Hobart redevelopment board flags ordinance, asks for survey in front-yard fence request

The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on March 5 heard an application from Kathleen Tellez seeking to install a fence from the front to the back of her Garfield Street property to create an enclosed area for her two small dogs.

The authority’s chair, Patrick, told Tellez that the city’s fence ordinance — adopted in 1983, board members said — generally prohibits front-yard fences and that many front fences visible in town are grandfathered from before that code change. “We can’t be careful, because if we allow you to do that, then we’re setting precedent,” Patrick said, urging caution and consistency in approvals.

Tellez described the site and her need: “I have 2 little dogs and the lot is consumed by house mostly all the way back to the alley,” she said, adding that she provided illustrations of the proposed fence and that access to the side strip is limited because her garage configuration prevents the dogs from reaching that area.

Board members and staff reviewed aerial and street views and discussed existing neighboring fences. A board member explained that exceptions to the front-yard rule are narrowly permitted when land configuration creates an extraordinary circumstance: “Those extraordinary circumstances … have to do with the land,” the board member said, not the homeowner’s finances or health.

Members proposed practical alternatives that would avoid setting a broad precedent: align any new fence with the front of the existing house rather than the curb; run fencing from the porch corner to the property line to create usable space; or add a man door to the garage to provide access to the side yard. The board also advised Tellez to consult with adjacent neighbors before moving forward.

The authority told Tellez she must obtain a formal property survey to confirm the exact property lines before the board could consider a variance or a modification to the fence placement. Staff directed her to bring any existing survey or a new survey to the building department for guidance and permitting.

The meeting record shows the board did not grant a variance at the session; members offered guidance, requested a survey, and left the door open for the applicant to return with revised plans or documentation. The authority also handled routine business at the meeting, including tabling Application 25-12 until its city-court matter is resolved and removing Application 25-17 from the agenda because required public-notification steps were not completed.

Next steps: the applicant was advised to obtain a land survey, coordinate with the Hobart building department on placement and permitting, and consult neighbors before returning to the redevelopment authority with revised plans.