Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council previews public hearings on proposed winery rezoning for Aurora Road parcel
Summary
The Solon City Council and planning commission continue review of a rezoning application from TMMC Ohio LLC to change 37500 Aurora Road from R1D single‑family residential to W1 (winery). Councilmembers discussed scheduling multiple public hearings and noted the final decision will be made by voters.
The Solon City Council on Monday discussed next steps for a rezoning application from TMMC Ohio, LLC that would change the property at 37500 Aurora Road from R1D single‑family residential to a W1 winery district.
The item, submitted to the council after a Planning Commission referral, is scheduled for further review: the Planning Commission held a first public hearing and will reconvene on April 29, and the City Council will meet on May 5 to schedule its own public hearing, with the council’s first public hearing currently planned for May 19, Mayor Edward H. Krauss said.
The change would reclassify the permanent parcel (parcel number referenced in the application record) from the city’s R1D zoning to a W1 winery zoning district. Council discussion emphasized multiple opportunity windows for public comment: Mayor Edward H. Krauss said he expects three readings and repeated public hearings to give residents “a chance to communicate their thoughts on this project.”
Councilmembers spoke directly to residents about process and substance. Councilman Zowen urged residents to study the proposal and the developer’s presentation materials, noting “a nighttime photo of the existing winery” shown to the Planning Commission and encouraging people to “do their homework on this project.” Councilman Khan and others said they believe the project could be transformational for the city and urged public outreach and site visits.
Councilman Levy reminded residents that the ordinance and what it permits will determine what can be built: “Everybody has to understand this is by a vote of the people. This council on its own cannot do this,” Levy said, adding that the draft ordinance contains clear “permitted” and “prohibited” sections and advising residents to read it.
City staff did not introduce new material at the council meeting; the clerk’s office noted the planning record includes materials provided by the applicant. No final vote was taken. Instead, the council set a pathway of additional Planning Commission and City Council hearings before any formal action and indicated it will follow a multi‑reading schedule.
What happens next: the Planning Commission will continue its review (next meeting April 29). The City Council will meet May 5 to schedule a city public hearing and expects the first city hearing on May 19; additional readings and hearings are anticipated before any final council action or placement on a public vote.
Provenance: The project was introduced during the council’s pending items and discussed during council comments; staff reported the Planning Commission first public hearing and dates for upcoming hearings.
