Paradise Town Board recommends denial of Caliber Collision auto body shop after hours of resident opposition

The Paradise Town Board voted on Feb. 11 to recommend denial of a special-use permit for Caliber Collision to open an auto body and paint shop at the corner of Tropicana Avenue and Mojave Road, following more than two hours of public comment by neighbors who said the use would harm air quality, increase truck traffic and threaten safety near a senior living facility.

The motion to deny the permit passed on a majority vote after residents described frequent pool and playground use, pedestrian traffic from a retirement community and long-standing concerns about pollutants from paint booths. The recommendation is advisory; the application will be considered next by county planning staff and the Planning Commission on March 4, 2025.

Why it matters: Residents said the parcel faces a quiet, two‑lane residential street and an adjacent senior residential facility; they argued an auto body and paint shop is an industrial use that does not belong where neighbors, including elderly and mobility‑impaired residents, routinely walk and use common areas.

Applicant and proposal summary The applicant, represented at the hearing by an unnamed applicant representative (address given as 1980 Festival Plaza Drive), proposed converting an existing commercial building into a Caliber Collision location with 14 indoor bays, two additional roll‑up doors and an outdoor, screened vehicle storage area. The applicant said all vehicle repairs and painting would be performed inside the building, that roll‑up doors would be kept closed during work where feasible, and that outdoor vehicle drop‑offs would be limited to business hours. The proposal includes screening: an 8‑foot CMU block wall and a landscape buffer along Mojave Road.

Neighbors’ concerns and evidence presented Several residents from the Montero Estates and adjacent neighborhoods spoke in strong opposition. Keith Hughes, a Montero Estates resident, said, “I strongly oppose this proposal to change the zoning. Put that auto body and paint shop on the property will forever alter the air quality for hundreds of residents in the immediate area.”

Other concerns relayed by residents included: - Health risks from volatile organic compounds and particulate pollutants from painting, sanding and bodywork near homes and a community pool (speakers cited EPA materials on hazardous air pollutants). - Noise and nuisance from tow trucks, weekend or after‑hours drop‑offs and outdoor storage of vehicles. Rick Romero said cars often “come in in the middle of the night” and “will all be parked on the street.” - Traffic and safety problems on Mojave Road, a 25‑mph two‑lane residential street used by pedestrians, children and elderly residents on scooters and wheelchairs. - Long‑term enforcement doubts: residents said prior promises by business operators in the area were not reliably enforced and expressed skepticism that code enforcement could consistently police conditions.

Applicant responses and mitigation offered The applicant’s representative presented measures intended to reduce impacts: keeping repair and paint work inside, use of air filtration and paint booths, limiting drop‑offs to business hours, downward‑shielded lighting, a full 8‑foot masonry wall around much of the outdoor storage and added landscaping (the application noted 36 existing trees on site and a proposal to add 49 more). The applicant said outdoor storage would be limited to whole vehicles (no stacked parts, no bins) and that parts removed during repairs would be kept inside.

Staff and procedural context Staff noted the project requires a special‑use permit and waivers because outdoor storage adjacent to residential uses is involved. Staff told the board that a special‑use permit carries enforcement mechanisms — including potential revocation — if conditions are violated. Residents countered that enforcement resources are limited and that past problems with nearby properties left neighbors unconvinced that conditions would be enforced effectively.

Board action and next steps A town board member moved to deny the special‑use permit recommendation; the motion carried. The board chair notified attendees that the town board is an advisory body in this land‑use process and that the application will proceed to the next step in the county review process; the Planning Commission hearing was scheduled for March 4, 2025. The board’s recommendation does not itself approve or deny the permit — the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners hold final decision authority.

Clarifying technical and locational details The applicant presented site distances to nearby residences and buildings: the closest single‑family home to the north was described as about 376 feet away; the closest multifamily building or outdoor common area as about 196–329 feet, and a farther residential home listed at 556 feet in the materials shown to the board. Proposed hours of operation stated by the applicant were Monday–Friday 7 a.m.–6 p.m., Saturday 8 a.m.–noon, closed Sundays. The applicant said the proposed facility would provide 14 interior bays and two added roll‑up doors.

Where the record stands The town board’s denial is a recommendation; the formal entitlement process continues. Planning staff and the Planning Commission will review the application and the record from public comment. If the permit is approved at later stages, conditions of approval and enforcement mechanisms will be key to neighbors’ concerns about air quality, hours, roadside parking and screening.

Ending note Residents who spoke asked planners and future decision‑makers to weigh neighborhood character, public health and safety when considering whether the parcel is an appropriate location for a vehicle repair and paint operation.