Germantown board approves variance for 7-foot-8 fence at 7910 Burnham Wood Cove

Germantown — On Aug. 12, 2025, the Germantown Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously to approve a variance allowing a portion of a fence and gate at 7910 Burnham Wood Cove to reach 7 feet, 8 inches, exceeding the 6-foot limit in the R low-density single-family residential district.

The board cited “exceptional topographical conditions resulting in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties” when approving the request, which the board said affects a small portion of the property and is largely hidden from public view.

Staff told the board the application concerns two replaced sections of fencing — approximately 10 feet along a side yard and 16 feet facing the front — that together total about 26 feet out of roughly 380 feet of perimeter fencing, or about 6.8% of the total. Staff said code compliance inspected the property after the fence was installed and advised the property owner that the fence exceeded the 6-foot limit; the owner then applied for a variance instead of reducing the fence height.

Attorney Mark Jobe, representing property owner Jerry Hubbard, said the replacement was done to address persistent drainage and erosion problems and to set the new gate and posts on firmer ground. “Staff did a good job describing the situation,” Jobe told the board, and he noted the application states the lot is a “pie shape” that is wider in the rear and narrower at the front. He also stated the portion at issue represents “about 6.84% of the total fence.”

Applicant Jerry Hubbard told the board the previous fence dated to the mid-1990s and that the ground near the original fence is “perpetually wet,” which caused repeated gate failures over the years. He said landscapers advised pulling the front fence forward so the gate posts could be set in firmer soil and that contractors installed the new section without the property owners’ realizing the top edge would exceed the 6-foot cap. Hubbard said the work was done in good faith and called the over-height portion “an oversight.”

Neighbor Jerry Sisson spoke in support, saying from his driveway the fence appears “6 feet across all the way” and that the relocated fence is an improvement: “I would absolutely say it’s an improvement. I would much rather see the fence where it is and built the way it is now than the way it was.”

Board members acknowledged contractor responsibility and encouraged the city to notify the fence company that the permit specified a 6-foot maximum. Several members said they would normally prefer work be approved before construction, but that the small scale of the nonconforming section, its limited visibility and the site topography justified granting the variance. The board asked that the applicant follow staff guidance to complete any required code compliance steps and to revise permit records as needed.

A motion to approve the variance — described in the staff report and site plan submitted with the application — passed unanimously. The board recorded votes in favor by Miss Meanwell; Mr. Jacobs; Mr. McDermott; Mr. Towne; Mr. Bland; and Chairman Ewellhorn.

The board’s approval applies only to the specific as-built section described in case number 25-14; staff asked that the applicant make any additional permit or compliance applications required to complete the record.