Resident disputes council statements on fence permit; council points to agricultural-use-district option

Anthony Revita spoke during public comment at the Hudson City Council meeting on Feb. 18 to dispute comments he said councilmembers had made regarding his fence installation. Revita identified himself as a resident of Edgar Street and said he obtained a zoning permit, underwent multiple reviews and inspections, and spent roughly $12,000 on a three-tier wooden fence with mesh backing.

Revita said the permit process took 52 days to issue and 74 days to complete, and he challenged statements that an inspector had "hit the wrong button" in approving the work. "The facts are that I went and got the permit... it took me 52 days to get the permit. It took me 74 days to complete it," he said.

During council comments, members offered to follow up. Councilmember Swalski (sic) said she would reach out to Revita to arrange a meeting at city hall to explore resolution options. Councilmember Bandwig said he reviewed city records and saw the city process appeared compliant, and asked staff to document current options for Revita in an email and include the council in the correspondence.

Council president Christopher Ward Foster also clarified that the city has the authority to place land in an agricultural-use district under Ohio Revised Code section 929.02 and that such a designation can allow mesh or metal fencing in certain circumstances. He noted some Summit County areas have prior agricultural-use designations and that the city may place land in a municipal agricultural-use district that could affect fencing rights in District 2.

No formal action was taken at the meeting on Revita’s case; council members said staff would document options and follow up with the resident.