Shrewsbury plan commission urges aldermen to define ‘structure’ after debate over front-yard garden enclosures

SHREWSBURY — The Shrewsbury Plan Commission on July 31 reviewed a staff report on the city’s building and zoning code and debated a proposed ordinance that would regulate planter boxes and front-yard garden enclosures, ultimately recommending that the Board of Aldermen define “structure” before adopting new rules.

City Clerk Katelyn Wands read aloud the staff report at the start of the meeting and asked the aldermen for alterations or suggestions to the current code. Commissioners then heard both written and in-person public comment, with several residents urging the city not to overregulate front-yard gardening.

“One such garden bed,” warned one presubmitted commenter, should not become a limit on what homeowners can place in their yards, said Nathan Tenholder of 5024 Kain Drive, who argued in a written comment that the proposal is “unnecessary and intrusive” and urged repeal or non-enforcement of vague yard-structure restrictions.

At the public hearing, resident Dan Schook of 7707 Lansdowne Avenue described enclosing his front-yard bed this spring after a cat repeatedly damaged his produce. Schook said he spent $1,500 on a cedar enclosure with moveable screens and said the Building Commissioner told him garden beds were generally treated as exempt — except in his case. “I enclosed it this past spring after dealing with a cat getting into the produce,” Schook said, and asked the commission to consider a permit or clear rules for front-yard beds.

Multiple other speakers told the commission that local regulation would amount to government overreach or would create unequal results. One commenter who said she gardens in the front because her backyard is sloped urged the commission to consider socio-economic and physical limitations that make raised beds necessary for some residents. Another resident said the city’s problem is cats, not planters.

Commissioners discussed technical fixes instead of moving directly to an ordinance. Commissioner Powers suggested drafting a definition for “planter boxes,” and Commissioner Miller recommended reviewing the city’s yard definitions and the 2016 fence code, which contains language about structures. Commissioners noted the city’s comprehensive plan dates to the 1970s and may not reflect current yard practices. Building Commissioner Brian Herr said existing nonconforming yard features would “most likely be grandfathered in” if the city later adopted clearer rules.

In closing remarks, Commissioner Miller summarized the commission’s position: the aldermen should decide whether to define a structure themselves or return the matter to the commission with staff guidance and comparative language from neighboring municipalities, such as Kirkwood, Maplewood and St. Louis County. No formal ordinance vote or amendment was taken at the meeting.

The commission approved the meeting agenda by voice vote at the start of the session and adjourned by voice vote at the end; the next Plan Commission meeting is scheduled for Aug. 28, 2024, at 6 p.m.

Notes: The record includes presubmitted written comments from Jennifer Schook and Nathan Tenholder raising both legal and policy arguments; several speakers asked whether R3 zoning (a planned development) should be included and whether deed restrictions in planned developments affect enforcement. Building and zoning code text, the 2016 fence code, and the city’s comprehensive plan were cited by commissioners as documents to consult before drafting any ordinance.