Board divided over fence requirement and off-site storage restriction for 465 2nd Avenue

A central point of contention during the continuation of PB-26-01 was whether the board should require a physical barrier between the subject property and neighboring Lot 2 to prevent future expansion or off-site storage. Board member Bill argued for a restrictive approach, saying the pavement at Lot 2 effectively serves as a neighbor's backyard and urging a physical barrier to prevent expansion: "I don't care if it's a fence. I don't care if it's Jersey barriers, but there should be something put there to prevent the use expanding." (voice S3).

Board counsel (voice S8) acknowledged that a requirement to install a fence along the property line would be within the board’s authority but framed it as a discretionary choice. After discussion, the board conducted a straw poll and did not adopt a mandatory fence condition; rather, the final resolution included a condition that the applicant or any subsequent owner "shall not store vehicles and or other materials on the neighboring property known as Lot 2." That condition was added to address the practical concern about off-site storage without imposing a specific physical-improvement requirement on the applicant.

Members differed about enforceability and long-term effect: some said a physical barrier would be the only reliable way to prevent future expansion, while others said responsibility for Lot 2 rests with its owner and that limiting storage by the subject property's owner was an appropriate compromise. Counsel noted that the certificate of nonconformity "runs with the land," preserving the permitted use for future owners, and proposed language to prevent future expansion of structure or use. The board’s action effectively constrained the applicant and future owners from using Lot 2 for storage but did not force construction of a fence by the applicant.