The meeting opened with Attorney Sam Vitali presenting a petition on behalf of Lai’s Garage LLC to secure a special permit for a spray booth. Vitali outlined the garage’s long-standing history, noting it had been operational since the 1930s and was most recently acquired by Janiro in 2022. The garage has continuously offered auto repair services, but the addition of a spray booth necessitated board approval due to modern safety regulations.

Board members questioned the impact of the proposed spray booth on the garage’s status, debating whether it would transform the establishment from an auto repair shop into an auto body shop. Concerns centered on whether this change constituted an “accessory use” or a new principal use under current zoning bylaws. Vitali argued that the spray booth would occupy less than 1,000 square feet of the 5,000 square foot building, maintaining that this did not alter the garage’s primary function.

Environmental concerns were a part of the dialogue, with residents like Michaelia voicing apprehension over increased pollution. Essex Street, known for high traffic and particulate matter pollution, was a focal point for potential health risks associated with the spray booth. Michaelia cited the dangers of volatile organic compounds like benzene and urged the board to consider preventive measures, referencing European Union’s precautionary principle. The board deliberated on its jurisdiction over environmental compliance, acknowledging that pollution control systems would not require detailed monthly reports to the Department of Environmental Protection.

The board’s authority was further questioned, as members debated their ability to grant a special permit without setting a precedent for future zoning complications. Discussion touched on the historical use of the property, with board members seeking proof that bodywork had been consistently performed in compliance with regulations. They emphasized the need for documentation, such as receipts or operational records, to substantiate claims of continuous use.

Residents offered mixed testimonies regarding the garage’s historical operations. While one individual recalled having bodywork done there in the 1990s, others like Annie Pilaski expressed skepticism, stating they had never witnessed significant bodywork during their interactions with the garage.

A board member highlighted that continuous use could protect the garage’s operations, but substantial alterations would require a more formal review.

Ultimately, the board decided to defer their decision to a future meeting scheduled for November 18, requesting that the petitioner provide further evidence of the garage’s historical use. This decision aimed to ensure a thorough assessment of both zoning implications and environmental considerations before moving forward.