Hobart redevelopment board questions front-yard fence request, urges survey and alternatives

The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on March 5 discussed a request from resident Kathleen Tellez to install a fence that would run from the front to the back of her lot to create outdoor space for her two small dogs. The board did not approve a variance at the meeting and advised Tellez to obtain an official property survey and coordinate with the city building department before returning with a revised proposal.

The applicant, Kathleen Tellez, told the board she wanted “to put a fence and a fence around the front of the property as well as all the way to the back” to provide a safe area for her pets. Members reviewed aerial and street-view images during the meeting and noted an existing fence on an adjacent property. The staff member pulling up maps read different address labels aloud during the review; the transcript records inconsistent references (including Garfield and entries reading 212 South Beach / 212 South Ash), which the board sought to resolve by examining the property lines.

Board members raised concerns about neighborhood consistency and precedent. One board member cautioned that allowing a front-yard fence could set a precedent and observed that some front-yard fences exist only because they predate a change in the city code. Board member Terry McCarthy summarized the board's standard for limited exceptions: “Those extraordinary circumstances … have to do with the land,” adding that economic hardship or health needs alone generally do not qualify as the kind of lot-based exception the board has granted in rare cases.

The board and staff discussed alternatives to a full front-yard fence. Several members suggested the applicant could bring a fence forward only to the front of the house (stopping short of the neighbor’s front line), use the side yard if access were created, or add a man door to the garage to reach a usable fenced area without extending fencing to the curb. The chair noted the group’s preference for solutions that do not alter the neighborhood front-yard pattern and asked the applicant to consult the building department and, if necessary, submit a survey showing property lines before any variance could be approved.

No formal vote was recorded to grant a variance at the meeting. Earlier on the agenda, the board approved routine items by voice vote: they approved the February 5 minutes and approved the agenda as amended to add the applicant; they also voted to table application 25-12 (Zachary Tillman) pending a city court matter and removed application 25-17 (Caitlin Street) from the agenda because required public notices had not been completed. The meeting concluded after members advised the applicant on next steps and called for adjournment.

The applicant was advised to obtain an official survey, consult with the building department about code limits and permitted fence placement, and coordinate with neighbors before returning to the board.