Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Awning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves awning at 5409 Main Street after months of dispute
Summary
The Williamsville Historic Preservation Commission approved an awning replacement at 5409 Main Street, selecting the design shown in Exhibit A (sheet 2a) after hearing the applicant and a neighboring business owner describe safety, insurance and historical considerations.
The Williamsville Historic Preservation Commission approved an awning replacement at 5409 Main Street, resolving a multi-year dispute between the property owner and an adjacent business over how far the awning should extend.
The property owner told the commission they had spent several years and money pursuing a resolution and that a replacement awning was required by their insurance company. The owner presented two alternate designs: one that extended the awning across the full storefront and a second that would set the awning 16 inches in from the neighboring property line. The neighboring business owner (identified in the meeting as Charlie) told the commission he preferred the 16-inch setback; the applicant said Charlie offered to indemnify them and to help maintain the small area of sidewalk if the 16-inch option were chosen.
Commission members discussed historical appropriateness and the visual impact on a neighboring sign. A commissioner noted the awning follows a period slope consistent with storefronts of the late 19th century and said the fabric and profile appeared compatible with the building’s historic character. One commissioner stated during discussion, "I propose to abstain," but the transcript does not attach a name to that remark.
A motion was made to approve the awning as submitted in Exhibit A (sheet 2a), with dimensions shown on the second page of the exhibit. The motion was seconded and approved by the commission; the transcript records the motion, a second and an affirmative voice vote but does not contain a roll-call tally or named vote totals.
The applicant said they will adhere to the commission’s chosen configuration and noted they will replace the awning in accordance with whichever option the commission approves. The record includes references to an earlier court order that required the owner to obtain commission approval before altering the awning; the applicant said the court directed them to return to the commission for the final decision.
Commission staff and members asked for documentation already submitted, including photographs showing snow and leaf accumulation beneath the existing awning, and an insurance report recommending coverage across the pad. The commission did not record additional permit conditions in the meeting transcript beyond approval of the submitted exhibit.
