Hobart City Redevelopment Authority approves minutes, tables zoning case and advises resident on front-yard fence request

The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority met on March 5, 2026, approved the Feb. 5 minutes and an amended agenda, tabled zoning application 25-12 and removed application 25-17 from the agenda. The board then heard from resident and applicant Kathleen Tellez about a requested front‑yard fence and offered guidance on next steps.

Tellez said she wants a front-facing fence so her two small dogs have a safe area to run and play. “I have two little dogs and the lot is consumed by the house mostly all the way back to the alley,” Tellez said, describing the property layout and showing images of the proposed fence plan that she said were AI-generated.

Board members examined aerial and street views of the property during the discussion and raised concerns about setting a precedent for front‑yard fencing. The Chair said the board could not broadly allow fences that extend past the front of the house because doing so would create a precedent for other requests. “We can’t be careful, because if we allow you to do that, then we’re setting precedent,” the Chair said.

A board member reviewed the city’s approach to front‑yard fencing, saying an ordinance adopted in 1983 generally removed permissive front‑yard fence allowances and that fences in place before that ordinance are often grandfathered. The member noted that exceptional approvals are typically based on land‑related circumstances (lot configuration), not on economic or health reasons. “Those extraordinary circumstances … have to do with the land,” the member said.

Board guidance to the applicant was practical: obtain a property survey to confirm lot lines and then work with the building department to determine where a fence can lawfully be placed. Members suggested the applicant consult adjacent property owners and consider adjusting the fence to run from the front corner of the porch to the property line or to a side yard configuration to provide usable space without extending past the house’s front edge.

Earlier in the meeting the board tabled application 25-12, identified in the record as associated with Zachary Tillman, after a member reported the matter is scheduled in city court this month; the board moved to table the item until the court matter is resolved. The board also removed application 25-17 from the agenda after noting the applicant had not supplied required information or public notification materials.

The meeting concluded with a motion and second to adjourn.

What’s next: The board left the fence request without a formal vote; the applicant was advised to return with a survey and any missing documentation if she wants the board to consider a formal variance or appeal.