Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident seeks fence variance for dogs; board requires survey and building-department review
Summary
A Hobart resident, Kathleen Tellez, asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority to allow a fence extension toward the front of her Garfield Street house to give her two small dogs yard access. The board said the ordinance limits front-yard fences, asked for a certified survey and advised consulting the building department.
Kathleen Tellez, a Hobart resident and the applicant for a fence variance at the Garfield Street property, told the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority she wants to extend an existing fence to create a secure area for her two small dogs. The board examined aerial and street views, discussed prior exceptions and reiterated that city code generally prohibits front-yard fences.
The exchange focused on whether the board could permit a fence to reach the front corner of the house without extending to the curb. Chair said the ordinance and precedent limit front-yard fences and that allowing a new front-yard fence risks creating a precedent the board cannot broadly apply. A committee member explained that previously allowed front-yard fences were typically grandfathered in from before a 1983 ordinance change and that exceptions are narrowly based on lot configuration rather than economic or health reasons.
Tellez described practical constraints: her garage layout prevents access to a narrow side strip, and she said modifying the garage or adding a man-door would be costly. She presented illustrative images and said she had a property survey. Board members suggested alternatives, including fencing up to the front corner of the house (not past the house toward the curb), fencing the side yard if confirmed by a survey, or adding a man-door to access the side strip. One committee member said, “If you raise [the] fence up just to the front of your house, you're still getting that same situation done to them or not, stretching the code,” and another noted the need to avoid setting a broader precedent.
The board concluded by instructing Tellez to provide a certified property survey to the building department and to work with the building department staff to determine what is permitted under the code. The board did not grant an immediate variance; members discussed conditional options (fencing to the front corner of the house or side-yard solutions) but required the survey and department guidance before any formal approval could be considered.
The authority also advised the applicant to contact neighbors about proposed work and to submit any existing survey documents to city staff. The matter will return to the board only if the applicant pursues a formal variance after meeting the survey and building-department requirements.
