Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board debates "clear-view" driveway triangle; staff to take measurements and brief city council
Summary
Board members spent an extended portion of the May 6 meeting reviewing zoning ordinance language (referred to as 2-5-2.5) that defines a 25-foot sight-triangle at points where driveways meet streets. Members disagreed about whether the triangle could extend onto private property for corner lots and agreed to take measurements and present findings to city council.
At the May 6 Cleveland Town Planning and Zoning meeting, board members undertook a detailed review of a zoning provision described in the meeting as ordinance 2-5-2.5, which prohibits obstructions in a triangular clear-view area defined from where a driveway meets a street.
Staff explained the ordinance language as prohibiting obstructions "within a triangular area formed by the street property line and the edge of the driveway" extending 25 feet from the point of intersection. Members debated whether that 25-foot triangle could effectively fall onto a private property for some corner lots and whether existing fences and accessory buildings installed years ago should be retroactively enforced. One member said the town was effectively "picking on" a property where a complaint had been filed and urged careful treatment; staff noted the property owner had made changes to improve the intersection sight line.
The board discussed a specific case (referred to in the meeting as Levi's shed and driveway) and concluded the ordinance needed clearer language and likely on-site measurements before final action. Members noted a corner-lot exception elsewhere in the code allows accessory-building setbacks abutting a street to be reduced from 25 feet to 12 feet provided the 25-foot sight triangle is not obstructed. Several members suggested measuring the physical triangle on site and bringing the findings to the city council for guidance on enforcement and any retroactive remedies.
The board did not adopt any new ordinance language at the meeting. Staff and the chair agreed to prepare a follow-up (measurements and a recommended approach) for city council consideration. That follow-up may include a letter and a brief presentation explaining how the town interprets the sight-triangle and whether practical exceptions or amendments are needed.
