Polk County Commissioner to Reconsider Property Maintenance Ordinance to Exempt Vegetables and Other Edible Plants
by James Coulter
Would the county cut down tomato plants and other garden vegetables if they grow taller than 18 inches? That’s a scenario commissioners want to avoid as they move to revise a property maintenance ordinance.
At their regular meeting on Tues. Aug. 19, 2026, the Polk County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) voted unanimously to revisit the Polk County Property Maintenance Ordinance at its next meeting on Tues. Sep. 1.
The ordinance was proposed to update “property maintenance standards for unincorporated Polk County” by establishing “responsibilities for property owners to maintain drainage facilities and swales located within adjacent public rights-of-way,” wrote Randall Vogel, Assistant County Attorney.
The revised standards would “clarify regulations surrounding prohibited overgrowth, the accumulation of junk and debris, the securing of vacant structures, and the mandatory safety barriers for aquatic features,” to “address neighborhood blight, life-safety hazards, and infrastructure protection,” he elaborated.
During the public comment period, one resident argued that several of the proposed regulations were overly broad and subjective, warning that their enforcement could unintentionally do more harm than good. He said that, as written, the language could even be interpreted to prohibit residents from growing garden vegetables and other edible plants.
That resident, Kyle Roy, pointed to a specific provision barring grasses and annual plants (except for wooded plants used in intentional landscaping) from exceeding 18 inches in height. Roy said that the threshold could prevent him from cultivating certain crops he intends to grow, including barley, corn, goat grass, millet, sorghum, and wheat.
Roy noted that most of the other rules governing rights-of-way and drainage easements were clearly defined, as was the code enforcement process. His concern centered on the definition of “prohibited overgrowth,” which he felt was too vague and open to interpretation to be enforced consistently.
“In general, I like it when rules are clearly defined, and that’s why I have a small problem with the definition of prohibited overgrowth,” he said. “I know what you are thinking: as long as they are not unkempt, it is fine, but I respectfully disagree. Because the word unkempt is a subjective term. The last time I checked, this is a county government, not an HOA. I would appreciate it if we kept our rules based on matters of fact, not matters of opinion.”
The specific provision reads: “On the general areas of a lot (excluding those areas covered above), any unkept dead or living plant, including but not limited to weeds, grasses, undergrowth, and annual plants (excluding trees and shrubs that are part of Intentional Landscaping and do not pose a hazard, that is uncultivated and has grown to exceed eighteen (18) inches in height, subject to the specific limitation outline in this Ordinance.”
Roy proposed the following revision: “On the general areas of a lot (excluding those areas covered above), any dead or living plant that has grown to eighteen inches in height and is not a part of Intentional Landscaping, or poses a hazard.”
Commissioner and Vice Chair Bill Braswell commented that while he did not “necessarily see the difference” between the original and revised provision, he felt the concern “made sense” and agreed to have the ordinance revisited at a future meeting.
“I don’t think we will cut down tomato plants; it was never the intent,” he said.
Commissioner Mike Scott commended the resident for bringing up the concern constructively, saying that such feedback proved valuable to the overall legislative process.
“I want to thank you for bringing this up,” he said. “That is part of how we govern, which is to get their input.”
