Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence‑variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board defers fence-height variance at 1411 Old Hickory Boulevard pending survey
Summary
The Metro Board of Zoning Appeals deferred a fence-height variance request for the Home Capital property at 1411 Old Hickory Boulevard after neighbors and staff said the fence’s location relative to the street right of way was unclear. The board asked the applicant for a certified survey and will reconsider the case at a later meeting.
The Board of Zoning Appeals deferred consideration of a variance request for a six‑foot fence at 1411 Old Hickory Boulevard after questions about whether the fence sits within the street right of way.
Zoning staff described the fence rules, noting that “solid fences or opaque fences are not allowed to exceed 30 inches in height” within the first 10 feet of a street right of way and that a six‑foot opaque fence is allowed only beyond that 10‑foot setback. Attorney Lance Baker, representing property owner Quintin Wang, said the fence was installed for safety and screening and argued the height complied if the property line is as the applicant believes. Baker submitted an affidavit and photographs and said the owner had been told by staff that the fence could be placed 10 feet from the road.
Neighbor Ben Matthews told the board the publicly available mapping shows the fence “flatly inside the right of way,” and said the applicant had not demonstrated the variance standards including that the hardship was not self‑imposed. Matthews also said the fence was visibly different from nearby low stone walls and low fences and raised concerns that the fence could harm property values and, if it fell, could block the roadway.
Board members said a certified survey was necessary to determine the fence’s relation to the right of way and recommended the applicant provide a survey before the board rules. The board voted 4‑0 to defer the item to allow the applicant to produce a survey; staff advised that if the fence is found to be within the city right of way it must be moved and that the board cannot grant permission to construct within the public right of way.
The hearing record includes the applicant’s affidavit and nighttime and daytime photographs, and the board directed the parties to work with the codes department if the fence must be relocated. The board said the case will be rescheduled for a future meeting and that additional notice requirements apply if the hearing goes beyond the board’s next two scheduled sessions.
The board did not decide on the variance at this meeting; the matter stays on the docket pending survey evidence and any follow‑up filings.
The zoning administrator read relevant rules to the board from the Metro Code, and both applicant and neighbors were offered time for rebuttal and questions.
