Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fences Walls topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Miami planning board delays fence-height, hedge rules after corner-lot and enforcement concerns
Summary
Planning Board deferred PB-24-023, a city ordinance to revise residential fence and wall regulations, asking staff to clarify front-yard vs. corner-lot treatments, reconcile contradictory hedge-height language, and refine nonconformity protections before returning in January.
The South Miami Planning Board voted Nov. 12 to defer a proposed ordinance (PB-24-023) that would change front-yard fence and hedge rules, asking the City Attorney and staff to redraft the measure to address corner-lot privacy, conflicting hedge provisions and enforcement practicality.
The City Attorney (Speaker 8) said the ordinance targets front yards only and would allow up to 6-foot wood or masonry fences on front yards abutting major roads, provided the upper portion is open (top 2 feet on major roads, top 3 feet on smaller roads) with at least 60% openness to preserve visibility. The draft treats existing nonconforming fences as repairable if damage is less than 50% of value but requires conformity if a fence is removed or damaged at 50% or more.
“On front yards abutting section lines, half-section lines and other roads of two or more lanes, fences along the front setback can’t exceed 6 feet,” the City Attorney said, adding the top portion must include metal pickets to ensure visibility. He also flagged a contradiction in existing code: one line limits hedges to 4 feet while another clause says there is no height limit for hedges.
Board members raised practical concerns. Committee member (Speaker 7) and several colleagues said hedges and solid walls currently provide noise reduction on busy corridors and serve privacy and safety functions; others warned that enforcing a citywide hedge-height limit would strain code-enforcement resources and could unfairly penalize homeowners who have long-established plantings.
Members also discussed corner lots where parts of a homeowner’s backyard may technically be a front yard, and whether the ordinance should treat those properties differently. The board asked staff to clarify front-yard definitions, sight-triangle safety exceptions and whether nonconforming landscape features should be grandfathered but allowed to be improved without losing legal nonconforming status.
Rather than advance PB-24-023, the board directed staff to revise the draft to: reconcile conflicting hedge-height language (administration flagged the contradiction), confirm metal-picket requirements and transparency percentages, add special language or exceptions for corner lots and busy corridors, and mirror driveway nonconformity protections that allow improvements without forfeiting legal nonconforming status. The board set a return date in January and approved deferral by voice vote; the transcript does not record a roll-call tally.
Next steps: staff will prepare a revised draft addressing the board’s comments for the next Planning Board meeting.
