Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident seeks front-yard fence for dogs; authority cites city ordinance, suggests alternatives
Summary
Resident Kathleen Tellez asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority for permission to extend a fence to the front of her Garfield-area home to give two small dogs usable yard space; board members said the city's fence ordinance generally prohibits front-yard fences, pointed to prior "grandfathered" exceptions and advised a property survey and alternatives.
Kathleen Tellez told the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on March 5 that she wants to install a fence that would extend to the front of her house to create a safe area for her two dogs, but board members said the city's fence ordinance generally bars front-yard fences and recommended alternatives.
"I have 2 little dogs and the lot is consumed by house mostly all the way back to the alley," Tellez said while describing the property and showing plans she said included illustrative (AI-generated) images of the proposed fence. She said there is already an existing fence on one side of the lot and that she recently moved in and is on a fixed income.
Board members said they understand the circumstances but cited consistency with the municipal ordinance and concerns about setting a precedent. "If we allow you to do that, then we're setting precedent," the chair said, explaining the authority has allowed only limited exceptions for lots that are unusual — for example where a house sits on an alley and the front yard is effectively a backyard.
Members walked through on-screen aerial photos and discussed less-permanent or narrower options, including locating the fence so it aligns with the front corner of the porch and runs to the property line or using the side yard where there appears to be more usable space. A staff member noted a practical next step: "You need to have a survey done, like, an actual survey to find out how much space you have there," and advised Tellez to take any existing survey to the building department.
The board also described how earlier fences in the neighborhood were likely "grandfathered" because they predated the ordinance, which a member said was adopted in 1983. Members said the authority has denied other petitioners who lacked the kind of lot-based circumstances the ordinance contemplates (noting that economic hardship alone is not typically a qualifying factor).
Tellez asked about physically accessing the side strip of yard and said adding a man door to the garage would be costly; board members suggested that if she obtains an accurate property survey and works with the building department and her neighbors, a workable solution might be found without granting a front-yard variance.
No final vote on a variance was taken. The board advised Tellez to secure a current survey, consult the building department and, if appropriate, re-file with clearer documentation showing lot geometry and how the requested fence would align with neighboring properties. The meeting adjourned after other business.
Votes at a glance - Approve minutes (Feb. 5): Motion carried; vote recorded by voice; mover referenced as Tyler. (SEG 027–036) - Approve agenda as amended (addition of an application): Motion carried by voice. (SEG 046–056) - Table application 25-12 (Zachary Tillman) pending city court: Motion carried. (SEG 066–089) - Remove application 25-17 (related to 3765 Caitlin Street) from agenda due to incomplete public notification/documentation: Motion carried. (SEG 091–129)
What happens next: Tellez was instructed to obtain or submit a property survey and coordinate with the city building department if she wishes to pursue a variance or a revised application.
