OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Hudson, Ohio/Planning Commission
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Hudson Planning Commission Meeting – September 12, 2022

Planning Commission — Monday, September 12, 2022
BodyHudson, Ohio
SessionPlanning Commission
DateMonday, September 12, 2022
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:06:17

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:02

Good evening everyone.

0:04

It's 7:30 according to my iPhone, so we will get started.

0:08

This is a regular September meeting of the Planning Commission.

0:13

I welcome everyone who is here this evening.

0:17

Before we get started, I just want to express my thanks to Mr.

0:22

Lehman who served in my absence past couple months.

0:25

I appreciate your able service.

0:29

Mr.

0:29

Sugar, if you could start us off with roll call.

0:32

Yes.

0:33

Ms.

0:33

Jones?

0:34

Here.

0:35

Mr.

0:35

Furby?

0:36

Here.

0:36

Mr.

0:36

Nystrom.

0:37

Here.

0:38

Mr.

0:38

Lehman.

0:39

Here.

0:39

Mr.

0:40

Vaughn?

0:40

Here.

0:41

Mr.

0:41

Stoley.

0:42

Here.

0:42

Sorry, my mic's not.

0:44

Thank you.

0:44

Okay, we're missing one member this evening.

0:48

At this point, for anyone who is planning to address planning commission this evening, we'll swear you in at this point, and then at the appropriate time, you can come forward to the podium.

1:03

So if you are planning to speak to the commission this evening, please stand and raise your right hand.

1:12

This includes staff.

1:14

Yes.

1:15

Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you give tonight will be the truth?

1:21

If so, say I do.

1:23

I do.

1:24

Thank you.

1:25

All right.

1:27

First order of business now is correspondence.

1:31

This afternoon we did receive through Mr.

1:35

Sugar a letter from Mimi Larson Beckett and want to get the second name correct.

1:54

And Brickley.

1:57

Thank you.

1:57

Sorry about that.

1:59

And that addresses our first public hearing, so we'll take it up at that point.

2:04

And it will be entered into the record at that juncture.

2:10

Is there any other correspondence?

2:12

Yes, Mr.

2:12

Chair.

2:13

There were a couple of late arriving uh letters, emails that I for uh for case 21-688.

2:21

Um, I'm sorry.

2:24

22-822 for Hudson Community Living.

2:28

Um those have been updated within the agenda and they were emailed to the board from the um from the residents.

2:35

Okay.

2:36

What time did those go?

2:38

4 30.

2:40

I checked about 4 20.

2:41

Okay.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Planned Development███████████████████████████████████████████43%
Procedural██████████████████18%
Miscellaneous█████████9%
Wetlands████████8%
Stormwater Management████████8%
Floodplain Management████4%
Land Use Regulation████4%
Tree Preservation██2%
Engineering And Infrastructure█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Hudson Planning Commission Meeting – September 12, 2022

The Hudson Planning Commission met on Monday, September 12, 2022 at 7:30 PM at Town Hall. The meeting covered three public hearings: a conditional use request by Laurel Lake for nine duplex buildings, a re‑approval of the final subdivision plat for Hudson Preserve (11 lots), and a conditional use and site plan request by Hudson Community Living for an institutional residential development. The commission also discussed updates to its administrative rules. The meeting adjourned at 10:36 PM.

Consent Calendar

  • Minutes of June 13, 2022 – Approved 5‑0‑1 (Mr. Nystrom abstained).
  • Minutes of July 25, 2022 – Approved 4‑0‑2 (Ms. Jones and Mr. Stolle abstained).
  • No public discussion on non‑agenda items.

Public Comments & Testimony

Laurel Lake (PC 2022‑823)

  • Mimi Larsen Becker (47 Laurel Lake Dr., environmental scientist) and Ann Brickley (48 Laurel Lake Dr., professional planner) submitted detailed comments on environmental risks, wetland impacts, tree loss, flooding, and quality‑of‑life concerns; they noted an error in their submittal (Villa 39 should be Villa 33).
  • Larry King (Villa 52) distributed photos of trees that would be destroyed and argued that Laurel Lake is asking for too many variances.
  • Julie Shott (860 Ridgewood Blvd.) asked whether trees would be cut behind proposed Villa 4.
  • Linda Grieves (Villa 33) objected that Villa 9 would face the living area of Villa 33, which is a unique and negative impact.
  • Karen Hoch (382 Boston Mills Rd.) requested assurance and financial compensation if the development causes flooding on her property.
  • Philip Kramer (54 Laurel Lake Dr.) raised concerns about sightlines, parking, garbage pickup, and rising lake water levels.
  • Eugene Hoch (382 Boston Mills Rd.) warned of flooding and building over sewer lines.
  • Barbara Marshall (Villa 50) worried about the new drive being only about 10 ft from her bedroom window.
  • Tom Ulmer (876 Ridgewood Blvd.) urged consideration of the social and environmental costs for existing residents.

Hudson Community Living (PC 2022‑822)

  • Charlotte Barton (142 E. Streetsboro St.) said the application seemed hurried and residents were not adequately informed.
  • Lisa Kurdziel (7 Fox Trace, MSW social worker) supported the concept but questioned the density, location, long‑term viability, and the safety of residents walking to town on busy Streetsboro Street.
  • Casey Aiken (93 Fox Trace Lane) echoed concerns about density, wetlands, water issues, and staffing challenges.

Hudson Preserve (PC 2021‑688) – No public comments.

Discussion Items

Laurel Lake – Conditional Use for Nine Duplex Buildings

  • Staff (Nicholas Sugar) introduced the preliminary conditional use application for nine duplex independent‑living buildings (18 units) on the Laurel Lake campus, including a newly purchased parcel at 392 Boston Mills Rd.
  • Applicant (Eileen Nacht, RDL Architects; Lena Hill, CT Consultants) agreed to most staff conditions but requested variances for setbacks (units 5 & 6 near Boston Mills Rd.), stream corridor setback (unit 4), and floodplain location (units 8 & 9). Staff had recommended removing units 8 & 9 due to floodplain concerns.
  • Commission asked about floodplain amendment process, wetland delineation, compatibility with existing site layout (drives behind homes), traffic study (done for 12 units, application for 9), and the need for more resident communication.
  • Commissioners expressed concern about the lack of communication between Laurel Lake management and residents.

Hudson Preserve – Final Subdivision Re‑Approval (11 lots)

  • Staff reported that the subdivision had been approved in September 2021 but expired because the plat was never recorded. The site has been cleared and prepped. Condition 3 (combining two open‑space parcels) was addressed by an easement, which staff found acceptable.
  • Applicant (Tony Lunardi, LDA Builders) requested renewal with no changes; the year delay was due to stormwater coordination with the City of Stow.
  • No public comments; commission approved with recommendations (including a minor wording correction on condition 6).

Hudson Community Living – Conditional Use & Site Plan

  • Staff overview: the project includes 7 residential buildings (one with a clubhouse) on multiple parcels rezoned to District 3. There are 10 staff recommendations.
  • Applicant (Nate Bailey, Peninsula Architects; Jill Salto, Hudson Community Living) described a “pocket neighborhood” for adults with developmental disabilities (33 residents plus 4 caretaker interns in upper apartments). Revisions included moving the clubhouse to face South Oviatt St., adding a sidewalk connection, and increasing density to 37 total residents.
  • Commission focused on density/compatibility (especially the triplexes near Streetsboro St.), the 20‑ft building separation (one location does not meet it), and how to ensure the property remains for its intended use. Discussion also covered wetland/stormwater mitigation, sidewalk connectivity, and the status of onsite care staffing.
  • The applicant noted that demolition of existing structures began that day under a city permit.

Amendment to Planning Commission Administrative Rules (PC‑Admin 2022)

  • Discussion: members suggested reorganizing the meeting order, adjusting the deadline for agenda materials, and clarifying minute‑taking procedures. The item was tabled to the next meeting for further input.

Key Outcomes

  • Laurel Lake (PC 2022‑823): Motion to postpone the decision to the November meeting (6‑0). The commission expressed hope that Laurel Lake management would meet with residents in the interim.
  • Hudson Preserve (PC 2021‑688): Motion to approve the final subdivision plat with staff recommendations, including the revised condition 3 (open space easement) and a wording correction in condition 6 – Passed 6‑0.
  • Hudson Community Living (PC 2022‑822): Motion to continue the hearing to the November meeting to allow the applicant to address staff recommendations and community concerns – Passed 6‑0.
  • Administrative Rules (PC‑Admin 2022): Motion to continue the item to the next meeting (October 10) – Passed 6‑0.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening everyone. It's 7:30 according to my iPhone, so we will get started. This is a regular September meeting of the Planning Commission. I welcome everyone who is here this evening. Before we get started, I just want to express my thanks to Mr. Lehman who served in my absence past couple months. I appreciate your able service. Mr. Sugar, if you could start us off with roll call. Yes. Ms. Jones? Here. Mr. Furby? Here. Mr. Nystrom. Here. Mr. Lehman. Here. Mr. Vaughn? Here. Mr. Stoley. Here. Sorry, my mic's not. Thank you. Okay, we're missing one member this evening. At this point, for anyone who is planning to address planning commission this evening, we'll swear you in at this point, and then at the appropriate time, you can come forward to the podium. So if you are planning to speak to the commission this evening, please stand and raise your right hand. This includes staff. Yes. Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? If so, say I do. I do. Thank you. All right. First order of business now is correspondence. This afternoon we did receive through Mr. Sugar a letter from Mimi Larson Beckett and want to get the second name correct. And Brickley. Thank you. Sorry about that. And that addresses our first public hearing, so we'll take it up at that point. And it will be entered into the record at that juncture. Is there any other correspondence? Yes, Mr.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com