Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hobart redevelopment authority tables applications and advises survey after front-yard fence request
Summary
At its March 5 meeting the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority tabled one applicant’s case set for city court, removed a stalled variance application from the agenda, and discussed a fence-variance request for a Garfield Street property, advising the applicant to obtain a certified survey and consult the building department.
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority met March 5 and approved the minutes and an amended agenda before taking up several property-related matters, including a request from an applicant to extend a fence toward the front of her house on Garfield Street.
The authority tabled application 25-12 (applicant Zachary Tillman) because the matter is set for city court, and it removed application 25-7 from the agenda after staff said the applicant failed to complete required public notification and did not supply requested information.
The meeting then turned to a fence-variance request for a property discussed as 950 Garfield (applicant identified herself on the record as Kathleen Tellez). Kathleen said she has “two little dogs and the lot is consumed by house mostly all the way back to the alley,” and that she seeks a fence that would create usable space for the animals.
Chair said the board was constrained by the city’s ordinance and by precedent, adding, “I don't think that we'd be able to entertain, allowing a front yard fence there for a couple of reasons.” Staff explained the ordinance change around 1983 removed general allowance for front-yard fences and that previously existing fences had been grandfathered. As Staff put it, the board has allowed exceptions only in cases tied to lot configuration rather than personal circumstances.
Board members examined aerial imagery and discussed possible compromises. One committee member suggested allowing a fence up to the front corner of the house — not past the property line or curb — so the applicant could gain usable side-yard space without creating a new precedent. The board repeatedly advised the applicant to obtain a certified survey to confirm property lines and to work with the building department on how any approved fence must be sited and constructed.
Kathleen asked whether the fence already visible on a neighboring property explained how similar fences exist nearby; members responded that those fences likely predate the ordinance and are grandfathered. The board noted that permitting a new front-yard fence that extends to or past the curb would set a precedent that could lead to multiple similar requests.
No formal variance decision was recorded at the meeting. The board’s practical direction was that the applicant should secure a survey and return with plans that show the fence tied to the porch corner and property line; staff and the building department will clarify which portions of fencing, if any, could be permitted.
The meeting closed with a motion and second to adjourn.
