By: Alyssa Ochss | Fraser-Clinton Chronicle | Published February 23, 2026
FRASER — At its meeting on Feb. 12, the Fraser City Council voted 7-0 to approve the proposed text of an ordinance amendment governing corner lot fences.
City Clerk August Gitschlag said in an email that nothing would be official before the updated ordinance is brought back before the City Council for consideration.
Lauren Sayre, a city planner from the city’s contracted firm McKenna, presented the items. She said the city has seen an increased number of requests for privacy fences. These are 6 feet tall and obscure the line of sight on corner lots.
“Currently our ordinance references our fence review committee, and if the fence review committee allows it, then a 4-foot non-sight-obscuring, so like a chain-link type fence, would be allowed on the side of a corner lot,” Sayre said.
She said she believes there is a way to achieve the intent of the ordinance which is to keep visibility at the corner intersections while still giving the residents privacy.
As it stands, the ordinance is a regulatory ordinance, and the city intends to move it into the zoning ordinance section with the updates.
The Fraser Planning Commission discussed the item as well and Sayre said she brought their recommendations before the City Council.
“I’ll note that this isn’t necessary officially how this ordinance, code of ordinance updates, would typically be done,” Sayre said.
The previous ordinance language was given to the council. Sayre said the Planning Commission discussed two options. Both would limit privacy fences to the front building line of the parcel in which they are located. The second option would also limit them to the front building line of any adjacent parcels. The council was also given diagrams and renderings of each option in their packets.
The Planning Commission ultimately decided to go with the first option.
Sayre also said they should delete references to the fence review committee as it’s not in effect.
Sayre said they are seeking the council’s approval to allow the city attorney to put the suggestions in ordinance form for adoption in a future meeting.
Councilwoman Patrice Schornak asked if anyone who doesn’t fit into the box created by the amendments is going to be grandfathered in.
“We’re not going to make people move fences, correct?” Schornak asked. “So anybody whose fence does not fall into these parameters, they will be grandfathered.”
Sayre said already “nonconforming” fences do not have to conform with the new language.
“I just want to make sure, because I don’t want anybody calling us being like, ‘Hey, I’ve had this fence up for 20 years, I’m not tearing it down,’” Schornak said.
City Attorney Donald DeNault clarified that each case will be evaluated on its own merits and assuming everything was in order then it would be documented that the fences would be grandfathered in.
“It wouldn’t even be grandfathered, it would just be permitted,” DeNault said.
He said if a resident properly navigated the channels for previously built fences, a fence could stay. But if they didn’t go through the proper channels, the city could reach out and say they still have to reach the standards.
Schornak said she thinks fences built prior to the amendments should be grandfathered.
“I don’t think we should give that kind of a hardship to somebody to move their fence line that has been there and obviously not caused a problem for whatever duration of time,” Schornak said.
She finished her statements saying she doesn’t have a corner lot, but she thinks it will cause problems for city staff. In further comments, she said paperwork, including documents submitted electronically, gets lost all the time. She doesn’t want to financially burden those who already have existing fences.
Mayor Pro Tem Patrick O’Dell asked if a resident has to follow the new amendments if they have to replace their fence. Sayre said any brand-new fence would have to comply but that replacing half of it or less could be lawfully nonconforming.