Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hobart redevelopment authority advises survey, alternatives after resident seeks front-yard fence
Summary
At the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority meeting, a resident asked for permission to extend a fence into her front yard to contain two small dogs. The board cited an existing ordinance and precedent concerns, suggested alternatives and instructed the resident to provide a property survey and consult the building department; no variance vote occurred.
At a March 5 meeting of the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority, a resident asked the board to allow a front-yard fence extension so her two small dogs could safely access more yard space. The applicant, Kathleen Tellez, described the property constraints and presented photos of her proposed fence.
The board, led by the chair, told Tellez the city’s fence ordinance generally prohibits front-yard fences and that past front-yard fences are likely 'grandfathered' because they predate the ordinance adopted in 1983. The chair cautioned that allowing an extension now could set a precedent. "We can't be careful, because if we allow you to do that, then we're setting precedent," the chair said.
Tellez said the lot layout and an attached garage make it difficult to access a side yard and that the narrow setback limits usable space. "I have two little dogs and the lot is consumed by the house mostly all the way back to the alley," Tellez said, explaining why she sought additional fenced space.
Board members and staff reviewed aerial and street views during the meeting and discussed possible compromises, including allowing a fence to the front corner of the house (but not to the curb or past the neighbor's front yard), routing the fence to use existing side-yard space, or adding a man-door/gate in the garage to provide access to a rear strip. Staff emphasized that exceptions historically have been granted only for lot-layout situations—not for economic hardship or general convenience.
Rather than taking a formal vote on the variance at the meeting, the board directed Tellez to obtain a stamped property survey to confirm property lines, to consult with adjacent neighbors about placement, and to work with the building department on permitted options. Staff said an existing survey may be acceptable if provided to the building department.
The meeting also handled other items: the authority approved the February 5 minutes and an amended agenda, tabled application 25-12 (Zachary Tillman) until the outcome of an associated city-court matter, and removed application 25-17 from the agenda because the applicant had not completed required public notification. The authority adjourned after those items.
The authority did not issue a formal denial or approval of the fence variance at this meeting; the matter may return to a future meeting if the applicant supplies a survey and any required additional information.
