Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident seeks front-yard fence for small dogs; board urges survey, cites 1983 ordinance
Summary
An applicant, Kathleen Tellez, asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority for permission to extend a fence to provide space for her two small dogs. Board members said city rules generally prohibit front-yard fences (ordinance adopted in 1983), advised a property survey and coordination with the building department, and did not take final action.
Kathleen Tellez, a resident and the applicant, told the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on March 5 that she wants a fence that would enclose both the front and rear of her lot so her “two little dogs” can have room to run.
The board’s Chair said the city’s ordinance — adopted in 1983 and cited by staff during the meeting — generally prohibits front-yard fences and that allowing the requested fence could set a precedent. Staff described the narrow circumstances under which exceptions have been granted, saying such allowances have typically been made for unusual lot configurations (for example, lots with houses that face an alley) rather than for economic or personal hardship. “Those extraordinary circumstances…have to do with the land,” a staff member said.
Why it matters: The requested fence would alter the public-facing setback on a row of houses and could influence how the board treats similar requests. The board repeatedly emphasized that any variance request must be supported by clear property evidence and that the practical placement of a fence depends on the surveyed property line.
Board members examined aerial and street imagery with the applicant and discussed alternatives. The applicant said the house sits close to neighboring lots and that garage access prevents moving pets to a backyard area without additional work; she added that cutting a man door or other garage modifications would be costly and that she is on fixed income. “I have 2 little dogs and the lot is consumed by house mostly all the way back to the alley,” Tellez said.
The Chair suggested smaller adjustments that would not extend past the front corner of the house, noting prior cases where fences were allowed to stop at the front of a residence if the lot layout justified it. Staff and the Chair reiterated that several existing front-yard fences are likely “grandfathered” (preexisting before the 1983 ordinance) and that replacements had to meet current standards.
The record contains inconsistent references to the property address (the discussion includes mentions of Garfield and of “212 South Ash” or similar variants). The board and staff asked the applicant to provide a certified property survey to confirm lot lines and exact dimensions; staff told the applicant to coordinate directly with the building department for next steps.
No formal vote or variance approval was taken at the meeting. Instead, the board advised the applicant to obtain and submit a survey and to work with building-department staff on whether the requested fencing could be permitted administratively or would require a formal variance application and further review.
The board’s earlier business included approving minutes, amending the agenda to add the applicant, tabling application 25-12 (Zachary Tillman) until the applicant’s city-court matter is resolved, and removing an inactive application (25-17) from the agenda. The meeting concluded after the board gave the applicant the guidance to return with a survey.
What’s next: The applicant was told to secure a property survey and consult the building department; the board did not schedule a final decision during the March 5 meeting.
