Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Industrial Security Fencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regeneron seeks permission for industrial security fencing with barbed wire at 56 Duplainville Road
Summary
Regeneron’s representative requested a variance to allow barbed‑wire–topped security fencing around the former QuadGraphics site in the Grama Industrial Park, saying industry security standards and licensing favor that design. The Zoning Board kept the public hearing open because a county referral is required and no vote could be taken tonight.
Regeneron representatives asked the Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals on March 3 for a variance to permit barbed wire on a six‑foot perimeter fence around the company’s newly acquired property at 56 Duplainville Road in the Grama Industrial Park.
The request, described at the meeting by Mike Ingersoll of The LA Group and Kyle Cherry, Regeneron’s director of facilities, seeks an exception from the city’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), which now prohibits pointed posts and barbed or razor wire in most zones.
Board members heard a presentation that the site — the former QuadGraphics property of roughly 60 acres — is largely open and that Regeneron needs to meet its industry security, licensing and insurance standards. Ingersoll showed photographs of the site, pointed to nearby industrial facilities that have barbed or razor wire, and said the company intends most fencing to be internal to the site with decorative fencing at the main entrance. Cherry and Ingersoll said the main fence would be six feet high with a barbed‑wire topping and that lead times for ordering such materials can be long.
Supporters from the industrial park spoke at the hearing. Neighbor Paul Safran, who owns land on Adams Road, told the board Regeneron had addressed his screening concerns and he called the company a “good neighbor.” John Munter, who has built in the park, said many industrial tenants require robust security for safety and liability reasons and noted other nearby businesses are fenced and gated.
Board members asked about public safety if someone could access the fenced perimeter and whether alternatives were feasible. Ingersoll and Cherry said the fence would be interior to most public approaches and that industry security checklists effectively require a barbed‑wire option for sites of this type; they added other six‑foot options they examined had similar deterrent features (pointed arms or heavy‑duty top rails).
The Zoning Board did not vote. Board counsel and staff explained a county review under the state’s 239‑m referral process is required because of the site’s proximity to county infrastructure, and the board must wait 30 days for the county’s response before acting. The public hearing remained open and will be continued at the board’s March 24 meeting.
The board also requested clearer site plans showing exactly where the barbed‑wire sections would be placed and repeated that the UDO currently prohibits such fencing without a variance.
If the county returns no objection or after the referral period ends, the Zoning Board may schedule a vote. For now, the request remains pending and the public hearing is open.
