Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident seeks front-yard fence at 212 South Ash; board warns of precedent, urges survey
Summary
An applicant, identified as Kathleen Tellez, requested a front-yard fence at 212 South Ash to create space for two small dogs. Board members said a front-yard fence would set a precedent under the city's ordinance and urged the applicant to obtain a certified property survey and consult the building department rather than granting a variance on the spot.
Kathleen Tellez, an applicant and resident, told the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on March 5 that she wanted to install a fence extending to the front of her property at 212 South Ash to provide secure outdoor space for her two small dogs. "I have 2 little dogs and the lot is consumed by house mostly all the way back to the alley," Tellez said, adding she had AI-generated images and a site plan to show the board.
The chair warned the board was reluctant to allow a front-yard fence because doing so could set a precedent. The chair said the city’s ordinance — which board members said went into effect around 1983 — generally prohibits front-yard fences and that the only existing examples were "grandfathered" from before the ordinance change.
Board members discussed alternatives during the hearing. The chair and other members suggested Tellez could place a fence forward only to the front corner of the house so it would align with neighboring front setbacks, use side-yard fencing tied to a man door in the garage, or otherwise reconfigure access so the usable outdoor area would not require a front-yard fence. The board repeatedly advised that, before any variance would be considered, the applicant should obtain a certified property survey and coordinate with the building department to confirm exact property lines and permissible fence placement.
Tellez said she recently moved in and has limited funds for major changes such as adding a second man door to the garage, but she indicated willingness to pursue the procedural steps the board recommended. Members noted the neighbor’s existing front-yard fence likely predates the ordinance and is therefore grandfathered, which does not automatically allow new front-yard fences for other properties.
No formal variance was approved at the meeting. Instead, the board provided guidance: secure a professional survey, file any missing application or public-notification materials, and meet with the building department to determine whether a fence could be sited without violating the ordinance or creating a precedence issue. The board did not take a vote to grant a front-yard variance and the applicant was directed to return with clarified, surveyed plans if she wishes to proceed.
The board closed the discussion by reiterating the department contact and the survey requirement; the meeting proceeded to other business and later adjourned.
