Hedges and edges dominate conversations about Temple Terrace's new proposed fencing rules

TEMPLE TERRACE — Temple Terrace is addressing its fence regulations, the first of several revisions to the city's land development code to be implemented this year.

The proposed changes, whose first reading was presented to the City Council on Jan. 7, are intended to clean up some language in the current codes and generally make the process less burdensome for residents. In addition, some of the city's restrictions, particularly on corner properties, will be relaxed.

“Some changes had to be made to clean up some areas that were not clearly defined, and in some cases this may even have caused a small internal conflict within the code,” said Greg Pauley, Community Development Director. “But the biggest thing I think our community will benefit from the most is the people who have residential properties on corner lots.”

The new rules would allow corner garden owners to move or install their fence up to the side property line next to the side road.

Currently, the law requires them to maintain the same distance that the house is set back, meaning the fence is essentially hidden behind the house.

“(Based on the current rules), the fence would also be 15 feet from (the side street), meaning you lose 15 feet of your backyard,” Pauley said.

The changes will give you that 15 feet back and increase the size of the backyards for corner properties.

“I believe we will have immediate relief for residents who want a fencing permit for the corner properties,” said City Planner Miranda Anaya. “I think once this is adopted we will be able to help a handful of residents immediately.”

While this is arguably the most beneficial change to the Code, others have also been proposed that sparked further debate, most notably the change that lumps safeguards in with the definition of a fence.

This would mean that any backyard and side hedges that serve the same purpose as a fence (e.g. a buffer) would have to comply with the 7-foot fence height restrictions. (The height limit in front yards is 3 or 4 feet, depending on the fence type.)

Council member Eric Kravets opposed regulating hedges as if they were fences, and was supported by fellow council member Alison Fernandez and Mayor Andy Ross. Kravets said it was a “massive expansion of the scope of this rule,” adding that he did not believe hedges needed to be included.

“I'm a little surprised that every hedge in the city now has to be 7 feet high,” he said.

Kravets read from emails that he said came from constituents who agreed that including hedges in fence height regulations was a bad idea.

“So once we get that done, everyone in the backyard will trim their hedges up to 7 feet tall. “That’s the rule?” he said. “To me that’s unacceptable, and I think a lot of people have concerns along those lines too.”

Councilman James Chambers had no problem with the proposal.

“If we only need 7-foot walls or fences, why shouldn't we treat a hedge that serves as a fence the same way?” he said. “We wouldn’t allow an 8- or 9-foot fence in the backyard. Why should we allow an 8 or 9 foot hedge? So for me it’s not a problem if the hedges are at the same height as the fence if it’s a fence.”

Tom Borroni, the city's compliance director, said he had read the new proposed regulations and was “very happy” with them, but said it would be “very difficult to police all the way to the hedges, but when we get a complaint, then “we will investigate this complaint.”

That sparked a discussion about the definition of “hedge” and whether that would include a row of towering bamboo trees or a row of trees full of crape myrtles.

“I feel the need to have the code and guidelines because we're looking for an atmosphere in the city, and other cities have them,” Fernandez said. “But how can we not burden the homeowner with something when they want to do the landscaping and we want to come in and say, 'No, you can't do that.' I want to make sure we’re not overzealous in our application.”

Ross recommended removing the inclusion of hedges or adding a separate paragraph to the ordinance defining hedges and their location and height.

“But the way it’s written now… I don’t think I can keep it up,” he said.

Pauley assured the council that his department would revisit the matter before a second reading of the amendment, expected to take place on Tuesday.

Council members also discussed new language in the ordinances that would allow fence permit applicants to be denied if they do not disclose easements. Pauley said that while these easements should be included in submitted surveys, sometimes they are not.

“They have subsequently caused some difficulties that need to be corrected,” he said. “So we included this sentence to let residents and developers know that if they want to apply, submit an application and fail to disclose their easement, they may face suspension or revocation of permits.”

Ross agreed that the secrecy of easements has been a major problem in the past.

After some persuasion from Chambers on the safeguards issue – the debate on the changes lasted more than an hour – it moved unanimously to a second reading.

Pauley and his staff will also reconsider an amendment banning the use of steel beams in the construction of fences, as well as wording on how much discretion the director has to allow exceptions.

The public can speak at the next City Council meeting or visit the city's website to learn about the proposed changes.