South Amboy planning board delays site‑plan vote for bus‑maintenance operation at 2069 Route 35

At a Planning Board hearing, applicants for PB25‑01 asked to repurpose the former commercial property at 2069 Route 35 in South Amboy for maintenance of a coach‑bus fleet; the board agreed to carry the application to a September meeting after residents and board professionals pressed for more information and stronger controls.

The proposal, presented by Kenneth Pape, attorney for the applicant, would convert existing buildings for a bus‑maintenance operation run by tenant Zhengrong Wang of Tennant Auto Service. Pape asked the board to adjourn the application to September so the team could revise plans and meet with borough staff: “we respectfully ask if this board would allow us to be adjourned to a date in September,” he said.

Why it matters: neighbors said buses are already being parked and serviced on the site and reported diesel exhaust, power washing and runoff problems that they say have harmed yards and landscaping. Board professionals and the applicant discussed stormwater blockages, operation and maintenance (O&M) oversight, and conditions that would limit the facility’s impact on adjacent homes.

Applicant presentation and offered restrictions Kenneth Pape introduced tenant Zhengrong Wang as the business operator and Kiara Nissen as the project’s professional engineer. Wang told the board the site would be used only for maintenance of the applicant’s bus fleet and “not a business that's open to the general public,” answering in the hearing that services would occur inside the building.

Wang and counsel described proposed limits the applicant agreed to put on the record: weekday hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., limited Saturday hours (8 a.m.–2 p.m., only as needed), no Sunday operations, removal of the on‑site single‑family residence for parts storage and office use, and a current staff level of five employees with a requested maximum of seven. Pape and Nissen said the plan shows 12 parking spaces for employees and 10 bus storage stalls.

Engineering, landscaping and stormwater Kiara Nissen, the applicant’s professional engineer, summarized technical elements and mitigation steps. She said the plan reduces impervious area by about 7,000 square feet, retains an existing subsurface infiltration basin and proposes substantial new buffering on the residential (southern) boundary: “We are proposing ... 6 new ornamental trees, 147 evergreen trees, and 30 shrubs,” she said, and the applicant said it would increase the planted buffer from the 50 feet required by borough ordinance to as much as 100 feet where feasible.

Nissen and counsel also told the board they had obtained outside‑agency responses the application filed with the board: a letter of no interest from the New Jersey Department of Transportation and a county letter stating the county had no requirements. The engineer said the site’s infiltration system was visually inspected after rain and appears to be operating; board members asked for more definitive verification (see Board requirements, below).

Waivers, variances and technical items The presentation noted existing zoning variances granted with prior approvals (front‑yard setback and a prior buffer variance tied to a zoning board approval dated 03/25/2001). The applicant requested several site waivers from borough standards intended to retain existing conditions: reduced curbing, limited sidewalk construction along the frontage, and modified striping. The applicant said there would be no new signage and numerals only to assist emergency responders.

Concerns from neighbors and board professionals Multiple nearby residents described ongoing activity they said has already taken place at the property. Robert Duffy of 111 Merritt Avenue submitted a package of photographs (marked O‑1) and said he had observed smoke and buses being power washed on the site. Paula Duffy, also of Merritt Avenue, urged the board to reject the application: “Quite simply, it's a time to say no,” she said.

Residents alleged diesel exhaust, frequent idling and vehicle servicing that they said had occurred before any site approval. They also raised drainage and erosion claims tied to material the previous owner placed on the lot; neighbors asked for camera inspection and remediation of the stormwater system. The applicant’s representatives acknowledged prior problems, said some previous activity had been stopped when authorities intervened, and offered commitments to address several items.

Board questions and applicant commitments Board members and the borough professional staff pressed the applicant for enforceable conditions. During the hearing the applicant and counsel made or accepted these commitments for the record, to be reflected in revised materials or conditions of approval: - All maintenance work on buses will occur inside the building; no outdoor maintenance operations will be performed. (Applicant: Zhengrong Wang – agreed) - No movement or work on buses prior to 8 a.m.; employees may arrive earlier but bus movement and work will start at 8 a.m. (applicant agreed during the hearing) - Trash pickup will not occur before 8 a.m. or after 6 p.m. (applicant agreed) - Oil and hazardous waste will be removed by a licensed hauler; the applicant acknowledged that hazardous‑waste registration and handling requirements apply and said it would comply. - The applicant agreed to prepare or adopt an operation and maintenance (O&M) manual for stormwater infrastructure and to permit video inspection of the stormwater pipes and basins if the borough requires it. - The applicant offered to work with borough counsel on recording a restrictive covenant to prevent future unauthorized driveway access along a southern stem of the property.

Public safety and circulation Engineer Nissen said the submitted circulation plan shows turning maneuvers for a roughly 45‑foot coach bus and that buses could enter and exit the site from Route 35 without backing movements onto the highway. The Planning Board noted that staff and DOT review comments would need to be resolved and that enforcement of any operating conditions would be the borough’s responsibility.

Board action Rather than vote on the application, the Planning Board accepted the applicant’s request to adjourn and carry the matter to the board’s September meeting to allow the applicant time to revise plans and meet with borough staff. The board also said members may arrange limited site visits (with borough staff or counsel) during the adjournment period. The public‑comment period was closed at the hearing and the application was carried to September 17 for further review and a return presentation by the applicant.

What comes next The applicant will return with revised drawings and documentation addressing the drainage inspection, O&M manual, landscaping, and precise, enforceable conditions for hours, bus parking and waste handling. The board can require bonds, inspections and proof of compliance with professional comments before issuing any approvals or permits.

End note: This article reports on the Planning Board hearing and does not describe final approvals. The application was not approved at the meeting; the board carried the matter to a future session for further review and possible conditions or action.