Bradford Council approves shed regulations


BRADFORD — The Bradford Council approved its new shed regulations during its meeting on Thursday evening, prohibiting soft-sided structures and various types of portable garages from being used as sheds within the village of Bradford.

The ordinance was first introduced in November and later amended in January. It defined a shed “as a building used for storage of personal property. Certain Motor Vehicles are prohibited, including automobiles, trucks, campers, recreation vehicles, and the like.”

The ordinance also provided sizing limitations, including a “shed will not exceed 200 square feet and a maximum of 16 feet in overall height.” The ordinance states that a “structure 200 square feet or less does not require a building permit. However, an approved zoning permit is required before placement or construction of any building/structure on any property located within the boundary of the village of Bradford.”

Sheds also must be located at least 3 feet from from side and rear property lines, and they are only permitted in the rear yard, according to the proposed ordinance. There also can only be one shed per lot.

The sheds also must be constructed out of “exterior corrosive-resistant material such as sealed or painted wood, vinyl, metal.” If it is made from a commercial package, “it must come from a reputable retailer, and is subject to be inspected by the Village Administrator.”

The ordinance also noted that the shed should be placed on 3 inches of compacted stone, solid concrete foundation blocks or concrete. It should also include a “barrier guard to prevent small animals from accessing the area beneath the building.”

Prohibited structures include “Quonset huts, inflatable garages, portable garages, temporary garages, portable carports, temporary carports, portable containers, converted storage or shipping containers, and semi-tractor trailers used for storage with or without wheels … unless the structure is over 200 square feet and all permits are obtained.” The ordinance also prohibits soft-sided structures “made of canvas, cloth, plastic, or other materials that are not weather resistant.”

The ordinance later stated that temporary commercial moving containers “may be placed at the front of a house for a period of 15 days.” Those containers cannot obstruct other properties or traffic.

An amended ordinance was introduced in January, including changes to the original ordinance to allow for solid foundation blocks to be used for the bases of new sheds, to grandfather in existing sheds until they become dilapidated and not to require a formal survey as long as property owners are agreeable about the property lines.

For more information, visit

Budget discussions

Also during its meeting, the council discussed budget items, including whether it should add to the Harrison Avenue reconstruction project to include additional fixes for inflow and infiltration issues within the village’s sanitary sewer system.

Village Administrator Rick Looker said the village had budgeted $630,000 for the local portion of the project, but due to the construction bids for the project coming in under budget, the local portion of that project is currently estimated at being around $375,000. Looker said the village has kept that $630,000 in the village budget.

“While we’re down in that area, do we want to do anything to fix some of that while we have a contract in that area?” Looker said about the inflow and infiltration issues in and around Harrison Avenue.

Looker said he spoke with the engineer for the project who came up with a couple suggestions, the first one being “running an extension from Harrison Avenue over to High Street and all those different streets, which would be Vine, Elm, Church, James and Smithfield and putting a manhole in on High Street.” This also would include “an overlay from the distance between Harrison and High,” Looker said. He said that cost would be $175,000.

“To do some additional sanitary work on High Street and to overlay all of High Street would cost you an additional $135,000,” Looker said.

Looker said there was room in the budget to complete this additional work, but he added that it was up to the council how much additional funds that it would want to utilize to address the inflow and infiltration issues within the village’s sanitary sewer system.

Council member Bob Daugherty asked how much the village was spending on the inflow and infiltration issues.

Looker said there was not much additional labor cost to treat the additional water that is coming into the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plant also currently is utilizing biological treatments and minimal chemicals to remove phosphorus from wastewater as well as using ultraviolet light instead of chlorine for disinfection treatment on wastewater effluent. Looker said there was not much additional cost with those aspects with the higher volume of inflow.

Looker said that where the village would possibly see increased costs would be with potential capital expenses if the Ohio EPA required the village to add onto its plant, such as requiring the installation of an equalization basin to hold all of the extra wastewater to provide a consistent flow to the plant.

“I think that any step that we make is going to make improvements,” Looker said about the sanitary sewer lines.

The council made no decisions about the budget during their meeting on Thursday.

The council will be holding a budget meeting at 6:30 p.m. March 14.

By Sam Wildow

[email protected]

Reach Sam Wildow at [email protected].

No posts to display