Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Permitting And Zoning Processes topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident says new fence‑permit rules create burdens; city staff to follow up

3609554 · May 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Euclid resident told council that a December ordinance change requiring either a surveyor report or adjacent‑owner affidavits has delayed a backyard fence because two adjacent owners are absentee or managed by third parties.

Andrea Tiller, a Euclid resident, described a dispute with the city’s permitting process after a December ordinance change that now requires either a surveyor report or signed property‑waiver affidavits from adjacent owners to obtain a fence permit.

Tiller said she initiated the fence project after 30 years in her home and learned that a strip along her left property line — about 2.5 feet — actually belongs to the neighboring property. She told council the fence company’s surveyor could stake the line but could not complete the required CAD drawings without a full survey, which she said would cost approximately $800.

The resident said she began contacting adjacent owners and learned some properties are managed by third‑party companies that have been slow or unresponsive. She described difficulty locating the owner listed in the county recorder’s office, which in one case provided contact details that did not work. Tiller said two of the four required adjacent signatures have been obtained but two remain outstanding because the listed owners are absentee or managed by companies that have not responded.

Zoning staff told Tiller her options are the surveyor report (which requires stopping at the property line) or collecting signed property‑waiver affidavits from those neighbors. Council members asked staff to meet with Tiller after the meeting to develop a concrete path forward; one member asked city staff to follow up promptly. A city representative said they had received a public‑records request and would respond in order.

No change to the ordinance was proposed at the meeting; staff agreed to follow up with the resident after the meeting and to coordinate with the construction coordinator to inspect the area and identify possible administrative solutions.