The Monroeville Zoning Hearing Board on Nov. 5 denied variance 25‑16‑8, a request by Julieta Decker to construct a six‑foot solid fence in the front yard of 1300 Deerfield Drive, a corner lot in the R‑1 single‑family residential district.

The board considered public testimony from five neighbors who said the proposed fence would create a traffic‑visibility hazard on Saunders Station Road and obstruct sight lines for driveway exits and park crosswalks. Neighbors said the hill and curve in that stretch of Saunders Station Road already make turning hazardous. "I am against this variance," said Judy Roche, who identified herself as the daughter of a longtime resident. "This makes any visual obstruction a danger to both public safety and vehicular traffic."

The applicant did not appear at the scheduled hearing. Zoning staff told the board they ran two legal advertisements in the Post‑Gazette, posted orange placards at the property and mailed courtesy letters to property owners within 300 feet. The zoning officer said staff sent two emails and placed a phone call to the applicant but received no reply.

Neighbors described multiple near‑misses at the marked fence location. "If they put that fence at the top of that hill, you're not gonna see anything," said Nicholas Razorsek. Jenna Janitor, whose driveway sits across from Heritage Park, said Saunders Station Road is now a throughway and that a solid fence at the proposed location would block the view when she pulls from her driveway. James Tanner called a six‑foot solid fence at that corner "ridiculous" given the speed of traffic.

Board members closed testimony after hearing public comment, declined to grant a continuance and voted to deny the variance. The motion to deny was moved and seconded; the board announced the matter was denied but did not read a roll‑call tally during the meeting.

The variance request sought relief from Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 2779, Article 8, §808(b) (fences and hedges), which the zoning officer said permits a four‑foot fence with 50% openness in the front yard absent a granted variance. The board's denial means the applicant may either amend the proposal to conform to the ordinance or seek other remedies available under the municipal code.

The denial followed from neighbor testimony stressing sight‑line and public‑safety concerns. The board record shows the applicant did not respond to multiple outreach attempts by staff before the hearing. No further action on this item was taken at the meeting.