Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks front-yard fence variance; board advises survey and options instead of approval
Summary
An applicant who identified herself as Kathleen Tellez asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on March 5 for permission to extend a fence toward the front of her property to give her two small dogs outdoor space. The board cited a 1983 ordinance, warned against setting precedent and advised a property survey and building-department review; no variance was approved.
An applicant who identified herself as Kathleen (last name spelled aloud in the record as "Tellez") asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on March 5, 2026, for permission to extend a fence from the front of her house toward the sidewalk so her two small dogs could have a secure outdoor area.
"What I'm trying to do is put a fence and a fence around the front of the property as well as all the way to the back," the applicant said, adding, "I have 2 little dogs and the lot is consumed by house mostly all the way back to the alley." She also said the photos she provided were generated with AI and described being on a fixed income.
The board did not grant a variance. Chair (speaker 1) and other members repeatedly cited Hobart's ordinance, adopted in 1983, that generally bars front-yard fences and leaves only narrow, site-specific exceptions for lots where the house configuration makes a front yard atypical. As the Chair put it, "we can't be careful, because if we allow you to do that, then we're setting precedent." A committee member added that extraordinary circumstances considered in the past have typically related to land configuration rather than owners' economic or health circumstances.
Board members and staff reviewed aerial and street-view imagery together and discussed alternatives the applicant could pursue without creating a new precedent: placing the fence to the front of the house but not extending to the curb, running fencing in the larger side yard where feasible, or adding a man door to the garage to provide access to the side strip. One staff member noted the neighboring property already has an existing fence line, but that alone does not change code requirements for a different lot.
Staff instructed the applicant to obtain a certified property survey to establish exact property lines and to take the survey to the building department for guidance on permitted placement. The board also advised the applicant to notify neighbors of her plans. The record contains inconsistent address references for the property (participants mentioned Garfield, "950 Garfield," and 212 South Ash/Beach in different turns), and the board and staff asked the applicant to clarify the correct parcel when she provides her survey.
No formal vote approving a variance was recorded. The board's direction was procedural and advisory: provide a survey, consult the building department, and return if a variance or a formal application revision is desired. The meeting proceeded to other business after the discussion.
