Solon City Council on July 7 approved three variances that let a homeowner at 31140 Miles Road build a taller, more solid fence and require a smooth finish facing the neighbor, after an extended public hearing and debate over a previously authorized shed.

The variances — a 4-foot fence height variance, a 25% aggregate opening variance and a smooth‑finish‑side variance — were approved by roll call after councilmembers debated whether the applicant should be forced to choose between the fence and a shed previously approved by the planning commission. Council also added a condition that the approvals comply with the engineering memo dated 06/18/2025 and the planning memo dated 06/16/2025 attached to the application.

Applicant Michelle Asher, 31140 Miles Road, said she did not want a 10‑foot fence but wanted privacy: “I don’t really want a 10 foot fence, but I need privacy here… I need the 10 foot high to cover the windows because that’s how tall they are.” She showed photos during the meeting and told council the neighboring new home has elevated windows and a raised deck that she said overlook her bedroom and bathroom.

Several councilmembers said they were sympathetic to Asher’s privacy concerns but worried about setting a wider precedent for tall, solid fences. Councilmember Schimetz said he has consistently avoided approving entirely solid privacy fences and would prefer a board‑on‑board or an option that allowed some visibility for safety forces. Councilmember Zellwein and others said they had approved a similar 10‑foot privacy fence in the past and were comfortable granting Asher’s request in this instance.

Council and staff also discussed a shed that had been approved earlier by council via a variance. Planning staff explained the shed variance remains available for one year from its approval; the applicant may exercise the shed permit or build the fence. The city attorney and planning director advised that conditioning the new fence approval on rescinding an earlier council action would be legally and procedurally awkward because the shed variance had already been approved.

The council voted on each element separately. After the votes the mayor instructed staff to ensure the approvals include the engineering and planning department memos as conditions. The motion language added that condition before final passage.

The matter drew a public comment from a neighbor who suggested removing windows on the new house could have been a cheaper fix, and from other residents who said they understood both the applicant’s privacy needs and the council’s desire for consistent standards.

Councilmembers did not change the one‑year time frame attached to the earlier shed variance; planning staff explained that is standard procedure and remains valid unless the applicant abandons it.

The approvals allow the applicant to pursue the permitted fence construction, subject to the cited departmental memos and standard permit procedures.