Cleveland council questions attorney draft that would let property’s sheds serve as a fence

Council members spent much of their Feb. 12 meeting scrutinizing a draft compliance agreement for the Johnson property that would phase in removal or alteration of accessory structures and, as written, permit the back of one shed to remain "along the property line as fencing." The council repeatedly raised pedestrian-safety concerns because the structure sits adjacent to a sidewalk along State Road 155 and can block views of approaching pedestrians.

Speaker 2, a council member, said the draft appeared to give property owners "a loophole," explaining that the attorney’s language would let the structure stand “so they don't have to come to planning and zoning and get approval for a fence.” Council members repeatedly noted that vehicle access over the sidewalk and approaches onto Highway 155 are controlled by the state (UDOT), but they stressed that local rules about clear sight triangles and fence height still matter for pedestrian safety.

The draft shows staged deadlines (Phase 1: May 30; Phase 2: August; Phase 3: November) and includes a provision that civil penalties (the draft states "$50 per day") would be held in abeyance if the property is inspected and kept in compliance through 03/01/2028. At least one council member flagged an apparent error in the draft that says civil penalties “began accruing December 2025,” which the member said is incorrect in the draft they were reviewing.

Council members discussed practical mitigations — cutting siding, reusing cement post foundations with new posts, adding chain-link on top, or installing convex mirrors to improve sight lines — but they agreed those fixes should not supplant the town’s planning-and-zoning review. "We need to have that language changed because we have to sign on that contract and so does ______," the presiding official said, urging stronger, clearer language that preserves the town’s code requirements.

Action and next steps: the council directed staff to draft a letter to the property owner and to the town attorney asking for clarifications and edits to the agreement (exhibits, signage, the so-called emergency-egress waiver, and explicit confirmation that the agreement does not remove planning-and-zoning requirements). No final signatures were added to the agreement at the meeting.

Why it matters: The council’s decision on this agreement will determine whether existing accessory structures can be treated as fences without the usual permitting and could set precedent for how the town enforces sight-line and setback rules on properties abutting a state highway.

Provenance: Topic introduced at SEG 122; principal discussion and direction to seek edits concluded at SEG 726.