Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Point Of Sale Inspection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Euclid planning panel partly upholds homeowner's appeal, requires patio repair
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission granted in part Tanya Shelton's appeal of a point-of-sale inspection for 28061 Tremaine Drive, removing two tree-stump findings but requiring repair or removal of a cracked back patio pad; commissioners voted unanimously with conditions.
The City of Euclid Planning and Zoning Commission on a unanimous vote approved in part an appeal filed by homeowner Tanya Shelton challenging a point-of-sale inspection for 28061 Tremaine Drive.
Commissioner John Monroe moved to grant the appeal in part, deleting two findings that cited "both tree stumps in yard," and required that the commission's condition for the rear patio under ordinance 17.55.25 be satisfied either by replacing or removing the pad or by the homeowner selling the property "as is." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weymouth and passed on a 5-0 roll call (Monroe, Weymouth, Williams, Laird, Drake voting yes). The motion referenced permanent parcel number 641-14-163.
Shelton, the appellant, told the commission the stump citations and the cracked patio existed when she bought the house and asked the board to consider an earlier point-of-sale inspection on file. "There's no way in 1 year these trees grew up out of nowhere," Shelton said, arguing the prior owner's inspection should have addressed the same items.
Danielle Biello, the housing inspector who testified for staff, said she visited the property on Feb. 23, 2024 and "did not see the backyard" on her initial inspection because debris and vehicles obscured it. Biello said the tree-stump provision had not been enforced at the point of that initial inspection; she said the housing department was directed to enforce the relevant code beginning in March 2024 and that she was applying the code as currently enforced.
Commissioners pressed staff and witnesses about which violations were carried forward from an earlier inspection by a third party (referred to in the record as a prior "flip" inspection) and which were new. Monroe said the legal standard was whether the inspector acted "arbitrarily and capriciously," and recommended upholding the appeal as to the rear slab while leaving other items as staff recommended. Chair Drake said the pad repair would need to be completed or an alternative solution agreed with staff to allow sale.
The commission instructed Shelton to coordinate with staff and the inspector to determine the acceptable, least-expensive repair options and next steps. The commission's action removed the two stump entries from the inspection report but left the patio requirement as a condition of sale absent an agreement for an alternative remedy.
