Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves fence-height and 25% aggregate-opening variances for 6441 Liberty Road after safety discussion
Summary
On Jan. 21 the Solon City Council approved two variances for 6441 Liberty Road allowing a six-foot stockade fence along part of the north property line after debate about police sightlines, cost and precedent. The planning commission had recommended approval 3–2.
The Solon City Council on Jan. 21 approved two zoning variances for 6441 Liberty Road that will allow a six-foot stockade fence along part of the property’s north boundary.
The council voted to approve a 2.5-foot front-yard fence-height variance and a separate 25 percent aggregate-opening variance that permits the non–board-on-board (stockade) style the property owner requested. The planning commission had earlier recommended the variances in a 3–2 vote and conditioned site approval on the engineering department memo dated Jan. 8, 2025.
Why it matters: the rulings change how close and how solid a fence may be placed in front-yard areas for this property and set a local precedent for how the council weighs safety and visibility against cost and property-owner preference.
The applicant, Tricia McGee, told council the fence would run along the north side of her property and that a straight stockade fence is substantially less expensive than a board-on-board installation for roughly 480 feet of fencing. "It's cheaper just to get the straight stockade fence versus the board on board," McGee said, adding the house sits well back from Liberty Road and the fence would not encircle the entire yard.
Councilmembers discussed police and safety concerns. The Solon police chief recommended the council "adhere to the language in the ordinance," citing sightline and safety reasons. Councilmember Jeremy Zowen and others urged separating the two votes so the height variance could pass even if the board-on-board requirement was not granted.
Votes and outcome: the council voted on the two variances separately. The motion to approve the 2.5-foot front-yard height variance passed on a roll call vote with all members recorded as voting yes. The motion to approve the 25 percent fence aggregate-opening variance passed 4–3 (Yes: Khan, Meaney, Palunas, Zellwein; No: Bentley, Lobscher, Schmitz). The council recorded that the approvals were conditioned on compliance with the engineering department memo dated Jan. 8, 2025.
Council discussion and applicant response focused on safety, visibility and cost. Several councilmembers said the fence location — limited to one side of the property and not a continuous enclosure — reduced safety concerns. McGee repeated that the fence would not "go the whole length" of the yard and would be set well back from the street.
What happens next: the variances take effect per the city’s zoning process; the applicant must comply with engineering conditions noted in the Jan. 8 memo. There was no other formal action on related site plan details at the meeting.
