Neighbors oppose Prudential LLC bus-fleet expansion; advisory board denies zone change, approves easement vacation

The Paradisetown Advisory Board heard extended public comment April 5 on a proposed expansion of an existing transportation service facility on the north side of Mall Avenue, and then denied the applicant’s requested zone change and design review but approved a separate easement vacation tied to the project.

The applicant, represented by Eduardo Denizio, said the company seeks to unify adjacent parcels for a larger transport facility, increase the number of on-site coach/shuttle parking spaces from 25 to 52 and improve on- and off-site circulation. Denizio told the board the expansion would add a second access point, larger setbacks from Mall Avenue and additional landscaping and that the owner would accept staff-recommended conditions of approval.

Why the board acted: The nut graf — neighbors strongly objected to noise, engine exhaust and off-site parking and pressed for an environmental review and operational limits. Multiple residents living directly across from the site described repeated overnight reversing alarms, diesel odors and buses parked on the street; several said noise and light have reduced their sleep and quality of life.

Residents' concerns and evidence: Gino Iezza, who identified his address as 2072 Culmination Lane, said he filed code-enforcement and other complaints and asked for an environmental impact statement, citing diesel exhaust, noise and effect on property values. He said he had videos and photos showing buses beeping during hours including 2 a.m. and vehicles staged along neighboring streets. Neighbor Elia Parno Moscoso and other residents described repeated nighttime alarms and the visual intrusion of tall coach tail lights over backyard walls.

Applicant response and proposed mitigation: Denizio said current coaches meet federal emissions standards and that on-site circulation under the new plan would reduce backing maneuvers that trigger audible backup alarms. He offered a decorative block wall (6–8 feet) with landscaping along the property edge and said the nearest parking spaces would be set back about 60 feet from Mall Avenue under the proposal. He also said the owner was unable to agree to a formal hours-of-operation restriction at the advisory-board hearing.

Board discussion and outcome: Board members pressed the applicant on circulation, employee parking and whether angled parking or other layout changes could reduce backing and alarms. Some members said the expansion could reduce some backing but acknowledged some backing would still occur. After board deliberation the advisory board voted to deny the requested zone change and design review application and to approve the vacation/abandonment of a portion of right-of-way for a detached sidewalk (the vacation motion passed). The board recorded acceptance of applicant commitments for a block wall and additional landscaping but did not adopt an hours-of-operation restriction, noting the development code places no such baseline limitation on the use.

What remains: Because the zone change and design review were denied, the applicant cannot proceed with the proposed expanded layout as presented. The approved vacation means the board cleared the narrow detached-sidewalk easement portion the applicant sought to adjust; that approval does not authorize the larger expansion denied by the board. The applicant indicated readiness to take board direction and to address remaining circulation and landscaping issues before any further applications.

Ending: Board members told neighbors they appreciated their attendance and said affected residents could also pursue code-enforcement complaints separately. The matter may return to future agendas if the applicant revises the proposal and seeks a different set of approvals.