Housing appeals board delays ruling on trailer-occupancy violation at 819 Perry Street

The Sandusky Housing Appeals Board on June 30 delayed a final decision for 60 days on an appeal by Sherice Clinton of a notice of violation that alleged a person was living in a trailer behind 819 Perry Street.

Craig Ward, the city’s code compliance manager, presented photos, an Erie County Auditor aerial and inspection notes and said the complaint began March 27, 2026 and a reinspection was scheduled May 1 after an April 20 inspection. Ward told the board that under Sandusky City Ordinance 1341.10 camping units and other wheeled structures are classified as temporary housing and “a camping unit is not even a dwelling.” He said that, although the unit was placed on blocks, occupying the trailer on a residential lot is not permitted and that hooked-up electrical can present a fire hazard.

Appellant Sherice Clinton, who said she owns the Perry Street parcel and has identified the trailer under the business Tavaris Jamel LLC, told the board the trailer was delivered in 2024 and became stuck behind a neighbor’s fence after the neighbor’s husband died. Clinton said she travels frequently and estimated she stays in the trailer about eight days per month; she told the board she uses the house and a local gym for showers. “I feel like I’m being targeted or discriminated against,” Clinton said.

Board members questioned Clinton about ownership, how the trailer could be removed and whether she had a vehicle large enough to tow it. Adam, assistant city planner, informed the board that the city’s planning and zoning code for the R140 single-family district has no provisions permitting an accessory dwelling unit in this situation and that “anything with wheels … is mobile and therefore does not fit the definition of a permanent structure.” He said the code does not allow treating a wheeled trailer as a dwelling.

Board members and staff discussed practical ways to remove the trailer if the neighbor would not temporarily drop a fence section, including seeking a temporary work easement, hiring a crane, or other private arrangements. Staff said the city could prepare a formal letter explaining the violation and the appellant’s obligations to present to the neighbor or to contractors.

After discussion a board member moved to have the city provide the appellant with documentation and to delay a decision 90 days; that motion failed. The board then approved a revised motion to provide a city letter and defer the case for 60 days to allow Clinton time to work with the neighbor. During the vote the board read individual member positions; the motion carried and the board set a review in 60 days.

The board’s action was procedural and did not abate or modify the original notice of violation under Ordinance 1341.10; the letter from city staff is intended to document expectations and facilitate removal or resolution before the next board meeting.