Residents urge council to revisit Echo Hill deal, cite builder restriction and house count; request buffers and tree protections

Several residents who live adjacent to the Echo Hill property on Garfield Road pressed Mentor City Council on Jan. 7 to reopen and revise a previously negotiated development agreement they say limits the builder and specifies a 35-home maximum.

Councilmember Peter Donovan told residents he had been working with them since 2019 to shape the deal. “We actually thought we were done with this,” Donovan said. “...some of my colleagues here wanna bring this back up to council and they wanna amend the 100 homes or less in the custom home builder clause that we work so hard to put in here. I’m gonna fight it.”

Residents said the agreement had reduced a prior proposal of as many as 42 homes down to 35 and included a clause that the builder be a local custom-home builder who builds “100 homes or less.” John Cabot, a resident of Eleanor Court, told the council he and his neighbors want the agreement revisited and said 35 houses remains too many. “Today, as I stand before you, I’m telling you we want that to be revisited because 35 is too much,” Cabot said. He urged a smaller build-out and stronger buffering between the new lots and existing homes.

Robert Stratman, who lives on Belgo Lane, described the neighborhood’s long-standing expectation of larger lot sizes and said the original compromise was intended to preserve the character of the bordering streets. “We wanted the character of the neighborhood along the west side of Garfield Road to stay the way they were,” Stratman said. He told council members that allowing national volume builders would alter the neighborhood’s character and complained that the agreement they had all accepted might be changed without homeowners having a chance to weigh in.

Speakers requested several specific changes if the matter proceeds: reducing the number of houses to a lower number than 35 (speakers mentioned 15–20 as preferable), retaining and protecting existing trees along the property line, replacing any lost trees with 8- to 10-foot evergreens, and establishing a natural buffer zone between new and existing homes. Multiple speakers said the Planning Commission had previously voted against the developer’s proposals and that a lawsuit had followed the zoning fight; they asked council to preserve the terms they said had been negotiated in good faith.

Council President confirmed there would be public input regardless of whether the item returns under old or new business and counsel stated there would be no action taken on the issue that night.

Why it matters

The Echo Hill matter involves a negotiated agreement that residents say constrains the builder type and the number of houses. Changes to that agreement would directly affect adjacent property owners’ privacy, tree cover and the character of the neighborhood, and could determine whether a local custom builder or a national-volume builder constructs the project.

What was not decided

Council did not take formal action on Echo Hill on Jan. 7. Counsel stated there would be no action that night. Several residents were warned that the matter could be brought back under old or new business at a future meeting, and they were urged to monitor the agenda for potential changes.

Ending

Residents said they plan to continue monitoring council actions and to engage when the item returns to the agenda. If council moves forward with any amendment, the transcript indicates residents expect public hearings and additional opportunities for comment.