bring the site closer into conformance with borough rules and to remedy previous violations attributed to prior owners. The board, however, concluded the outstanding concerns and the record of alleged noncompliance weighed against approval at this time. The board closed the file on PB25‑01 with the denial; the applicant may choose to return with additional evidence or revised submissions at a later date.