Hobart redevelopment authority tells fence applicant to get survey, tables two appeals

The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on March 5 advised a fence-variance applicant to obtain a certified property survey and work with the building department before returning with revised plans, and the board took procedural action on two other pending appeals.

The chair opened the meeting, and the board approved the February 5 minutes and an amended agenda before addressing old business. The board moved to table application 25-12 (Zachary Tillman) until the outcome of a pending city court matter and voted to remove application 25-17 (listed as 3765 Caitlin Street) from the agenda after finding required public-notification material and other supporting information were not supplied.

Why it matters: front-yard fence requests implicate the city—ode and neighborhood consistency. Board members said the city's ordinance (adopted in the early 1980s) generally does not allow fences to extend to the curbline and that exceptions are limited to unusual lot configurations rather than personal or economic hardship.

During an extended discussion, applicant Kathleen Tellez told the board she wants a fence extending from the front of her house at 212 South Ash to the rear so her two small dogs have space to run. "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, explaining that an existing fence along one side of the lot stops short of the sidewalk and that her attached garage layout prevents side-yard access.

Board members reviewed aerial and street views and noted neighboring front-yard fences that are likely grandfathered because they predate the ordinance. A board member explained that the ordinance change around 1983 left a grandfathering exception for properties that historically had front-yard fences, but said exceptions "have to do with the land" and unusual lot layouts rather than an applicant's financial situation or health.

The chair and staff suggested possible compromises: placing a fence up to the front corner of the house (but not past it), using the larger side yard where available, or modifying the garage (adding a man door) so the applicant can access a side-yard enclosure without extending a front-yard fence. Members repeatedly emphasized the need to avoid setting a precedent that would undermine the code.

The board gave clear procedural guidance: secure a certified property survey to establish the legal property line, consult the building department for exact placement and permitting requirements, and coordinate with neighbors about the proposed work. "You need to have a survey done, like, an actual survey to find out how much space you have there," the chair said. Tellez acknowledged she will contact the building department and the neighbors and noted she will submit a survey if she can obtain one.

The meeting concluded with the recorded motions: approval of the February minutes, approval of the amended agenda, tabling of application 25-12 to await court disposition, removal of application 25-17 from the agenda for incomplete materials, and adjournment. The board did not grant a variance at the meeting; the applicant was directed to return with a certified survey and any revised plans if she wishes to pursue an exception.

Next steps: the applicant should obtain a certified survey and consult the city's building department, then return to the Authority with clarified plans if she seeks an exception or variance. The board will revisit any resubmitted application once required documentation is on file.