CEV Holdings LLC sought approval to construct three additions totaling 2,367 square feet to its existing facility, alongside improvements such as parking areas, landscaping, and driveways. Edward Verasi, the owner, emphasized that these changes were meant to enhance safety and aesthetics rather than expand the business’s operations, asserting that the business hours would remain Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 6 PM, with limited Saturday hours. Verasi clarified that vehicles awaiting service would be stored behind a fence, and he did not conduct repairs outside the building. However, the board raised concerns about the historical condition from 1973, which limited the number of vehicles parked outside to two. Verasi expressed unawareness of this condition but confirmed no vehicles were parked out front.

The board’s scrutiny revealed discrepancies between the historical use of the site and Verasi’s characterization. Evidence suggested vehicles were often parked bumper to bumper. Verasi was questioned about vehicle storage, waste management, and delivery logistics. He assured that deliveries occurred at the back of the garage and dumpsters were located in the backyard, open to enclosure if required.

In discussions about towing operations, Verasi stated he was on police call every third week, potentially receiving up to 20 vehicles. This raised concerns about late-night disturbances, as vehicles could arrive during night hours. The board considered imposing conditions to address architectural and operational features.

The board’s deliberation extended to discussions on the site’s environmental impact and operational logistics, including the proposal to replace chain-link fencing with vinyl to improve aesthetics. The board also sought clarification on vehicle storage and parking improvements, with concerns that the proposed changes might not prevent disorganized parking. A planner testified to the need for a D1 variance due to the existing non-conforming use, arguing the site’s suitability given its size and location. The board was urged to consider statutory criteria to justify the variance, emphasizing improved site functionality and safety without expanding operations.

Public comments highlighted community concerns about the expansion’s impact. Resident Betty Vez Gimble questioned the legitimacy of the expansion plans, citing non-compliance with prior approvals and the presence of unpermitted structures. She noted up to 20 vehicles parked outside daily, contradicting the permitted two, and raised concerns about potential fumes from a paint booth affecting adjacent properties. Another resident, Nicole Woolly, detailed how the business’s operations disrupted the local quality of life, citing noise and light pollution concerns.

The board weighed these concerns against the benefits of site improvements, recognizing the historical context of the site’s operations. Discussions also included the need for clear operational hours for both the body shop and towing operations, with proposed hours set for Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 6 PM, and Saturday from 9 AM to 1 PM. The board emphasized precise language in the resolution to ensure clarity and accountability.

Environmental considerations were a significant topic, with discussions on mitigating odors and fumes through a plenum system in the spray booth. The applicant committed to regular filter changes and compliance with fire company inspections to minimize pollution. As the meeting concluded, board members addressed administrative matters, including the need for training sessions on local zoning ordinances and stormwater management to enhance board members’ understanding of Howell’s regulations.