Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hobart redevelopment board tables zoning appeal, advises resident seeking front-yard fence to get survey
Summary
At its March 5 meeting the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority tabled a zoning appeal pending court action, removed another item for incomplete public notice and told a resident seeking a front-yard fence to obtain a property survey and work with the building department.
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on March 5, 2026, unanimously approved its minutes and an amended agenda, tabled zoning application 25-12 pending a city-court matter and removed application 25-17 from the agenda for incomplete public notification. During public comment the board also advised a resident who identified herself as Kathleen Tellez on options for a fence at her Garfield/212 South Ash property.
Kathleen Tellez said she wanted a fence "to put a fence and a fence around the front of the property as well as all the way to the back" to give her two small dogs space to run. She told the board she had photos and an AI-generated plan and described access challenges caused by a garage and driveway configuration.
Board members said the city's fence ordinance, adopted in 1983, generally does not allow fences that extend to the curb or fully enclose front-yard space unless there are grandfathered exceptions or extraordinary land configurations. Chair Patrick said the board could not approve a fence that would set a new precedent: "we can't be careful, because if we allow you to do that, then we're setting precedent." Committee members and staff discussed past cases where fences were allowed only because houses sat unusually far back from the street or because the lot layout made the front/back distinction ambiguous.
Members suggested alternatives the applicant could pursue, including locating the fence from the front corner of the porch to the property line (rather than up to the curb), adding or using a side man-door in the garage to access the rear area, or providing a site survey that precisely shows property lines and existing conditions. A board member advised directly: "You need to have a survey done, like, an actual survey to find out how much space you have there," and told the resident to bring an existing survey to the building department if one is available.
The board took several formal actions on routine business. Tyler moved to approve the February 5 minutes as presented; the motion carried by voice vote. The board also approved the meeting agenda as amended to include one additional application. On old business, members tabled application 25-12 (Zachary Tillman) until after the case is resolved in city court and removed application 25-17 from the agenda after noting the applicant had not completed required public notification.
The authority ended its meeting after a motion and second to adjourn.
What happens next: The resident was told to obtain or provide a property survey and consult the building department before returning with a revised application; the authority will take up tabled items after the listed court proceedings and when applicants complete notification requirements.
