Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant asks Hobart redevelopment board to allow front-yard fence; board asks for survey, cites ordinance and precedent
Summary
A homeowner seeking to extend a yard fence to create space for two small dogs presented photos and alternatives at the March 5 Hobart City Redevelopment Authority meeting; the board emphasized a long-standing ordinance limiting front-yard fences, suggested alternatives and asked the applicant to submit a certified survey before any variance is considered.
Patrick, chair of the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority, opened discussion on a front-yard fence variance request for a Garfield-area property and asked the applicant to present her case.
The applicant, Kathleen Tellez, told the board she wants to install a fence extending toward the front and back of her lot "to provide a little bit of space for my dogs to be able to run around a bit," and showed AI-generated images of the proposed layout. She said the lot is mostly consumed by the house and two small dogs are the reason for the request.
Board members and staff pushed back on allowing a fence that reaches the curb. "We can't be careful, because if we allow you to do that, then we're setting precedent," Patrick said, noting that the city's ordinance generally prohibits front-yard fences. Terry McCarthy, a board member, echoed the need for consistency and said the board has only allowed front-yard fencing in unusual circumstances tied to land configuration rather than owner economics or health.
The board reviewed aerial imagery and discussed alternatives such as running fencing to the front corner of the house, adding a man door to the garage to allow access to existing side-yard space, or placing fencing toward the side-yard where more usable space exists. Staff noted that some front-yard fences exist because they were in place before the ordinance was adopted; "I think it was 1983 when they the ordinance was adopted," a member observed, explaining the grandfathering dynamic for older improvements.
Rather than grant or deny the variance at the meeting, the board directed Tellez to obtain a certified property survey and submit it to the building department so staff can confirm the property lines and advise where a fence could be placed without violating code or creating an undesirable precedent. Staff said an existing survey could be accepted if the applicant already has one; otherwise, a new survey will be required.
No formal variance decision was made at the meeting. The board handled earlier procedural items as well — it approved the February 5 minutes, approved an amended agenda to add the applicant presentation, tabled Application 25-12 pending a city court matter and removed Application 25-17 from the agenda for lack of required public notification.
The next procedural step for the fence request is for the applicant to submit the survey and coordinate with the building department; the board did not schedule or take a vote on a variance at this session.
