Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – August 12, 2025

The Germantown Board of Zoning Appeals met on August 12, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers. The board considered one variance request for a fence height exceeding the six-foot limit in an R Low-Density Single-Family Residential district. The meeting included roll call, approval of minutes, public hearing, deliberation, and a unanimous vote to grant the variance.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes: The board approved the minutes from the previous meeting. Note: The agenda listed the minutes as from July 8, 2025, but the chair referred to them as “minutes from our May meeting.” The discrepancy was not addressed during the meeting. The motion passed 5–0–1 (Chairman Ulhorn abstained).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Applicant’s Representation: Attorney Mark Job (6,000 Poplar Ave, Suite 400, Memphis) represented property owners Jerry and Libby Hubbard. He stated that the fence was built in good faith after the applicant hired Big Dog Fence Company, which pulled a permit for a 6-foot fence but installed sections at 7 ft 8 in. The applicant only learned of the violation when a code inspector visited. Job noted that the HOA and all neighbors except one (who was out of town) supported the variance. He emphasized that only 6.84% of the total fence (26 ft out of 380 ft) exceeded the height limit.
• Property Owner Testimony: Jerry Hubbard (7910 Birnam Wood Cove) explained that the fence extension was moved forward approximately 20 feet to address chronic drainage and erosion issues that caused the old gate to rot and require frequent repairs. He stated that he was recovering from major spine surgery during construction and was unaware of the height issue. He acknowledged that the fence company applied for a 6-foot permit but built the higher section without notifying him.
• Neighbor Testimony: Jerry Sisson (7919 Birnam Wood Cove) expressed strong support for the variance. He stated that the new fence is an improvement over the old one, provides better privacy, and that the height variation is not noticeable due to the sloping topography. He described the drop from his driveway to the fence as about 1.5 feet and noted that the fence appears uniform from his perspective.
• No Opposition: No one spoke against the variance.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Planning staff presented the request, showing aerial photos, zoning maps, and survey details. The property is pie-shaped with a slope leading to Birnam Wood Cove. Staff noted that the old fence had similar height variations due to topography and that the new fence follows the ground. The requested variance covers a 10-foot fence section and a 16-foot gate section, both up to 7 ft 8 in. The remaining perimeter fence is compliant. Staff recommended that if approved, the applicant apply to code compliance for a revised permit.
• Board Questions and Deliberation: Board members asked whether the old fence was compliant (it was mostly 6 ft but had higher sections) and about the percentage of non-conforming fencing. They discussed the role of the fence company and the applicant’s responsibility. Several members noted that the height increase was gradual and aesthetically pleasing, and that the topography justified the variance. One member expressed concern that the fence company should be notified to avoid future violations, but others acknowledged the unique site conditions.

Key Outcomes

• Variance Approved (Unanimous): The board voted 6–0 to approve Case 25-014, allowing a portion of fence and gate to be up to 7 ft 8 in. high at 7910 Birnam Wood Cove. The motion was made and seconded, and each member cited exceptional topographical conditions as the reason for approval. The applicant agrees to submit a revised fence permit application to code compliance.
• Adjournment: The meeting adjourned after no old or new business.