Hobart redevelopment board delays front-yard fence approval, directs applicant to get survey

The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on March 5 reviewed a request from Kathleen Tellez to install fencing at her property to create off‑leash space for two small dogs but did not grant a variance. Instead, board members urged Tellez to obtain an official property survey and consult the building department before the board would consider further action.

Tellez told the board she wanted “a fence around the front of the property as well as all the way to the back” because her lot is largely consumed by the house and “I have 2 little dogs and the lot is consumed... trying to provide a little bit of space for my dogs to be able to run around a bit.” The applicant supplied photos and a plan (one participant described some images as AI-generated), and the board pulled up aerial and street views during the discussion.

Board members and staff cited the city’s fence ordinance and the need to avoid creating a new precedent. The chair said the board could not casually allow front‑yard fences, warning, “if we allow you to do that, then we’re setting precedent.” Staff noted that existing front‑yard fences that predate a 1983 ordinance are typically grandfathered, and that exceptions generally apply only for unusual lot configurations, not for economic or personal circumstances.

Several members proposed a narrower compromise that would allow a fence to come up to the front of the house — not past the front of the house toward the curb or property line — so the applicant could gain usable space without extending to the property line. The board repeatedly emphasized that whether any fence is permitted as requested depends on an accurate property survey and plan: the board advised Tellez to obtain a survey and take it to the building department before returning.

There was no final vote to grant a variance at the meeting. The board instead took procedural actions and moved through the agenda: it approved the February 5 minutes and the amended agenda, tabled application 25‑12 (Zachary Tillman) until a related court matter is resolved, removed application 25‑17 from the agenda, and adjourned. Each of those motions passed by voice vote; individual roll‑call tallies were not recorded in the transcript.

The next procedural step for Tellez is to provide an official survey to the building department and, if desired, bring a clarified plan back to the Redevelopment Authority for formal consideration.