Cleveland Heights council weighs mandatory facade inspections after recent collapses

Cleveland Heights council members heard extensive discussion Aug. 4 about proposed legislation to require periodic structural inspections of building facades in commercial and pedestrian districts after two recent facade incidents. The council ddressed inspection frequency, likely exemptions, enforcement capacity and outreach to property owners.

Proponents say the proposal is a public-safety measure. The city—hief building official told council that the two recent facade failures could have caused fatalities and that the city should not delay new inspection rules: "It would cause fatalities, you know, unfortunately. So we were lucky we didn't have anything like that," the chief building official said.

The draft ordinance would add a new chapter to the Cleveland Heights codified ordinances with standards aimed at regulating facade and parapet safety; similar programs in Cleveland and Lakewood require inspections every five years. The chief building official and others discussed whether Cleveland Heights should follow a five‑year cycle, a shorter two‑ or three‑year cycle, or adopt criteria tied to building age or height. The official said buildings less than 30 years old or recently rehabilitated would be exempt under the proposed approach and noted the city is now fully staffed to handle inspections and enforcement.

Council members and staff cited tradeoffs. Several members said a five‑year inspection cycle is consistent with neighboring cities and with advice sent by an industry expert, Gail Lawton, who emailed the council earlier. The chief building official said Cleveland and Lakewood adopted five‑year inspection rules and suggested the city could pilot a schedule and re-evaluate. "Every 5 years, I'm okay with that," the chief building official said when discussing a five‑year cadence. At the same time, council members noted many Cleveland Heights walkable business districts are two‑story buildings, not high rises, and asked whether inspection triggers should be based on stories, height, or building condition.

Council also discussed potential costs to building owners and the logistics of enforcement. The chief building official said the work will entail structural‑engineer reviews and will have a cost; the exact fees were not yet quantified. Staff told council they used the city database to notify property owners and that they will collect stakeholder feedback. A council member asked for copies of outreach responses; the chief building official agreed to provide the feedback.

No ordinance vote occurred. Multiple council members urged a third reading to allow the law department and the chief building official to review industry input and to give property owners additional notice. One council member said a third reading would help ensure the city adopts the "best ordinance to fit" local conditions and requested the administration share the outreach responses before final action.

Next steps: staff will circulate the stakeholder feedback and the chief building official nd law department will review the draft; council signaled support for a third reading and additional amendments before passage.