Longwood now publishes two relevant exemption routes. Its common-material fence rule and the newer single-family work exemption have different property, scope and documentation conditions. Failing the first test does not, by itself, answer the second.

Our earlier guide stopped at the local fence exclusions. This comparison adds the separately published 2026 route without declaring an individual fence exempt.

Keep the two sets of conditions separate

QuestionLocal fence rule, effective August 5, 2024Single-family route, effective July 1, 2026
Which property?Qualifying single-family and duplex propertyProperty containing a single-family dwelling; do not transfer this route to a duplex automatically
Which work?Listed treated-wood, vinyl and chain-link fences, subject to exceptionsQualifying work below $7,500, excluding structural and listed trade work
What about gates?Vehicular or powered gates are excluded from this local ruleThe City lists some fence/gate systems, but electrical or structural work is not covered merely because it is called a gate
Is there a value test?The City’s fence page does not state a dollar ceilingStrictly less than $7,500; exactly $7,500 does not meet that test

The local fence page also excludes concrete, wrought iron, masonry/block and installations with reinforced concrete/rebar posts, required pool/spa barriers, and fencing vacant property. Do not reduce that list to “wood versus metal.” The materials in the posts and the fence’s use matter too.

The newer City page lists fence and gate systems but excludes masonry/concrete and says pool barriers require permits. A low price alone is not enough.

The newer request needs scope evidence, not a split-up project

Section 553.79(1)(g) excludes property partly or entirely in a defined flood hazard area and electrical, plumbing, structural, mechanical and gas work. It prohibits dividing a project to evade the rule. Keep the whole proposed scope together when describing its nature and value.

The statute requires a written exemption request with the contract or other documentation demonstrating the work and value. Longwood’s page directs the owner or contractor to submit its signed request form and a contract to Building for review. If there is no contract, ask which alternative evidence the City will accept; do not erase the statute’s alternative-documentation wording or claim that every ordinary permit requires a contract.

The three-page City form separates owner/site/scope information and attachments from the City’s determination. Completing it is not an approval. Longwood says an approved request receives written email notification; denied work must be properly permitted.

Ask one specific question about the actual fence

LSL suggests this inquiry card for Longwood Building, 407-260-3486, building@longwoodfl.org:

Identify the address and property type; fence and post materials; pool-barrier use; gate and power work; total scope and value; and any known floodplain, wetland, easement or historic issue. Ask which exemption route, if either, applies and what evidence is still needed.

This is our scope prompt, not another City form. Unknown conditions should remain questions, not unchecked assumptions submitted as facts.

Longwood’s newer page separately says floodplain or wetland work needs permitting and approval. That is the City’s stated instruction; the state paragraph above uses its own flood-hazard wording. The local fence page also retains placement, height, visibility, easement and historic standards. A permit exemption does not supply permission to occupy an easement or ignore those rules.

If work is not exempt, use the current department’s application route and confirm the required package. The old PDF link in this article returned 404 and is withdrawn; it is not a current instruction sheet.

LSL read the City pages, complete request form and current state section on September 12, 2026. The comparison identifies questions that the former one-route card missed. We did not inspect a property, classify a gate, submit a request or obtain an exemption decision.