Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Fence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lockport commission grants partial fence variance for Orchid Lane property, denies corner-side extension
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Commission granted a limited variance allowing a 6-foot closed fence along the south property line at 15947 Orchid Lane to address screening from an unincorporated lot, but denied a broader corner-side variance along the west lot line, citing precedent and sight-line concerns.
The City of Lockport Planning & Zoning Commission on Oct. 22 approved a limited variance allowing a 6-foot solid fence along the south property line of 15947 Orchid Lane while denying a separate request to extend a solid fence along the west corner-side yard.
The decision followed testimony from property owner Rory Subler, who said recent clearing of trees on the unincorporated lot directly south of his home had created an "eyesore" and frequent late-night vehicle activity. "It's about safety. It's about visual aesthetics," Subler said, asking the commission to allow a 6-foot privacy fence to the property line to protect his family and pets.
City staff had recommended denial of the full corner-side yard variance, citing the zoning code for R-1 single-family lots that requires corner-side fences to be open-design, no more than 4 feet in height, and set back 15 feet (or half the distance between house and property line). Staff attorney Mike and planning staff outlined the seven findings of fact the commission must address under both city code and applicable state statute; legal counsel warned that the body must be prepared to defend any departure from those standards in writing.
Commissioners spent extended time debating whether the cleared condition on the neighboring unincorporated parcel constituted a "physical" hardship uniquely tied to the applicant's lot or merely a transient nuisance based on behavior. Several commissioners said a direct activity-based justification (noise or late-night parties) would be difficult to defend; staff suggested treating the removal of trees on the south parcel as a particular, parcel-specific difficulty if the commission chose to do so.
A majority of commissioners coalesced around a compromise that staff and legal counsel said would be more defensible and would limit precedent: allow the applicant a 6-foot closed-design fence that extends along the south lot line to the southwest corner of the lot (granting a 15-foot variance for the westernmost 15 feet of the south lot line), but deny the variance request for the western lot line and require the corner-side/west side to remain consistent with setback and see-through requirements for safety and sight lines.
Commissioner Garland moved the motion as read by staff, and Commissioner Quinn seconded. The motion "to allow a 6 foot closed design fence on the south property line to continue to the southwest corner of the lot, thereby granting 15 feet of variance for the western most 15 feet of the south property lot line and to deny the variance request for the fence on the western lot line" passed on a roll-call vote with seven votes in favor.
The commission instructed staff to draft findings of fact tying the practical difficulty to the condition of the south lot and to prepare a written order within the statutory period. Staff also noted that planting of screening vegetation (arborvitae) within the public-right-of-way setback is limited and that a deed restriction or recorded agreement imposing future relocation obligations could be difficult to enforce.
The commission closed the public hearing, discussed training and upcoming cases (including the Serenity Landing development and a commercial gas station), and adjourned. The written order and the final, signed findings will be mailed to the applicant when completed.
