Applicant seeks front-yard fence; board urges survey and building-department review

Applicant Kathleen Tellez asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on March 5 for permission to install a fence that would extend to the front of her house and enclose both front and back yards to provide space for her two small dogs.

The chair, who opened the meeting and oversaw the hearing, said the city’s fence ordinance generally prohibits front-yard fences and warned that granting the request could set a precedent. “We can’t be careful, because if we allow you to do that, then we’re setting precedent,” the chair said.

Tellez, who identified herself at the meeting as Kathleen (spelling given aloud), described a narrow lot and limited rear access because her garage is attached and the driveway and alley configuration prevent dogs from reaching the side yard. “I have 2 little dogs and the lot is consumed by house mostly all the way back to the alley,” she said, explaining the practical reason for the request.

Board members examined aerial imagery and an applicant-supplied plan during the discussion and pointed to a 1983 ordinance that changed how front-yard fences are treated; existing front-yard fences in the city are generally grandfathered if they predate that ordinance. One committee member described the narrow circumstances under which the board has previously allowed deviations: typically when the lot configuration makes what is formally the front yard functionally a backyard, not because of personal or economic hardship.

The board outlined alternatives the applicant could pursue, including placing the fence up to the front corner of the house rather than to the curb or property line, or adding a man door on the garage to allow side-yard access. Members repeatedly advised Tellez to obtain an official property survey to confirm the property line and return with that documentation: “You need to have a survey done, like, an actual survey to find out how much space you have there,” the chair said. They also recommended working with building-department staff on permitted configurations and next steps.

No final variance was granted at the meeting. Instead, the board advised the applicant to pursue a survey and consult the building department. The meeting record shows the board accepted the agenda amendment that added the application and handled other calendar items before moving on to this discussion.

What happens next: the applicant is expected to secure a property survey and coordinate with the city’s building department; the board did not make a final determination on a variance at the March 5 meeting.