The primary focus of the meeting was the application PB25-01 for Tenon Auto Services, which seeks to repurpose an existing building on Highway 35 for bus fleet maintenance. The application, presented by a representative, emphasized that the facility would conduct only routine maintenance tasks, such as changing light bulbs and tires, rather than functioning as a major repair facility. The proposal includes a commitment to conduct all maintenance activities indoors and employ up to seven people.

Despite these assurances, residents raised several concerns regarding the company’s adherence to regulations and its impact on the surrounding neighborhood. A notable point of contention was the environmental impact of the company’s operations, particularly diesel emissions from buses. Several residents from Merit Avenue voiced concerns about the smoke and fumes emanating from the facility. One resident highlighted the issue of buses idling, especially during winter, which exacerbates emissions and contravenes state regulations.

Additionally, the meeting addressed concerns about the stormwater management system at the site. A representative confirmed that previous blockages in the drainage system had been cleared and that the site’s grading ensures proper water flow. However, residents reported persistent water accumulation issues, with one spending over $6,000 on a berm to divert water. The inadequacy of the existing drainage system was linked to improper grading and modifications made by the bus company, which residents argued had worsened the situation.

Residents also expressed frustration over the company’s perceived non-compliance with prior agreements about property usage. Photographic evidence was presented by a resident, illustrating activities beyond those permitted, such as engine cleaning and pressure washing of buses. Concerns were raised about the presence of larger “coach” buses, which were not part of the original proposal, affecting property values and the quality of life in the area.

The meeting revealed a broader sentiment of mistrust toward the bus company’s operations and skepticism about the local government’s enforcement capabilities. Residents questioned the effectiveness of the oversight and expressed fears of ongoing litigation if the situation remained unresolved. Calls were made for stricter enforcement of regulations and potential termination of the company’s operations to prevent further issues.

Public comments underscored the community’s frustration, with residents feeling ignored and bullied by the company’s actions. The board acknowledged these concerns, emphasizing the need for the company to address the issues before moving forward. The board chair suggested that the company representatives work on revisions to their plan, and a council member expressed interest in conducting a site inspection to assess the situation firsthand.