Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board defers decision on 5911 Transit Road fence setback after line-of-sight and safety concerns
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals deferred a fence-setback application for 5911 Transit Road after members raised line-of-sight and traffic-safety concerns; applicants asked to adjourn to next month to present alternatives and the board voted to continue the hearing.
The Village of Depew Zoning Board of Appeals deferred action May 14 on a fence-setback request for 5911 Transit Road after board members expressed concerns that moving the fence forward could create sight-line and traffic hazards on Transit Road.
Applicants (who identified themselves in the record as Ashley Scarpone and a second speaker who identified as Sabino/Sabino Scar) asked the board to permit a fence located several feet forward of the standard front-yard setback so they could preserve a covered walkway to the building entrance for older clients and incorporate signage on the fence. The applicants said the move avoids the need for clients — some elderly — to open an extra gate and argued the fence improves site security.
Board members questioned whether the fence within the front-yard setback would obstruct line of sight for drivers, reduce driveway depth so trucks could block traffic, and create a long-term safety issue because a variance would run with the property. Code staff explained that signage rules differ from permanent fence setbacks and that temporary real-estate signs are treated differently; fire staff asked whether the gate would be locked and recommended a Knox box or similar emergency-access solution.
One board member moved to deny the variance on safety and sight-line grounds, but the motion did not receive a second. The applicants then requested an adjournment to the next month to explore design alternatives (jogging the fence line, shifting the walkway, or revising parking), and the board voted to adjourn the item to the June meeting. The board recorded that denial would have prevented reapplication for one year; the adjournment allows the applicant to return with revised plans.
The board’s decision to defer is procedural and does not approve the requested setback; the item will return to the board after the applicants submit revised drawings or alternatives for the board’s consideration.
