Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Fences topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks front-yard fence for Garfield property; board urges alternatives, requests survey
Summary
An applicant seeking to extend a fence toward the front of a Garfield/212 South Ash property told the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority she needs enclosed space for two small dogs. The board cited a 1983 ordinance, warned against setting precedent, and recommended alternatives and a certified survey.
An applicant identified as Kathleen asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on March 5 to allow a fence to extend toward the front of her Garfield/212 South Ash property to create usable outdoor space for two small dogs. She said an existing fence runs along one side of the lot and showed photos and AI-generated mockups of the proposed layout.
The board, led by the chair, told Kathleen that the city ordinance adopted in 1983 generally disallows front-yard fences and that the authority has narrowly allowed exceptions only where lot configuration or the house’s position on the lot make the stated “front” effectively the backyard. Committee members emphasized concern about setting a precedent that would permit multiple similar requests in neighborhoods where front yards are the norm.
Rather than approve an across-the-board front-yard variance, board members proposed practical alternatives: running a fence to the front corner of the house (but not to the curb), using the larger side yard adjacent to the garage, installing an additional man door in the garage to provide safe access to the side yard, or otherwise reconfiguring the enclosure so the fence remains behind the primary front plane of the dwelling. The chair and clerk advised the applicant to obtain a certified property survey to confirm lot lines before the department will accept a final application; an existing survey may be brought to the building department if available. The board did not grant a front-yard variance during the meeting and instead outlined technical steps and design options the applicant could pursue.
The authority recommended that the applicant coordinate with neighbors and the building department to confirm property lines and refine a plan that fits ordinance limits. The meeting record shows no vote in favor of a front-yard exception; the item remained a discussion with direction to provide documentation and consider alternatives.
