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 and Industrial Design Subcommittee Meeting – September 14, 2026

Planning Commission — Monday, September 14, 2026
BodyHudson, Ohio
SessionPlanning Commission
DateMonday, September 14, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 4:31:14

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
13:46

Call this meeting to order.

13:48

This is the industrial design subcommittee.

13:51

It is uh six forty six forty-nine.

14:04

Yes.

14:04

Mr.

14:04

Namurado.

14:05

Here.

14:09

We expect uh Mr.

14:10

Worley to show up shortly.

14:17

Yes, absolutely.

14:18

Our application today is for five six nine eight Hudson Drive.

14:23

That's the standard shop company project.

14:26

Um, if you recall that or in read the staff report, that project had been reviewed and approved a number of years ago, uh, two thousand twenty-two at the end of two thousand twenty-two.

14:37

Um the project is still under construction.

14:39

One of the buildings, which is uh building B in your packet has been completed.

14:44

And um there will be five total buildings on the site.

14:48

Um, so the applicant is nearing the uh expiration date of these approvals, and uh, that is why it's back to the planning commission and and design subcommittee.

15:00

Um so just for some clarification, I initially sent out that the packet last week.

15:02

Uh it had a staff report as well.

15:05

Uh noticed a few changes from the uh initial drawings, had a meeting with the applicant, and they had revised the drawing, so there is a revision in front of you that more aligned with the window placement door placement of the previous approval.

15:20

Um had a couple comments on that.

15:25

Um but uh looking at the site plan here.

15:40

So so B here has been completed.

15:43

Um I think with the updated packet, I did see the small building C would have a bump out.

15:51

It looked like that would have been on the west elevation.

15:53

So I think there's the label needed to be changed on the on the revised packet that you sent.

15:59

Um it's just showing east elevation with the bump out.

16:09

I think that's just a switch uh of the labeling.

16:12

Um building C, I suggested additional fenestration on the north elevation.

16:24

Before these these two windows were centered.

16:27

I'm assuming that's because of the interior floor plan, but um I didn't know if there was any fenestration placement that can be looked at because that is like a 30-foot span of the wall there.

16:40

There are two brushes.

16:41

Oh, if you can step up to the microphone, please for you can give us your name and address.

16:52

Uh Joe Crowder's CGI uh address.

16:57

4148 Westbourne Boulevard, Copley, Ohio.

17:00

Uh the windows are spread apart because there's a center wall that divides the two units, and then there's restrooms on each side.

17:08

And so I mean, we could probably shift the windows over a couple feet, but we're not gonna get anything truly centered because of those rushrooms.

17:16

Could you install like a false window?

17:18

We've had people trim out trim out windows in the past.

17:22

Yeah, we could look into it.

17:24

Okay.

17:29

Um, just the other note I had.

17:36

I think there's one door on each building facing Terrac Road.

17:40

It just for the that to have appropriate detailing, so it just doesn't look like a standard metal back door or something like that, because that's a pretty prominent street side.

17:54

I think that's all I had.

17:56

Is there anything you'd like to add about the project for the for the group?

18:00

Okay.

18:02

Okay, uh Ms.

18:03

Marzula, you want to go for the first time.

18:06

I was gonna say do you maybe you should stay up here because we're gonna probably have questions.

18:10

If you're unless you're not the guy and you want somebody else.

18:14

Uh huh.

18:15

Okay.

18:15

These are gonna be all design related.

18:20

Anybody?

18:21

Someone wanna take the lead.

18:22

We have we only we have a pretty tight 20 to 25 minutes here.

18:27

So I see the crowd behind us, so I don't want to make some information.

18:33

Mark Lazinski 16270, Lake Forest Drive, Strongsville, Ohio, 44136.

18:40

I'm the architect for the project.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Planned Development█████████████████████████████████33%
Land Use Regulation█████████████████17%
Procedural██████████████14%
Engineering And Infrastructure████████████12%
Pending Litigation███████████11%
Personnel Matters█████5%
Public Safety█████5%
Fiscal Sustainability█1%
Economic Development█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Hudson Planning Commission and Industrial Design Subcommittee Meeting – September 14, 2026

On Monday, September 14, 2026, the Hudson, Ohio Planning Commission met at Town Hall, 27 East Main Street. The Industrial Design Subcommittee met at 7:00 p.m., and the regular Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. Present were Chair Sarah Norman, Matt Romano, David Nystrom, Fred Innamorato, Angela Smith, and Chelsea McCoy; Jessie Obert was absent. The commission discussed the Prestige Settlement Agreement, continued site-plan reviews for an 18-unit townhome development and a daycare, considered the previously approved Standard Shop Company industrial business park, and forwarded Planned Development recommendations to City Council. The meeting adjourned at 11:06 p.m.

Industrial Design Subcommittee

  • The subcommittee reviewed PC 2026-1129, the Standard Shop Company industrial business park, before the regular meeting. Staff noted the project was approved in late 2022 and that its approvals expire in October 2026.
  • Architect Mark Leszynski said new buildings would use Hardie Board and brick matching the existing building, with a slightly darker center section. Joe Crowder of CGI Construction said the large rear wall results from interior unit design, and a false window could be considered; windows on the Terex Road side could be moved inward about five to six feet.
  • Charles Wolf, a new owner, said site work would begin within a week. Subcommittee members expressed frustration with delays and asked for proof of financing, a secured bond, confirmed materials, window adjustments, and updated landscaping.
  • Motion to continue the application to the October 12, 2026 Industrial Design Subcommittee meeting passed 2–0, with Fred Innamorato and Ms. Marzulla of the Architectural and Historical Board of Review voting yes.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Melissa Jones, 2233 Ravenna Street, thanked the commission for scheduling the Prestige Settlement Agreement discussion. She argued the settlement would remove Planning Commission approval authority, bypass the Land Development Code, and eliminate public hearing rights, and urged commissioners to follow their oaths.
  • David Petersilge, 58 Prescott Drive, said approval of the Stow and Ravenna Street development is a Planning Commission matter, not a City Council matter. He objected to the September 1 Council agenda describing the project as “now compliant” when the Planning Commission had not made that finding.
  • No public comments were offered during the townhome public hearing.

Discussion Items

Prestige Settlement Agreement (Discussion Item VIII)

  • Chair Norman reviewed the response resolution included in the agenda. It requested independent legal counsel for the Planning Commission; disqualification of certain staff and Council members; postponement of the September 15, 2026 Council hearing; rejection of the settlement; pursuit of court remedies; and a resolution of no confidence in the current City Council.
  • Commissioner Romano cited traffic and downstream water concerns, said he had received no Council communication, and stated the proposed settlement does not meet development standards. He said appeal risk appeared low and the settlement would set a troubling precedent.
  • Commissioner Nystrom raised concerns about Council encroachment, campaign contributions from the applicant to Council members, and lack of disclosure. He said Planning Commission members have not engaged in politics or favoritism.
  • Commissioner Smith read a prepared statement saying the Commission should not be involved in litigation strategy or settlement decisions and would comment only on applications formally before it. Romano later disagreed with Smith’s characterization, noting he had met with the City Solicitor.
  • Commissioners Innamorato and McCoy said the normal appeal/application process should proceed; McCoy said Prestige is capable of using the standard process.
  • Staff declined to answer many legal-process questions based on counsel’s advice.
  • Vote: The commission voted 5–1 to forward the resolution to City Council before the next Council meeting. Voting yes: Norman, Romano, Nystrom, Innamorato, McCoy; voting no: Smith; Obert absent.

PC 2026-945 – 18-Unit Townhome Development (Old Business)

  • This major site plan review was continued from August 24, 2026. Adam Fishman of Fairmont Properties represented the applicant.
  • Fishman explained that the three-story design responds to community quality, smaller unit footprints, economic viability, and nearby buildings. The project had been reduced from 21 to 18 units after earlier Planning Commission direction.
  • Assistant City Engineer David Rapp and Jeff Jardine of Riverstone Company discussed basins, staging in the adjacent valet lot, and a possible temporary sanitary pump station until Summit County’s system is confirmed.
  • Architect Bryce Hamill said wood porch railings were intended as a nod to surrounding heritage; elevations are not exact final landscape representations.
  • Staff clarified that private and public open-space requirements do not apply because the development has ten or fewer lots. Commissioner Romano flagged code-definition questions about townhomes for future attention.
  • Commissioners discussed road-salt effects on street/landscape plantings and requested a landscaping plan more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
  • No public comments were offered.
  • Vote: Approved 6–0, with staff recommendations 1–15 followed except recommendation 5, recommendation 11 amended, and the landscape plan revised to be more compatible with surrounding development.

PC 2026-916 – Day Care Major Site Plan (Old Business)

  • The site plan, continued from August, was presented by Jeff Durbon of TLE, who said the company agreed with staff recommendations.
  • The main debate was whether to require fencing around the dry retention/detention basin. Smith cited Land Development Code Section 1207.07 and Center for Watershed Protection guidance, calling three-foot water depth a life-threatening hazard next to a daycare. Staff read the code as using “encouraged,” not “shall,” for such fencing.
  • Jardine said the basin slopes meet standards, it is designed as a dry detention basin, and it would not hold standing water. Durbon said TLE, which operates about 460 sites, considers the design safe.
  • Several commissioners opposed mandatory fencing, citing the Route 303 gateway aesthetic; others agreed with Smith that safety should trump aesthetics. The commission did not add a fence condition.
  • Other discussion: a 12-inch storm pipe from the 1950s shown on records was not found during excavation; updated budgets were said to be sufficient; landscaping was moved back for snow storage; a sidewalk connection to the public sidewalk was discussed; playground noise is expected below 60 decibels at the fence; sign colors were moderated to black-and-white lettering; and a landscaping bond will be required.
  • The minutes state the ponds will drain within four hours, while the transcript records a 48-hour drainage time; the commission’s discussion referenced both. The minutes also say the playground closes at 3 p.m., while the transcript references 3:30 p.m.
  • Vote: Approved 5–1 with staff conditions 1–7, including the landscaping bond. Voting yes: Norman, Romano, Nystrom, Innamorato, McCoy; voting no: Smith; Obert absent.

PC 2026-1129 – Standard Shop Company Industrial Business Park (New Business)

  • This previously approved project is still under construction, with approvals expiring October 2026. Project history is recorded inconsistently: the Industrial Design Subcommittee minutes refer to a 2020 approval, while the transcript and staff presentation refer to approval in late 2022.
  • The Industrial Design Subcommittee recommended a continuance, reporting uncertainty about which design had been approved and requesting financial assurances. The subcommittee also asked for the north elevation windows to be adjusted to reduce a large unbroken wall.
  • Charles Wolf said he and Jeff Ningard became majority owners on April 1, 2026; the prior investors retain minority ownership. He described completed improvements, said financing was in place, and asked to start construction quickly. Mark Crowder estimated the remaining landscape budget at $20,000 to $30,000.
  • Staff and Solicitor Thomas explained that when permits expire, new permits must meet current code, including a new 100-foot residential setback requirement that may require a new variance.
  • Discussion centered on whether brick columns and rear doors were in the previously approved drawings. The applicant said its stamped approved plans did not include rear doors; staff said the approved set also lacks them, and complete approved plans will be submitted for review.
  • The commission discussed the project’s long delays, landscaping maintenance, existing tenants, and the need for a clear design path before approval.
  • Vote: Continued to the October Planning Commission meeting. The minutes record a 4–1 vote (Norman, Romano, Nystrom, Innamorato yes; Smith no; McCoy and Obert absent), but the transcript’s roll call shows Smith voting yes and a 5–0 result.

Planned Development Subcommittee Update/Recommendation (Other Business)

  • The subcommittee recommended limiting future Planned Developments to districts 5, 7, 7 overlay, 8 (Seasons Road), 9, and 11, and revising the purpose statement and definition. Staff recommended forwarding the changes to City Council and requesting a six-month moratorium while the rest of the Planned Development section is rewritten.
  • Vote: 4–1 to forward the revisions and the six-month moratorium request to the City Solicitor/City Council. Voting yes: Norman, Romano, Nystrom, Innamorato; voting no: Smith; McCoy and Obert absent.

Administrative Items

  • Approval of the August 24, 2026 minutes was continued to the October meeting because enough members who attended the August meeting were not present. The agenda attachment label read “PC Meeting Minutes: September 24, 2026,” although the item under review was the August 24, 2026 minutes.
  • Correspondence: Norman reported citizen calls about Prestige and email exchanges with Councilwoman Weinstein about Environmental Awareness Committee collaboration and the authority of Planning Commission questions. The commission deferred responding to Weinstein’s administrative-rule comments to the October meeting.

Key Outcomes

  • Forwarded a resolution to City Council opposing the Prestige Settlement Agreement and expressing no confidence in the current Council (5–1).
  • Approved the 18-unit townhome major site plan (6–0).
  • Approved the day care major site plan (5–1).
  • Continued the Standard Shop Company site plan to October (official minutes say 4–1; transcript says 5–0).
  • Forwarded Planned Development revisions and a six-month moratorium request to City Council (4–1).
  • Continued approval of August 24, 2026 minutes to the October meeting.
  • The commission indicated it will request a traffic study before considering the Clinton Crossing application; Council was expected to act the following evening on forwarding the Clinton Crossing application to the Planning Commission.
  • Adjourned at 11:06 p.m.

Meeting Transcript

Call this meeting to order. This is the industrial design subcommittee. It is uh six forty six forty-nine. Yes. Mr. Namurado. Here. We expect uh Mr. Worley to show up shortly. Yes, absolutely. Our application today is for five six nine eight Hudson Drive. That's the standard shop company project. Um, if you recall that or in read the staff report, that project had been reviewed and approved a number of years ago, uh, two thousand twenty-two at the end of two thousand twenty-two. Um the project is still under construction. One of the buildings, which is uh building B in your packet has been completed. And um there will be five total buildings on the site. Um, so the applicant is nearing the uh expiration date of these approvals, and uh, that is why it's back to the planning commission and and design subcommittee. Um so just for some clarification, I initially sent out that the packet last week. Uh it had a staff report as well. Uh noticed a few changes from the uh initial drawings, had a meeting with the applicant, and they had revised the drawing, so there is a revision in front of you that more aligned with the window placement door placement of the previous approval. Um had a couple comments on that. Um but uh looking at the site plan here. So so B here has been completed. Um I think with the updated packet, I did see the small building C would have a bump out. It looked like that would have been on the west elevation. So I think there's the label needed to be changed on the on the revised packet that you sent. Um it's just showing east elevation with the bump out. I think that's just a switch uh of the labeling. Um building C, I suggested additional fenestration on the north elevation. Before these these two windows were centered. I'm assuming that's because of the interior floor plan, but um I didn't know if there was any fenestration placement that can be looked at because that is like a 30-foot span of the wall there. There are two brushes. Oh, if you can step up to the microphone, please for you can give us your name and address. Uh Joe Crowder's CGI uh address. 4148 Westbourne Boulevard, Copley, Ohio. Uh the windows are spread apart because there's a center wall that divides the two units, and then there's restrooms on each side. And so I mean, we could probably shift the windows over a couple feet, but we're not gonna get anything truly centered because of those rushrooms. Could you install like a false window? We've had people trim out trim out windows in the past. Yeah, we could look into it. Okay. Um, just the other note I had. I think there's one door on each building facing Terrac Road. It just for the that to have appropriate detailing, so it just doesn't look like a standard metal back door or something like that, because that's a pretty prominent street side. I think that's all I had. Is there anything you'd like to add about the project for the for the group? Okay. Okay, uh Ms. Marzula, you want to go for the first time. I was gonna say do you maybe you should stay up here because we're gonna probably have questions.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com