Planning commission reviews neighbor complaint about shed encroachment and flags unclear violation process

The Cleveland Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a complaint from Blake and Becky Gardner alleging that a neighbor’s recently delivered prebuilt shed may sit on or over the property line and violate setback and sight-line requirements.

Commission members said the shed could be within inches or a few feet of the property line and may not meet the town’s five-foot side setback and ten-foot distance from the main building required for accessory structures. Commissioners also raised a safety concern: the shed may obstruct drivers’ or homeowners’ view of pedestrians and children as vehicles enter the driveway, potentially conflicting with the ordinance’s 25-foot line-of-sight standard for intersecting driveways.

The planning commission reviewed language in the municipal ordinance cited in the discussion (multiple references to sections read aloud, including “municipal ordinance 2-5-2.3” and related setback and notice-of-violation sections). Commissioners noted the town’s notice-of-violation language appears to require a specific correction date 14 days from the date of service. Several commissioners said 14 days is too short for moving or adjusting a prebuilt shed; one commissioner said, “14 days to fix it just seems a little short.” Commissioners remarked that in a prior, similar case the attorney’s involvement and subsequent letter gave 30 days.

The commission debated procedure: whether the planning commission or the Town Council issues and signs notices of violation. The ordinance language in the packet includes a line indicating the planning commission chairman’s signature on notices, but commissioners said past practice sometimes showed the mayor or council executing such letters. Commissioners expressed concern that the ordinance’s language is unclear about roles and appeal and enforcement timing.

Action and next steps recorded in the meeting: commissioners agreed they would not try to take enforcement action themselves at that meeting. Instead, they asked that the item be included in the Town Council report and recommended that the council address the complaint and clarify the ordinance. Kristen, a Town Council member present or reachable through the commission, was asked to carry the item to council; commissioners also proposed revising the ordinance’s notice-of-violation language to allow a longer cure period (30 days from certified receipt was discussed) and to clarify whether notice must be delivered by certified mail or may be hand-delivered with a signed receipt.

Commissioners also discussed process constraints: adding new items to the council agenda requires 24-hour public notice, so the commission planned to include the complaint in the regular council report rather than add a last-minute agenda item. Staff and commissioners agreed to clean up the ordinance language and to present a recommended approach to the Town Council for its final action.