Temple Terrace council approves fence, wall and hedge code changes on first reading; hedges set for further revision

The City of Temple Terrace City Council on Jan. 7 approved on first reading revisions to the city’s Land Development Code that change how fences, walls and hedges are defined and regulated, but directed staff to rework hedge language and clarify prohibited materials and director exemption authority before second reading.

The revision package, introduced by city planner Miranda Anaya, updates definitions, adjusts corner-lot rules and setback illustrations, raises or clarifies allowable fence heights in side and rear yards (up to 7 feet in certain locations), and changes the “deep lot” threshold from 75 to 90 feet. The ordinance also adds requirements that applicants disclose easements when applying for fence permits, restricts chain-link fences in single-family front yards (with a vacancy exception), and removes a prior landscaping requirement tied to fence replacement on residential lots.

Staff and council said the rewrite aims to resolve conflicting definitions and to make permitting clearer for residents, particularly owners of corner lots who have said current rules are confusing. Anaya told council that corner-yard setbacks would no longer extend to the rear lot line and that, after recent feedback, the side-yard definition will be limited to the area between the front yard setback and the back of the residence.

Council discussion focused heavily on whether hedges should fall under the same rules as fences. Councilmember Kravitz and others said adding hedges to the fence definition would be a new, more restrictive regulation for landscaping that is currently unmanaged in the city code; several council members, including Mayor Andy Ross, asked staff either to remove hedges from the ordinance or to craft a narrower hedge definition that addresses only sight-line/front-yard concerns. Code compliance supervisor Tom Barone said enforcement of tall rear-yard hedges is difficult unless a complaint is filed, and noted the city already enforces overgrown/front-yard obstructions under existing code provisions.

Other points raised during the public hearing and workshop discussion included: the requirement that applicants disclose easements (staff said boundary surveys sometimes omit easements and the disclosure is intended to put applicants on notice of the risk of building in an easement), rules for fences in drainage easements and coordination language with TECO, and a question about whether language prohibiting “steel beams” might unintentionally ban widely used, powder-coated steel fence posts (staff agreed to refine that text).

Council voted to approve the ordinance on first reading while explicitly directing staff to return for second reading on Jan. 21 with three revisions: 1) remove hedges from the scope or provide a clearer, narrower hedge provision; 2) specify what is meant by the prohibited “steel beam” material; and 3) consolidate and limit the multiple places the code grants the director discretion to issue exemptions into a single, bounded clause (the council asked that the clause include a standard or benchmark for exercising that discretion). The motion passed with all members present voting in favor.

Next steps: staff will draft the requested changes and present a revised ordinance and marked-up text at the second reading and public hearing on Jan. 21, 2025. If adopted on second reading, the ordinance will be codified; the effective date will be specified in the final ordinance.

Ending: Councilmembers said the rewrite is intended to reduce recurring permitting conflicts, particularly for corner lots and nonconforming fences, and to reduce the number of costly after-the-fact removals; they warned that the hedge issue was a substantive change and asked staff to return with a narrow solution.