Lancaster council approves two special-exception fence variances after public hearings

The Lancaster City Council approved special exceptions that will allow taller, fully opaque fences and reduced setbacks at two corner properties after holding public hearings and hearing limited public opposition.

Staff recommended approval of both requests, explaining that the corner-lot configurations and visibility requirements support the variances. For 4457 Trippie Street, staff described three deviations sought: permitting a fence on the property line rather than meeting the 10-foot side-yard setback, a 2-foot variance to allow a 6-foot fence where 4 feet is the usual front-yard limit, and permission for a 100% opaque fence instead of the standard 50% openness. The city’s staff liaison said the requested materials and siting will not create visibility-triangle safety concerns and recommended approval.

A resident recorded opposition to the Trippie Street request without speaking and another preregistered commenter, recorded as Priscilla Sosa, asked the council to postpone action until a licensed surveyor could confirm lot lines. “We received the information in the mail, and the picture was kind of surprising. It looks like a piece of the property is on my parents’ lot, and we’re just asking for postponement on the decision until we get a surveyor out there,” the commenter told the council. City staff responded that the site-location map is for notification only and that survey documentation is required at the time of permit submittal.

Council members discussed whether the segments of these corner lots should be treated as front yards under the Lancaster Land Development Code; staff noted the code treats both sides of a lot that adjoin the street as front yards for corner lots. After discussion, a motion to approve the Trippie Street request carried on a voice vote.

A separate public hearing covered a similar request for 501 West 8th Street. Staff again recommended approval of three deviations: a 5-foot set-back in place of a 10-foot requirement, a 4-foot-3-inch variance to allow an 8-foot-3-inch fence, and permission for a 100% opaque fence. Charles Trammell, who said he was representing applicants Henry Young and Judy Young, told the council that the property contains a legally nonconforming fence and that the owner wanted to replace a ragged fence and address security issues. “The fence was inundated with old growth trees and was looking very ragged… we didn’t touch that in this request,” Trammell said. Applicant Henry Young told the council the new fence would provide privacy and address repeated break-ins: “It would give me some privacy plus I’ve had some theft over there,” he said.

Council members asked whether chain-link portions in the front yard would remain and whether replacement fencing would affect sight lines; staff said the front chain-link portion would remain and the proposed wood fence would be in the back/corner portion, set back five feet to maintain visibility. After public comment closed, the council voted to approve the request.

Both approvals were taken by voice vote with no roll-call tallies entered in the meeting record. Council members indicated staff will verify required permit documentation at the time of submittal; the council did not require an additional survey before granting the variances.

The council took these votes as part of its regular agenda and moved on to other items. The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m.