Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant told to get survey after requesting front-yard fence; board cautions about setting precedent
Summary
An applicant seeking a fence that would extend toward the front of her property was advised to obtain a property survey; the Hobart board said front-yard fences are generally disallowed under the local ordinance and warned that allowing a new front-yard fence could set a precedent.
An applicant seeking permission to extend a fence toward the front of her property was advised March 5 to obtain an up-to-date property survey and consult the building department after board members said the city’s fence ordinance generally does not permit new front-yard fences.
The applicant, who identified herself as Kathleen (last name spelled into the record), described the lot layout and said she wants additional fenced space so her two small dogs can run. “I have 2 little dogs and the lot is consumed by house mostly all the way back to the alley,” the applicant said. Board members reviewed aerial and street views and pointed out a neighboring fence that appears to reach the sidewalk; they said that fence likely predates the ordinance and was grandfathered in.
The chair cautioned that allowing the requested fence could create a precedent. “If we allow you to do that, then we’re setting precedent,” the chair said. A staff member explained the authority’s standard: the fence ordinance (adopted around 1983, according to staff) allows existing, grandfathered front-yard fences but limits new exceptions to extraordinary lot or land-configuration circumstances rather than owner economic or health needs.
Board members discussed alternatives the applicant could pursue, including placing a fence up to the front corner of the house (but not past it), relying on side-yard space if a survey confirms availability, or adding a man door in the garage to access the rear yard. The board advised the applicant to submit an accurate property survey to the building department; no variance was approved at the meeting.
The transcript records slight inconsistencies in the address cited during the discussion (the applicant and a screen referenced versions of 212 South Ash and 212 South Beach); the board recommended the applicant confirm the correct parcel when she files the survey. The applicant said she will contact the building department and obtain the survey as advised.
