Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Winery Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Solon council holds first reading on winery zoning district, lengthy public hearing draws supporters and opponents

3411336 · May 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Solon City Council opened a public hearing and held a first reading on an ordinance to create a W1 Winery Zoning District for 37500 Aurora Road (permanent parcel 95619001). Applicants presented site and operations plans; supporters urged approval and opponents raised concerns about rezoning, hours and traffic. No final vote was taken.

The Solon City Council opened a public hearing May 20 and held a first reading of an ordinance to create a W1 Winery Zoning District for permanent parcel number 95619001 at 37500 Aurora Road. The applicants presented a revised site plan and described proposed operations; the council did not vote to rezone the parcel at the meeting.

Why it matters: If enacted and approved by voters, the zoning change would allow a commercial winery operation on property currently surrounded by single-family homes and would be submitted to Solon voters as part of the city’s rezoning ballot process.

Applicants Michael Sioka and Matt Sioka and architect Tim Ruzick presented a revised plan they said reduces impacts on neighboring homes. They described the site as roughly 24 acres, with about one acre of proposed development and the rest remaining open or vineyard. The applicants said wine production would be on-site, bakery and kitchen operations would be located in the main building, and sparkling wine would be the primary product. Michael Sioka said the operation harvests grapes primarily from September through November.

The applicants told council the facility would follow the city’s noise code, and said building placement, a four-foot earthen mound and plantings would create a visual and sound barrier. The applicants described a planting buffer that includes arborvitae on top of the mound and said light fixtures would be “warm” with falloff toward property lines. They said the site plan pulled parking away from houses and that outdoor spaces are designed to encourage small groups to linger rather than fast turnover.

Residents who spoke in favor described the business as family owned, said they had visited the applicants’ existing locations and described low observed noise and traffic there. Supporters told the council the project could retain local spending and provide an amenity for Solon residents.

Opponents, led by resident Pat Pizzi, said the property is zoned R-1D single-family residential and objected to rezoning and the proposed hours (last food orders at 10 p.m., close by 11 p.m.). Pizzi and others asked how many parking spaces the project would add; that number was not specified during the hearing. Pizzi also referenced a prior rezoning effort elsewhere in Solon that voters rejected and urged council to help applicants find a commercial site rather than rezone a residential area.

Council discussion emphasized that the current step is a first reading and public hearing; several council members reminded the audience that rezoning questions are typically decided by voters when placed on the ballot. Council scheduled additional public hearings on June 2 and June 16 and left the public hearing open for further comment.

The council did not take a final vote on rezoning at the May 20 meeting. The ordinance was introduced as Ordinance No. 20 25 93; the public hearing and first reading do not alter existing noise or land-use regulations while the process continues.

For neighbors: the applicants encouraged residents to visit their existing site to observe operations and answered questions about deliveries, trash pickups and winery production timing; several residents said they had visited and were supportive. Other neighbors remain concerned about traffic, late hours and the effect on property values.