Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hobart redevelopment board tells resident to get property survey after front‑yard fence request
Summary
At its March 5 meeting the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority discussed a resident’s request to extend a fence toward the front yard, advised obtaining a certified survey and consulting the building department, and did not grant a front‑yard variance at the meeting.
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on March 5 discussed a resident’s request to extend a fence toward the front yard, but members said the city’s ordinance and neighborhood precedent make allowing a fence to the curb unlikely and advised the applicant to provide a certified survey and work with the building department.
The applicant, who identified herself as Kathleen Tellez, told the board she wants a fence that would run from the front of the house around to the back to give her two small dogs an off‑leash area. “What I’m trying to do is put a fence and a fence around the front of the property as well as all the way to the back,” Tellez said during the hearing. She said an existing neighbor fence already reaches the sidewalk on one side.
Board members said the city’s front‑yard fence prohibition dates to an ordinance adopted in 1983 and that many fences that reach the curb are grandfathered from before that change. “If you start allowing it, it’s not just one,” a staff member explained, saying the board tries to be consistent and limit new exceptions. The Chair also said he did not believe the board could “entertain allowing a front yard fence there” under current rules.
Members discussed alternatives with Tellez, including placing a fence up to the front corner of her house rather than to the curb, using a side‑yard gate or adding access through the garage, and securing a property survey to confirm the property line. The board repeatedly asked staff to pull up aerial and street views during the exchange and urged Tellez to bring a certified survey to the building department before seeking any variance.
Staff advised that prior fences that reach the front were likely in place before the ordinance change and were therefore grandfathered, but that modifications after the ordinance must meet quality and placement standards. The board emphasized neighborhood consistency and warned that allowing one new exception could invite multiple similar requests.
No variance or formal approval to extend a fence to the curb was granted at the meeting. Instead, members advised the applicant to obtain an accurate, certified survey, coordinate with neighboring property owners, and consult the building department about permitted fence placement and required permitting. The board also handled routine business the same night: approving February minutes, amending the agenda to add the applicant’s request, tabling Application 25‑12 until a city‑court outcome, and removing Application 25‑17 from the agenda.
The meeting adjourned after those items. The board did not record roll‑call vote tallies by name in the transcript; all motions noted in the record were carried by voice vote.
