Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects request for 8-foot security fence at two Washington Square properties after neighbors and board debate safety claims
Summary
The board failed to secure the required affirmative votes to grant variances for 8-foot fences at 5 and 7 Washington Square, rejecting the applicants' argument that higher fences would protect tenants and deter activity related to an adjacent clinic. Public comment warned against stigmatizing clinic clients; the motion to approve did not receive three yes votes and was denied by default.
The Albany Board of Zoning Appeals considered two linked area-variance requests on March 11, 2026 for 5 and 7 Washington Square (area variances 2026-1 and 2026-3) that would have allowed 8-foot cedar stockade fences where the MUCI zoning district permits a maximum 6-foot fence.
Jamie Marsot, representing the applicant's construction team for the property owner, told the board the fence would run inside a tree line and serve to separate the applicant’s parking lot from an adjacent clinic, which Marsot said attracts a high morning and early-afternoon pedestrian presence. "We would like to put an eight foot fence ... to create a barrier between our parking lot and theirs," Marsot said, arguing the taller fence is a modest change in appearance given the adjacent two-story building and that it would deter loitering and protect tenants and businesses.
During questioning, planning staff said the area is largely built out and that transit service will be extended to serve the clinic location. Board members probed alternatives, including vegetative buffers; Marsot said bushes can conceal people and that an 8-foot fence is a more reliable deterrent.
During public comment Dan Irizari, representing Promelesa Inc. (owner of One United Way), asked the board to avoid stigmatizing clinic clients and emphasized that people who use the clinic suffer from addiction and should be treated with care. Irizari said the new location will have security measures and that such clinics can be managed without exclusionary measures. "The people at a clinic of this type suffer from a disease and that disease is addiction," Irizari said.
After public comment and applicant rebuttal, a board member moved to approve both variances; the motion was seconded. A recorded voice exchange produced affirmative votes but not the three required to carry the motion. A member expressed a 'No' and the board chair stated the motion did not reach the required threshold and therefore the variances were rejected by default.
The board did not adopt any condition or compromise; the application will remain denied unless the applicants return with revised plans or additional evidence. The record shows the applicants cited a Philadelphia study and business impacts as part of the justification; commenters emphasized security planning at the clinic and cautioned against causal claims about criminality.
Next steps: The applicants may revise their request, provide additional evidence or alternatives, or pursue administrative remedies outside this proceeding.
