Planning Board grants certificate of nonconformity for 465 2nd Avenue with limits on employees, vehicles and off-site storage

The Planning Board voted on July 22 to recognize the business at 465 2nd Avenue as a preexisting nonconforming commercial use and granted a certificate of nonconformity subject to conditions. The motion — moved by the vice chair and seconded by David — passed on a roll-call vote; Mayor Blumenstock, Mr. Arthur, Councilwoman Bianco, Chair Green, Miss Villaggio, Mr. Nierstead, Miss Hay and Mr. Byers all voted "Aye."

Board counsel circulated a draft resolution based on testimony from the prior meeting and the matters discussed this evening. The adopted conditions include: (a) no further expansion of the building or use; (b) no more than three employees working at the property; (c) no more than five of the applicant’s vehicles may be parked on the property or on 2nd Avenue; (d) the property shall not be used for meetings with customers or the general public (it shall remain a back-office use); and (e) the applicant or any subsequent owner shall not store vehicles or materials on the neighboring Lot 2. Board counsel summarized the motion in full: "this use of the subject property as a business commercial use with a principal component of storage of nonhazardous materials is hereby recognized to be a valid preexisting nonconforming use" (voice S8).

The applicant, who was sworn, described the business as a lawn-sprinkler and low-voltage lighting installation service and said he typically employs eight people, with seasonal peaks of 12–15. He told the board that in winter he stores five trucks and two trailers on-site but currently has three trucks and two trailers at the property (voice S1). Counsel for the applicant provided photographs and an updated survey showing pavement on Lot 2 is not part of the subject tract and explained that some tax-assessor database fields display zeros for older commercial properties.

Board members debated how restrictive the conditions should be given the historical commercial activity on the parcel and the absence of formal prior documentation; one member urged strict limits to prevent expansion in perpetuity and recommended adding a physical barrier unless ownership of Lot 2 changed (voice S3). Ultimately the board approved the resolution as amended and agreed to memorialize and sign the document, with counsel preparing a typed copy for the clerk the following day. The resolution was memorialized at the meeting.

The certificate does not alter Lot 2’s ownership or zoning; the board’s condition bars the applicant (and future owners) from storing vehicles or materials on Lot 2, but the neighbor’s rights and enforcement of Lot 2 zoning remain separate matters.