Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Depew Zoning Board Grants Variance for Fence at 26 Jane Lane
Summary
The Village of Depew Zoning Board of Appeals voted 5-0 to grant an area variance allowing a stockade fence with the pickets facing the opposite side at 26 Jane Lane after the applicant’s representative said the work was completed with neighbor consent and that other panels were later corrected.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Village of Depew Zoning Board of Appeals voted 5-0 on Nov. 13, 2025, to grant an area variance for an exterior stockade fence at 26 Jane Lane, allowing the pickets to face the opposite side of the property as installed.
The vote followed testimony from Paul, who identified himself as the applicant’s father and said he installed the fence without realizing a permit was required. "I didn't realize we didn't need the permit," he said, and described that the pickets were placed to accommodate a new concrete pad and to match the neighbor’s yard. He added that neighbor Chris Peroni "didn't have a problem with it." Staff confirmed a supporting letter from Chris Peroni was included in the board packet.
Chairman Delaney read the six New York State area-variance criteria and summarized the applicant’s written answers: the application indicated there would be no undesirable change to neighborhood character, no feasible alternative to the variance, the variance was not substantial, no adverse physical or environmental impact was expected, the difficulty was self-created, and no minimum variance amount was specified.
Member Yarborough moved to grant the variance; Member Galvin seconded. In the roll-call vote, Members Galvin, Sprata, O'Hareld, Yarborough and Chairman Delaney voted yes, and the motion passed 5-0. The board congratulated the applicant and closed the hearing.
The record shows the board considered neighbor input and the applicant’s responses to the statutory criteria; the board’s action was a formal grant of an area variance for the fence as presented. No fines, timelines for corrective action, or further conditions were stated in the transcript.

