Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That time I called to order the 05/21/2026 meeting of the Hudson's Board of Zoning and Building Appeal. Miss Rodek, would you please call the roll?

Mr. Scott?

Present.

Mr. Jones?

Here.

Mr. Dyer? Here. Mr. Carl? Here. Chair Braunstein?

Here. All right. I am now going to identify city staff that's here tonight. We have Ms. Rodak who is associate planner. We have Nick Sugar, city planner. And we have Marshall Pitchford, city solicitor. And we also have Samantha DiRamo, city council representative for the BCBA. At this time, I'm going to swear in staff and any applicants who wish to give testimony tonight. If you're going to, be testifying, please stand up and raise your right hand and affirm the following for me, please.

Do you swear under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you will provide is the truth? Alright, thank you. You may take a seat. Alright, moving on to the minutes from our last meeting. Has everyone had the opportunity to review the minutes and are there any corrections or additions that need to be made?

On Mr. Page three, we are referenced as the commissioners. I would ask that that be amended to say the board.

Ms. Okay. Rodak, can you make a note of that please? Agreed, I didn't catch that either. Any other additions, edits to be made? If not, can I have a motion for approval with the amendments that Mr? Jones has requested?

I move, so move.

Alright, Miss. I need a second, sorry.

Second.

Ms. Rodak can you call the roll please? Mr. Scott?

Yes.

Mr. Jones?

Yes.

Mr. Dyer? Yes. Mr. Carl?

Yes.

Chair

moving on to our new business for tonight. The first case that we have in front of us is BZBA20363. The subject of the hearing is a request for an appeal pursuant to section twelve twelve point o one b from the final decision made by the architectural and historic Board of Review on 04/08/2026 for a request for application of stone along a house mass for new home construction per per a h HBR case number 2022Dash730. Do we have with us the applicant tonight?

Yes, we are here.

Alright, would you please come up to the stand, state your name and address and I'm sorry, before we do that, miss Rodak, can you please give us the case report?

I'll do a quick background. Okay, thank you. Property is located on Stone Creek Way within the Stone Creek Reserve subdivision. The ARC Board approved the house design in September 22 at their meeting and design changes were approved in December 2022. During a progress inspection, staff noticed changes in February 2026 and the applicant presented those changes to ArcBoard 04/08/2026.

The ArcBoard found the proposed alteration was in conflict with section IV dash 4D3 and section IV dash 4D1 of the architectural design standards. The HBR found the work was not consistently applied to the all sides of the mass and was not used to call attention to a specific composition. We provided some additional definitions from the architectural design standards under appendix two as background to help orient you to the property and the appeal. And the applicant is here for any questions.

You. Ms. Rodak. Would the applicant please, step up to the podium and, state your case please.

My name is Mayor Holozada.

Your address as well.

My address is 12107 Nathaniel Lane in Twinsburg, Ohio. And, this is my daughter, and that's her husband. So, I am helping those young couple building their dream home in Hudson. And, during the course of construction, there was a little area on the house that was showed on the plan as vinyl sided area. And in the course of construction, at the spur of the moment, we looked at the the stonework and the vinyl siding work that were kind of taking place both at the same time.

And within a short order, I realized that it would probably be more productive and more appealing, and more consistent to be quite clear, to apply the stone on the entire area that has the stone as opposed to that little triangle that has siding. So, we did deviate from the plan as approved, that is true, but the intent was not to cut corners or reduce cost. As a matter of fact, as you probably all know, that vinyl siding is probably about maybe $4 a square foot, whereas cultured stone is about $25 a square foot. So, the application of the stone to that area actually increases the curb appeal and increases the value of the house, and it also provides consistency with the entire area that is being stone veneered. And when you see the actual pictures that were taken, you will see that that little triangle area actually ends within inside corners.

So, it does not wrap around the house. And it's highly it's it's not very visible because of the column and the roof, but it looks more visible on the plan, but it is not as visible by looking at the pictures. And when you see the actual pictures of the existing as built, you will appreciate our, I guess, move to apply stone veneer on that area. When the staff actually went by to view the house from from the street, they noticed that, in fact, there was stone applied as opposed to vinyl siding. And then they asked us to present as built plans to the city and request approval by the architectural review board.

And we did that. And we were hopeful, in fact, we were actually expecting approval because we thought they would be in agreement with us on the consistency of the materials that we've used. So, in the description, there was mention of a discretion by the board related to principles enumerated in section one dash two. And section one dash two, which reads principles, it says, without limiting the generality of the planning and zoning code, the purpose of these standards is to protect Hudson's character and to preserve a high quality built environment throughout Hudson. Five principles are given below.

These principles are a summary of the values that people in Hudson found to be most important in establishing the character of the city. So that's the main principle. And these five principles are principle A is creation and maintenance of the public realm takes precedence over individual buildings. So we don't think that applying stone veneer in that area violates principle A in the list of principles. Principle B, it's buildings shall maintain a high level of architectural quality.

As you will see later on from the pictures that this particular building has tremendous architectural quality, and compared with the buildings in the surrounding area, it actually far exceeds the architecture quality of other buildings that are adjacent to it or opposite to it. And we've heard a lot of good comments from the neighbors that this particular house has actually added tremendous value to the houses in the neighborhood. It looks like it's actually the most, I would say, the most expensive house in the area. Principle number c, it says the site plan and building shall respect the land and the environment in which they are placed. Well, the building obviously respects the site and the environment in which it was placed, and applying stone veneer in that area does not violate principle C.

Principle D is there shall be architectural variety within a defined framework. That's a tremendous variety in that structure. So we are absolutely consistent with principle D. And principle e is that new buildings and alterations shall respect the existing context and framework. We believe that we do.

The building does respect existing context and framework. Again, applying a small amount of cultured stone in an area that otherwise would have been vinyl siding does not violate that principle either. So, basically, what I'm thinking is, and I hope you would agree with me, that sometimes the interpretation of the guidelines and the strict and literal application of the rules violate really the principle and the spirit and the purpose of the guidelines, and becomes counterproductive, creating hardship. And our case is really a case in point. Furthermore, an error does not always have to be a technical error in nature.

It can be an error in judgment. Again, our situation is a case in point where we think there is an error in judgment with respect to the error that the BH, that the Board of Architecture Review took their discretion. That was an error in their discretion. So, it's okay for the BZBA, which is you, to have an opinion that differs from the opinion of the Architectural and Historic Board of Review, and that's why we're here appealing our case before you, hoping that you would see our situation and you would see the value that we have actually added to the house. So I think, you know, without further explanation, I think that's the situation that we're in, and we hope that you would see the value that we have added to the house by applying that stone.

Again, it does not it does not harm anybody. And, I would ask the staff to show you the remaining slides in the presentation so that you'll have a better understanding of what we have done.

Do either of you have any initial comments that you wanted to make for your case otherwise we can move on to questions from the board members. Sorry, can you It's just so that the recording captures it. Thank you. Yes. And can Thank you please state your name?

Yes. My name is Farrah Holizada, homeowner at 5530 Stone Creek Way Hudson, Ohio. I just wanted to say thank you mister Holizada for presenting. For what it's worth, just wanted to echo that as he mentioned, this is our dream home. We've put in every single thought into every step of the way to make it as best as it can be, done our best to follow the guidelines as closely as possible and would just appreciate your thoughtful consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. I think it's helpful because appeals function a little bit differently than requests that come directly to the zoning board to provide a little bit of explanation of the standard of review because it actually did change I believe last year. And so I wanna explain that before we jump into our questions because I think it will help you to understand the nature and line of questions that are, being made. So I'm just gonna read off some of the restrictions that we're under as a board when it comes to the review of an appeal when it comes to our board. So section twelve twelve point zero one F standard of review, this is for an appeal to this board.

It says when an examining any administrative decision on appeal under this code, a reviewing body must affirm unless decision is unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence. A reviewing body shall give deference to the underlying body or decision makers finding a fact. Findings of fact on appeal shall be presumed to be reasonable and may be overturned only if the reviewing body finds that no reasonable fact finder could have reached So the reason I wanted to read that is because I think that a lot of the line of questioning that's gonna happen from this board is gonna be centering around trying to understand whether we've met our standard of review or not. And specifically when it comes to the final decision that was made by the architectural and historic, board of review, we're talking specifically about change number three, replacement of a section of previously approved stone with siding. And the the findings of fact that were relied upon specifically mentioned section four dash four d three stating the materials used in any mass must be applied consistently on that mass on all sides of the structure.

And appendix two of the architectural design standards define a mass as the main body, an l body, a wing, an intersecting mass or a central mass. Masses are usually distinguished by their plan and should be identifiable by a change in roof height or direction. So that was in the findings of fact what the architectural Historic Board of Review relied on in their decision. So I just wanted to provide that as some background because I think it will help to understand and help guide your responses. And with that I'm going to to start with Mr. Scott.

Thank you. During your testimony you mentioned that the decision by the review board created a hardship. Could you elaborate a little bit more on how this decision has resulted in a hardship?

Yes, if we have to reverse that, of course it's gonna be an expensive proposition, and it's gonna be really an unnecessary change. It does not add value to the structure. It doesn't add value to the architectural elements of the house, putting cheaper material, a little bit of siding in that area does not really serve any purpose. So, we would be forced, if we don't get approval, to keep it as is, we would be forced to put siding in that area, which is really a less appealing, less valuable material, and it would be not consistent with the entire facade of the house. And when you see the pictures, because you're still looking at the plan, but I'm sure when you look at the pictures that were taken recently, you would understand.

This is the triangle right there. Actually, you can hardly see it from the street, so taking that off and putting vinyl siding in its place over it just doesn't add value to the house. So, again, the description that Miss Brownstein mentioned, they are so legal terms with regards to, I guess, legal arguments in court, but this is subjective. This is this is an area that is subject to a lot of subjectivity and discretion. So, it's not a matter of fact or non fact, it's a matter of discretion.

And in our opinion, the discretion that the board of architecture review board took actually is harmful. And quite honestly, I said earlier in my description that when we presented it to the board of the architecture review board, most members were actually in agreement with us. They were inclined to approve our request. Mr. Sugar interjected at that point, and said, if you keep that site, that stone in there, you have to stone the entire house.

That's when their heads turned, and that's when their decision to approve was kind of reversed. So, if you if you look at or you you watch the proceedings of the meeting, you will realize that most of them were actually in agreement with our argument. It is just that when it got to that point towards the very end of the meeting, that's when the line of thought changed. And, I noticed that also in the proceedings that the chairman actually does not strive or does not focus on consensus, he focuses on unanimity. So, he just kept asking the members to change their mind in his own ways so that he can get unanimity.

This is, in my opinion, really a violation of the basic principles of democracy. I would have liked him to take a roll call and and have everybody speak their mind, But, it was not done that way. It was presented in a motion, and he asked for a vote, and the vote was unanimous. But, the mechanics and the dynamics of the proceedings were in our favor for most of the meeting. And that's why I'm hoping that it will happen today here.

I wanted to continue along that line around the hardship. The original plans from my understanding for the record were to have vinyl signage on that triangle area, right?

That is correct.

And you did not request before building that section for that plan to change, or you did not request approval for that change?

That is correct. That is correct. It did not cross our mind at that point, But in the course of construction, that's when things appear much clearer. And when the siding was being done and the stonework was being done, we were within a day or so of finishing. There was no way that we could have stopped everybody and said, okay, we've got to stop here.

Let's go back to the Architecture Review Board, get approval, it would have taken a long, long time and the work would have stopped. So we took that decision at that point and we were hoping that obviously, that would have been an acceptable and a welcome change because it is consistent and it does not look bad. It actually looks better.

But you did not attempt to contact anyone from the city or ask any questions about the change in plan?

No, I did not. During that the process, and of course we were racing with time, and the workers were actually working well into the evenings because of the weather conditions, there was really no time to do that.

I have one other question, and then I'll turn it over to my fellow members. The findings of fact that came from the Architectural Review Board indicated that they believe that that essential triangle is part of what they call the main mass of the house, and they provide their evidence and evaluation of that. Is your argument that that is a misinterpretation of the standard that that triangle area should not be considered part of the main mass of the house, but instead should be considered part of the extension, either the front extension or the addition, because as the chair mentioned, we have to kind of go off of kind of what the findings of fact are stating there, and that is one of their core findings, which is that that's part of the main body of home.

Again, I understand. This is a matter of interpretation. They interpreted that that triangular area is part of a mass that's separate from the turret and the entry. So, our interpretation is that that triangular area is more consistent of the mass that is all visible, which is the turret, the entry, and everything else, because they're all connected, they're contiguous.

The standard for the definition of what constitutes the main body is partially, if not completely defined by the roofline according to standard. So is there something different about the roofline in that triangle compared to the main body of the house?

No, all of them are under the same roofline.

Thank

you. Mr. Karl.

You said that this is a matter of discretion for the was that your argument? Decision was a matter of discretion?

Probably both. I think it was a matter of discretion because the board was leaning towards approving our request for as built. But then again, the technicalities were introduced as Mr. Sugar introduced them at the last minute and said to the board that if you permit that, then the entire mass would have to be stoned or, you know, veneer, with stone veneer. That means we would have to take the entire front and sides, both sides, and only leave the back of the house vinyl sided.

That's impossible. We there's no way we could do that. That that the cost of doing that and reversing course would be astronomical. So we really hoped and relied on the general inclination of the board to approve the as built condition. But within the last few minutes, it was not the case.

Do you think

do you

think that you want us to exercise our discretion on this?

There's nothing wrong with you exercising your own discretion on this because you're an independent body, and you have the full authority to exercise your own discretion, and there's nothing wrong, in my opinion, for you to differ with another board.

Unfortunately, that's not the law as written last year by city council. Under the law now, as it now exists, the architecture board may exercise discretion and we cannot exercise discretion independent of the architect. Must review their exercise of discretion and only touch it if we decide that it's an abuse of their discretion to do that.

Yeah, I don't think it was an abuse, but I do think that they had the power to exercise that discretion, And that discretion would not have produced negative results. I think would have produced positive results. And even if you, I guess, as a board of appeals, do not wish or don't feel inclined to exercise your discretion.

We can't. I'm sure

don't have any discretion.

That's what I'm telling you. That's what I'm saying.

Okay.

You as the board probably could, and I'm sure you probably would if you want to, grant a variance. A variance has nothing to do with discretion.

But a variance isn't in front of us tonight,

That's right. That's right. So we do have another avenue then to come back to you asking for a variance.

Ms. Roedek, can you comment on that?

So the Architectural Review Board is the one who can, for things like this for consistency, can offer waivers. That is what they were thought you were doing before at the April 8 meeting, so they denied that. So this board can only offer variances for land development code things like setbacks and but it can't do design. So this is for an appeal. So you can't go get a variance for this. So this would just be the appeal.

So said differently, design standards are the original jurisdiction of Architectural and Historic Review Board. Whereas the zoning board does not have original jurisdiction over design standards only on appeals. So we hear appeals on the decisions made from the Architectural and historic review board relative to design decisions. And the standard of review relative to that is that we would have to in order to overturn the decision made, we would have to find that the manifest weight of the evidence, shows that the decision made was unlawful unreasonable or sorry, against the manifest weight of the evidence, which has been the reason you've heard some of the line of questioning. I'm sorry Mr.

Crawley interrupted you.

That's okay. Could you pull up the first drawing in the sample report, the first drawing?

This one?

Or would

you like the one with the

I want it way up the top. Strawing after the after the text. Yeah.

That'd be this one?

It's not the one I wanted but the

Are looking for the red line?

I'm looking for a line drawing that isn't shaded.

Is it this one? I'm not sure.

Different one.

It's not. George's drawing. I think yours. Page were you on?

I'm on page.

22, I think?

22.

22 out of 42.

22 out of 42. Zoom in. Yeah, okay, okay.

Oh yeah, yeah, it's

Alright, okay. Now, so so I'm gonna show you what the big problem is for you, and then maybe you can explain something about it that might help your case because in order for us to reverse what got done below, we have to decide that their decision was well, I say an abuse of discretion, but you could also say against the manifest weight of the evidence. So let me show you what the issue is. Could I have a microphone? Okay.

So here's the issue. They decided that that this house is the main mass. Right? And to support that decision, you can just look at the drawing and what you see is, you see this roofline coming across there and all the way across there. That's the same roofline as this one.

And and the roof itself covers this portion and this portion except for this. And so the problem that you have is, it looks to me from the drawing that their decision that this is part of the main mass of the house is supported by the evidence. So how can I say that it's an abuse of discretion or against the manifest weight of the evidence when I look at this picture and I see that the way the thing is drawn, that section here is part of the vain mass of the house because when you look at the roof and and the roofline and so forth, that's that's where it goes? So that's that's how I look at it. Now, you need to tell me how I can decide that that's against the manifest weight of the evidence to decide that that piece there is not part of the main mass of the house.

Okay?

Again, we go back I understand your counterargument. We go back to the fact Not that argument.

It's a position that came to us from architecture

board.

What came to us. As

I said earlier, sometimes the interpretation of the guidelines and the strict and literal application of the rules kind of shake the basis of the spirit and purpose of the guidelines. And sometimes technicalities get in the way. And, technically, you might be right, but appearance wise, I think it's much more appropriate to have stone in that area. And again, this is something that could potentially be a variance. Maybe not in this meeting, if there's any room for that, we could pursue that.

But common sense and visual balance tells us that stone in that area would be much more appropriate.

Mr. Dyer.

Sure, thanks. Couple of questions, you had mentioned, suggested that we go back and review the meeting where it seemed like a couple of the board was leaning in favor of what you were proposing until Mr. Sugar mentioned how the rule works. And I actually had done that, I watched it at least two, maybe three times. I just respectfully disagree with what you said, I did not, and I went back and watched it again, because in the submittal, in some location, you had mentioned the same thing before.

So I was trying to see, okay, was that indeed the case? I could be wrong, but I did not see that. In fact, I watched it about an hour ago for the last time. But in watching it, I don't know if it was you or the person representing you at the last ARB meeting had mentioned, I thought, intimated that the siding had actually been placed there, and that you looked at it and didn't like it, and then put the stone up. Is that what happened, or was it just before the siding went up, you looked at it and said, this would be much more appropriate to have the stone?

Well the siding people and the stone veneer masons were kind of working almost at the same time. And when I looked at the siding in that area as opposed to the stone, it appeared to me very quickly that applying stone would be much more consistent with that facade.

Okay, so the siding wasn't up on the building and you looked at it and said, well this does not work. It was just

You're absolutely right, nothing. It was not up there and then we decided, hey, let's take it off and put stone. It was just a spare of the moment. It was either siding or stone, which way do you wanna go? And, I looked at it, went back, stone. The automatic decision, the common sense decision in me said, stone, stone it. And, I will hope that the city would not object to that. So, yeah, it was not a trial and error situation. It was a spare of the moment, literally, while those two crews were working at the same time. Almost at the same time.

Right, okay. Yeah. I understand. Also, as part of the submittal, the original submittal, there were other photographs of homes in the neighborhood. And I did drive the neighborhood and I went back and looked at the photographs of the homes and you'll find a number of homes that have, they don't look like your home, obviously, but they do have stone and vinyl on the fronts.

And in the homes that are shown, let's see, this was at 5555 Stone Creek Way, 5539 Stone Creek Way, and 5538 Stone Creek Way. They all essentially abide

by

the regulation of the rules that the Architectural Review Board followed in making this decision. While your house is certainly different than the other houses in the neighborhood, Those homes, at least from my eye, seem to have abided by what regulations are. And then the only third item I have, and again these aren't legal issues, but in watching the previous meetings, Mr. Sugar, there seemed to be some difficulty communicating, like when people were talking about the windows, or the soldiers on top of the windows, and it took a while to get it straightened out, and I think Mr. Sugar, I shouldn't put words in your mouth, but I think what he was, he was just stating, he wasn't saying, hey, do it all stone.

He was just giving that as a, that's another way for you to make it work and certainly I don't think he was saying to do that. And the way I looked at it, were three options. The one option is to follow the plan as it was originally approved, which is what the architectural review board wanted you to do, or do the whole, the front mass in all stone or all vinyl. One of those three I think is what that was. And they were only, that was not Mr.

Sugar saying do it that way, he was just saying those are the three ways that you could do it without having to deal with this issue.

I agree. Mr. Schuyger, I'm not critical of Mr. Schuyger, obviously. I'm only stating what transpired.

So, while we were in the discussion, and there was an overall inclination to accept the minor change, and again, exercise that discretion and approve it, Mr. Sugar interjected and said, if you do that, you would have to stone the entire mass, and not just the front, also the sides, because everything has to end at inside corners. So, we've got one inside corner, another inside corner, so that entire front mass would have to be sided, and then I think maybe it was not realized that that triangle ends at inside corner, and I presume, or not presume, I think Mr. Sugar said you'd have to also stone the other side as well. So, not only just the front, this side and the front and the sides.

So, what we would be lift off then would be just basically vinyl siding in the back. No, So, Mr. Sugar was not saying you have to do this. I never really indicated that he did that. He just interjected at that point and basically influenced the thinking of the board and prevented them from exercising their discretion. Again, I'm not critical of him at all. It's just that this is what transpired.

And I, it's great to hear you say that because it just shows how two people can watch the same thing and come away with a totally different interpretation of what occurred because I did not, in watching the video of the meeting, I did not see that at all.

Exactly, no, do not assert that at all. And I'm very respectful of the staff, and they've been working with us very nicely, so I'm in no way criticizing them, and they know that.

In fact, you should be applauded for coming, think initially you came in for an informal meeting with Architectural Review Board back in 2022, before they actually took action. So that's, again, that should be applauded.

I appreciate that, that is so true, and I truly appreciate that.

The other thing, and again, sounds like this is just a legal matter, but in context, again watching the meeting, there were a number of items that the board went through, major items, the window design, they changed, the color of the soldiers, there was a big discussion about that, the soldiers are the same, it's just the color, you darken the color up and the soldier was put up above the big window on top, and I think originally that wasn't shown there. And then the freeze boards were removed. And those were all granted?

Yes, that is correct. Yeah,

they were gracious enough to grant those. Again, the freeze board was not a requirement, and in that area there are many many houses without freeze boards, and it looks much better without it because we wanted to avoid picture framing the siding.

And the same with the windows, my understanding is the window change was, since all the windows were changed, that was appropriate. There was no rule against that, as there is with this item.

That is correct. And again, the windows basically remain the same, we've shown on the plans that we wanted to have casement windows, so we're stuck with casement windows. The only thing that changed in that was only the grills. Oh, okay. Yeah. We went from Colonial to Prairie. I have no other questions. Thank you very, much.

Sir Jones, do you have any questions?

Yes, thank you. Do you have a cost estimate for removing the stone and replacing it with vinyl?

I do not have a cost estimate, not off the top of my head. I never actually asked anybody to come and give me an estimate about removing it and replacing it with vinyl.

I'd like to better understand the decision to deviate from the approved plans. Was there any discussion with your general contractor or the vinyl subcontractor or Mason about whether construction should deviate from the approved plans? Did the contractor have anything to say about that? Was that part of the discussion?

No, there was no discussion. It was just a matter of judgment that I had to make at that critical moment. They were finishing up and the stone crew was about to conclude the stonework and the siding was almost all up. So, it was a decision of do you wanna continue this with siding or would you like to do this with stone? And I took a step back before we applied anything, and I thought stone would make much more sense to keep it more consistent.

Did the contractors approach you with the question, what do you wanna do, or did you approach the contractors with, I think we should put Stone there?

No, I think both of them did not see the plan. So it was, knew what the plans were and they said, what goes here, siding or stone? And I looked at it and said, stone.

The other thing I want to talk about is the, and I might get the terminology wrong here, but the waiver from the architectural board that they considered. Findings of fact that we have in front of us say that there are no exceptional or unusual conditions sorry, let me just read it. No exceptional or unusual conditions exist that are not common to other areas similarly situated and there is no resulting practical difficulty in allowing the change from the approved drawings or the standard and the land development code. Did you present to the architectural board any exceptional or unusual conditions that warranted the change from the approved plan?

No, I did not. Obviously, there was no time, first of all, to come back to the Architecture Review Board to get approval prior to making that decision. Again, it was time limitation and weather conditions, and it was the end of the season. We had to get all the masonry work done before it gets cold.

When you were in front

of the

architectural board requesting that they say that this change be okay, did you present to them or tell them why there's an exceptional circumstance here that requires us to have stone here instead of vinyl?

Was, quite honestly, was no exceptional reason to have stone over vinyl. Both would have functioned, functionality wise, both would function the same way. They protect the shell of the house from the elements. Practically, no, there is no reason, only appearance.

That's all I have, thank you.

Thank you Mr. Jones. I think that the other members of the board have sort of exhausted lots of lines of questions and I've interjected enough and I think with appeals they deviate a little bit from the schedule that's in the meeting agenda. We don't ask for members of if anybody else has standing, it just goes to their ability to provide a final statement. Alright so for things that have original jurisdiction, members of the public can make comment but for appeals, we have now finished our line of questioning based on your initial opening statement and now you are provided a closing statement.

You may talk and the property owners may talk as well if you have any final things that you want us to consider and then we will close that and we will make our decision. You don't have to have a closing statement. I don't want to put you on the spot. It is an opportunity if there's anything you felt that we didn't cover, or if there's anything else that you feel like we need to consider, this is your opportunity.

Well, just I guess, a reflection on Mr. Jones' comments about the cost of removing that and replacing it with vinyl siding. Of course, it's gonna be a major cost. But the substrate, as long as it's not visible, does not have to be removed. We could put siding on top of that and comply with the rules. It's all a matter of appearance, and it's just double protection.

Did you wanna make a statement or?

And I thank you very much. I really enjoyed my engagement with you. And I really thank you respectfully. Very, very much. Thank you very much.

Just like to thank you all for your time. Yeah. We've been here a couple times. But, and just one one quick comment, I wanted to make. We, you know, we we go around, our neighbor, neighborhood a lot of times.

And to mister Dyer's point, there is some, houses that we do see that they comply with the rules, but I will invite you to also see a few houses that we have noticed that there's been some deviations from some regulations like specifically windows. If you pay attention to the windows you will see there's some deviations from some of the houses in the neighborhood. That's what stands out to me. Just I will invite you guys to take a quick look maybe around the houses in the neighborhood so you can spot those deviations and I will ask you that you reconsider and see if this is something that we can definitely appeal to since there is there might be some other deviations in the in the neighborhood that actually are are more apparent than just this piece of triangle. Again, I appreciate your time and, thank you for for for your time.

Appreciate it.

Thank you. With that, I will close the public hearing part of this and if there, we have comments amongst the board, correct? And then we can move on to, Does anybody have any comments, thoughts, or are they prepared to regarding this?

I

think we would be obligated to

I think we have to make a written decision because we have to deal with the problem. We have to deal with the problem of overturning findings of factor. Yep. Or not overturning findings So of So the

motion would just simply be to direct.

Mr. Pitchford, do you have anything to add?

You're not required at this point to make decision here in this particular setting. We could take the matter under advisement if

you would like.

You're also free to

We're only laughing because Mr. Karl is our famous drafter. I

love a board that laughs, I mean that's wonderful.

Need to put any discussion on the record?

No, we're not obligated to. We are obligated to provide the written decision with findings of fact that support our decision.

Surrounding you guys couldn't tell me whether you're gonna go with it or

something else.

Okay, for the record, we've taken the matter under advisement, we will issue a written decision within the timeframe that we're allotted to under the city code. Thank you for coming and presenting your case, we appreciate it. Okay. Next matter on the docket is, BZBA26Dash42O, the subject of this hearing is a variance request to construct an accessory structure garage for the city of Hudson fire station property. The request is to allow an accessory structure to be constructed in the side yard when the land development code prohibits accessory structures from being located in the side yard pursuant to section twelve oh six point o three d three entitled accessory uses structure dash accessory use development and operation standards.

The applicant and owner is the city of Hudson of 1140 Terex Road, Hudson, Ohio 44236. Miss Rodek, can we have the staff report please?

Yes. This property is located in District 5 and is comprised of several parcels. The city is currently in the process of a lot consolidation to create an approximately eight acre parcel. City's The requesting to construct a garage for the fire station along South Obiata Street, and this is part of a current renovation project for the existing fire and EMS building. As mentioned, the LDC has the following regulation relative to accessory structures in, side property.

The 12 o 6.03 d three for side yard setbacks says no accessory structure shall be located within a side yard. The variance would represent a 100 percent deviation from the code requirement. However, staff notes that there several, additions to the Fire And Emouse building over time which create a complicated side, front, and rear yards. The property is not directly adjacent to any any residential uses and the structure would be located in the side yard per the definition, but it would be located entirely behind the main mass and partially blocked from Ravenna Street and Oviatt Street. Staff notes relocating the proposed garage to the rear yard would impact public open spaces like the current walkways, green space, and mature trees.

And the applicant or here we have Tony Calabro which is our engineering construction manager and Brad Cosco, city engineer.

Would either one of you like to come up to the podium and identify yourself and then state your case?

I'm Tony Colabro, I'm construction manager, even though I'm but I'm construction manager with the engineering department. So we're currently in the middle of renovations of the fire station EMS department and the accessory garage would allow us to take current emergency vehicles that are parked outside in the weather for emergency to be able to put them inside the building. The location was selected for two fold, one to try to minimize any impact to the green space and the walking areas It also allows us access in and out of the buildings with some of the larger vehicles that we use.

All right. Then I guess we'll move on to our Board's questions. I will start with Mr. Scott.

So as far as the benefit from having the garage, how does that impact the set of services?

So again, we currently house hazardous material trailers and some other emergency response vehicles as well as staff vehicles outside kind of in public view. This allows it to get inside, it also allows us to take better care of our emergency equipment inside, it makes them readily available for emergency response.

So would it decrease the cost of maintenance because it's not as exposed?

Absolutely yes.

And would it potentially improve response time?

It will absolutely, during the winter months especially with our hazardous material response trailers being outside in the weather, it allows us to be able to connect and get out in a quicker response time for the community.

How did you determine the size of the structure?

So we based the size of the structure based on the amount of vehicles that we need to put in there. So to house the hazardous materials and the trench rescue trailer, our our ATV trailer that's used for our trails and rescues and then several of the staff cars that are currently staffed outside for our Prevention Bureau and EMS.

And so was there any consideration of a different size or placement?

Yes, looked at several different options, attaching and some of that, but because of the current building restrictions, the current building and then the property, We wanted to minimize, there's a very large historic tree in the rear of the structure which we didn't want to damage or cause any impact to, and then the trails are used by quite a bit of the residents as a walking pass and we really wanted to minimize how we impacted that area.

And did you get any feedback from the police department given its adjacency to their

I believe the chief did have conversations with the police chief as well.

Nature of those conversations?

Just to look at how we could impact if there was at one point talk of them having another access but it just didn't with the grades and stuff didn't work out very well.

But it doesn't they didn't give you any indication that would impact their delivery?

No not at That would

be harder for them to get out?

No no not at all. This doesn't impact any driveways or access for the Police Department anyway.

Mr. Dyer.

Sure. On the driveway servicing the building, is that essentially the existing alignment of the drive that's there now?

Yes, we're not changing the impact to the parking lot at all, we're just adding the concrete apron to go into the building there. So we will not be changing and we had to push it back a little bit to allow us to swing radius to be able to get trailers and trucks in, but we are not changing the existing power can ladder curb at all from the existing.

And then my other questions are for the staff. I'm confused on this. So you're putting a couple of parcels together to create one eight acre parcel for the fire department. I didn't see where the parcel lines were, And then the other, this shows how new I am. Having just gone through the discussion on the swing set where it was in a side yard and we had a 83% variance, how, I guess on an accessory use, is this, you called it 100100%.

That's 100%.

So is that just because if accessory use intrudes into the side yard, it's 100% or how is it 100%?

So for this accessory uses are not allowed in the side yard, so the fact that this is in the side yard, it's 100% a deviation. So you can either be in the rear yard or you can not be in the rear yard. So this is not in the rear yard. Does that make more sense?

Okay, so on swing set, again since that's the only meeting I've been to, the swing set, how does that differ? That was in the side yard, is that an accessory use?

I understand that was a setback item which had a numerical number not assigned to it.

A setback.

Correct, this is a location requirement.

So from a setback standpoint there is no variance being requested?

Correct, that's why we mentioned the lot consolidation. It will clean up all of those anticipated, any anticipated setback items and it just of note, this would go to the Planning Commission for a major site plan review. We would have all that cleaned up by then so there will be no setback requests from us.

It seemed to me that this was a really good location. Mean given anywhere else around the building that you could locate it.

I'm sorry, no, Alright, I'm

Mr. Jones.

Thank you. I just want to confirm a couple things with the applicant and then I have a question for staff as well. The placement and the construction of where you guys have it, it will not impact any trees?

There are two small like six inch or eight inch small trees there that will be impacted, we had the arborist out to look at those. One is very poor condition, so that would be the only tree impact. The larger trees we wanted to stay away from the roots completely and the drip line of the tree had to arborist out to make sure that we could stay clear of that.

Great and then same question with respect to the walking paths, those won't be impacted by the construction or the placement, is

That's that correct, we will not impact that.

Okay, so then my question for staff, I was unclear what lots were being consolidated. Is that in figure one? That's the current?

That would be the resulting lot, this is the balloon. There's just a bunch of crisscrossing lot lines inside there. Mary has the GIS, she can direct us to that.

It'll become all these other ones.

All these blue lines will be consolidated.

Does it include the police department? The consolidation or no?

No it would be

it would be

on separate lines. Did I speak right

on that?

I believe it does include

the police department. It's inside

the blue then,

sorry. I they're do consolidating and including the police department.

So would that change the front yard, rear yard, side yard once that consolidation happens? Sorry, It's

okay. Sounds like

we're being shared, right? Why?

It's hard to say. Potentially, I don't know, it seems like

Might be in the rear yard of the police station, right?

It might be in the front yard of the police station I or the think

it's still on the side.

Yeah it would still be a side yard I think.

Still side.

Technically yeah.

This is the front here and back here.

Those have to be behind that back section. Way away from everything. Okay. I see where you're going with that, yeah.

Okay, that's all my questions.

Mr. Pearl?

Yeah, this strikes me as yet another one of the most frequent problem we have at this board, which is side yards on corner lots. That's always a bugaboo. And here we go again. To ask you about, I didn't get this 100% either. The way I look at the drawings, well, maybe this is aesthetic, I see it maybe 80%, but not 100%.

If the building impinges on the side lot line, how much of the building is in the side lot and do your percentage that way, and under that kind of rule, this thing isn't 100%. It's only maybe 80%. Physically, we hate to say it's 100%, but you can have it anyway. I feel more comfortable giving you a variance on 80% than I do 100. Second thing is, because of the way the regulations are written, I agree with Mr.

Dyer, this is the very best place to put that building. You're lucky compared to the last group, because we do have discretion in this case. So we can decide as a matter of discretion that that's the best place to put it, and that meets all of the standards of justice even if it doesn't meet the letter of the side yard placement. I don't know, you agree to 100% or where did that number come from?

That's from our staff report. So this is how we determine that is if it's not in the rear yard. So the fact that it's not at all in the rear yard, that would be, so it's either in the rear yard or it's not in the rear yard.

This is a side yard.

Exactly, so it's in the side yard. So it's not in the rear

yard area. By If it's one foot or in by 50 feet.

I could see the point that the overhang changes things. It's up to the board. Think it's a valid distinction for

us to make when we're going through the Duncan factors.

Still not understanding it. I was thinking that it had nothing to do with a setback distance, but it's the fact that something is within the side yard. It doesn't have to do with the side yard setback. Is the side yard, then my next question was, what determines the side yard? Is it just continuing that line of the firehouse and drawing it back?

Yeah, so it would be this rear

That's the rear, I thought we'd, but I'm talking about the sub.

So this is where the rear yard starts right here, so anything in front of this would account as the side yard. So anything in between the front line of this building and the rear line.

I'm thinking it's the side yard to the north with the police station. That's not the issue?

No, this is in relation to the fire at EMAS Building.

You're saying the side, where's the side yard that it's not in compliance?

Sorry, go ahead. I'm sorry.

No, because you keep talking about the rear yard and I don't, what does the rear yard have to do with it, we're talking about the side yard, right? So I'm looking at the north side of the fire station, the existing station. That wall runs east west, right? And if you continue it to the west, it runs through that building. So I'm thinking that's the side yard encroachment. Is the side yard determined by where that building is situated?

It's determined by the rear line of the building. So this right here, this red line, this is where this is part of the side yard. In here is the side yard. It's not determined by this line right up here. It's determined by this rear line.

Side yard's determined by the rear line?

Between the rear line and then this front building line here. Anything in between this line and this rear line is side. And why, okay. So then accessory structures are not allowed in this Can

you draw the side yard line just so that

it's in figure two.

There's a color code This right is this is the rear yard, sorry. That's the front yard.

Yep, green is front,

blue, rear, pink, side. It's supposed to be in the rear yard and not in the side yard.

But a good percentage of it will end up in a side yard.

Correct, roughly 80%.

We have other pieces of house that are kind of bullying in nature, and they're either yes or no, not percentages.

See what you're doing.

Any other questions? Oh you're done? Okay. Again, everybody's taking all my great questions. This is mainly for city staff, but this is just going along with the line of questioning that Mr. Dyer was raising but I mean there is a call out on corner lots, the majority of the floor area of any accessory structure shall not be located within the side yard. Is that saying that you can have a minority part of the floor area in the side yard with a corner lot and how would that look? To me this is a corner lot with the combination of the parcels.

Yeah my understanding of that is if it were located on the other side, the south side of the building, that's speaking to a percentage of the structure that can be located in that area. It's trying to make sure that structures are not located at the corner of an intersection near an intersection. I can pull that reference up again. I

guess I understand what you're saying but that's not what I'm reading in the code. The only reason I raised this and I agree with everything that the other board members have said is that if a minority part of the building could be in the side yard, could this be obviated by pushing it over a little bit or are there other factors that would cause that to be solution. I see a tree, I see some paths, so it does look like that, it would not be easy for it to be pushed a majority of the way into the side yard. I'm answering my

eyes, sorry.

I would have to, is a, it's hard to see with the picture, this is an extremely large

historic tree. Yeah so you can't move it over.

If I do it back it would damage that

tree and then we would start to encroach

it to the of the street. And then move it the other way, you're onto a path, yeah.

If we

move it back, it would still be inside your Okay. Their definition.

That's the only thing that I wanted to raise is because the way I was reading this is it sounds like and I understand what you're saying Mr. Sugar is the point of it is so that you're not having this little structure that's right in a corner but it's not how section actually reads. Could be read also that you could have a part of an accessory structure in the side yard so long as the majority of

it

isn't or am I misreading that?

No I'm trying to find a property that

Nevertheless the reason I raised this is to just cement that where it is makes the most sense in my opinion. It sounds like there are practical difficulties trying to move it anywhere else. It either impacts areas that the public are using or you're cutting down mature trees or, it would honestly if you moved it, it would also make it visible I think more to the public, which

You'll see more of it from the

road. I

think it's good feedback that maybe we need a little bit more alignment in the land development code.

Yeah, that's why I was raising it Nick, just that if the intent of 12/2003 D3 was to limit people building something right in the corner of their lot as an accessory structure. I'm not sure that that's actually how it I mean it could be interpreted other ways.

So this is maybe an example where this home faces Edward Drive. This is a side lot on a corner and it's saying you can have something in this side yard so long as the majority of the floor area is not located here. So it can overhang a little bit but it wouldn't be near the corner of the street, that's how we've always interpreted that section.

Can understand that interpretation but it could also be interpreted here.

What it's intended for is what I'm reading from that.

But it could also be interpreted here with this very unique consolidation of parcels to mean it could be in the side yard on any part of the building not just necessarily the the corner. Maybe there's some reworking

of I

understand, yep. Okay.

I have another question. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you. And it's for staff again. On page three of the staff report, I appreciate that you guys gave the history of this lot and the structures on it. The 1975 picture, is that the first time there was a structure on the lot?

I believe

it was '78 or something like that, they moved the original fire station from downtown to that location. There was nothing there

before. There was

a rail station well back, there used to be a rail station there that had an explosion many years ago so it had been removed.

And where is the original floor plan and what's there now?

If you

were to zoom in I could show you of the original building.

Where I'm going with this See

the only gabled roof, right that small

Oh my gosh.

So the original building, if we wanted to build this garage and all we had was the original building, there'd be no problem because we'd be in the rear yard. Okay,

thanks, correct.

Don't think, does anybody else have any other questions for the applicant? Okay, well with that we'll move on to, technically we can ask for comments from people withstanding or the public but I don't think there are any. So we're gonna go ahead and unless there are any other final questions close the comments and discussion amongst the board, is anybody prepared to make a motion relative to

I just wanna say that when I look at this picture of the layout of the present building and the new building, as a practical matter, looks to me like it's in the backyard because the main building there, it's behind the main building, and that's the way people from the street will see it. Oh, it's back there behind the main building. The fact that there's this little wing out at one side, actually that little wing of runs along Ravenna Road. That little wing further hides the new building. Really, it looks like it's in the backyard and the present building wraps around it, which I think is aesthetically the best they can do, the best we can hope for.

I think the solution they've come up with is really the best solution whether or not it meets the side yard setback or the side yard placement rule.

Any other comments from the board, or is anybody prepared

to make a motion?

I can make a motion.

Alright. This is docket number 26Dash420 for the property at 40 South Oviatt Street, Parcel Number 3202063. The applicant in the City Of Hudson is here this evening to ask for a variance to allow an accessory structure, a garage for the storage of City Emergency Service Vehicles at the Hudson Fire Station to be constructed in the side yard where Section 1206.03 D 3 accessories uses structure accessory use development and operation standards prohibits accessory structures from being located in the side yard. I'll go through the Duncan factors. Whether the property will yield reasonable return or whether there will be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.

The property will yield a reasonable return and there is beneficial use of the property without the variance. The fire and EMS station continues to operate as it does today. However, without the variance, the city must continue to store its emergency service vehicles outdoors and exposed to the weather. Second, whether the variance is substantial. The request represents a 100% deviation in the sense that section twelve oh six dot o three d three categorically prohibits accessory structures in the side yard, so there's no lesser numeric deviation available.

But in effect, the variance is not substantial. The proposed garage will sit almost entirely behind the main mass of the existing building, partially blocked from both Ravenna And South Oviatt Street, and the side yard classification is somewhat of an artifact of the multiple additions made to the Fire And EMS building over the past fifty years, which have produced complicated front, side, and rear yards. Three, whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment? It would not. The property is not directly adjacent to any residential use, all the adjoining properties are city owned, the Hudson Police Department to the North, the public open space to the West, and community center to the East.

The proposed structure would have substantial setbacks from all property lines and would be located behind the main building mass. Four, whether or not the variance would adversely affect the governmental services such as water and sewer, It would not, and in fact, the structure would improve the efficiency of the fire and EMS department by housing and servicing emergency vehicles indoors. Five, whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement, and the city of Hudson owns the property and is aware of the land development code requirements. Six, whether the applicant's predicament can be obviated feasibly through some other method other than a variance. It really can't be feasibly obviated because if you put the garage in the rear yard, you're impacting the public open space, including the walkways, planting beds and mature trees, and connecting the building to the adjacent EMS apparatus, where it was studied and found impractical due to the orientation of the existing building.

Seven, whether the spirit and intent behind the requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting The spirit and the intent of the site yard prohibition would be observed and substantial justice would be done by granting the variance. The purpose of that section is to keep accessory structures from cluttering side yards that are visible from the street in a residential setting, and its purpose not implicated here.

I would further add that

an exceptional and unusual condition exists that is not common to other properties similarly situated due to the irregular yard configuration at this property, which results from about fifty years of additions to the fire and EMS buildings and compounded by the fact that all adjacent property is city owned and the property is part of a pending lot consolidation. So this condition gives rise to the practical difficulty. For these reasons I move to grant the variance as requested with the conditions of the project received design review approval from the appropriate boards and administrative site plan removal.

Thank you Mr. Scott. Can I have a second please?

Second.

Ms. Rodak, would you please call the roll?

Mr. Scott?

Yes.

Mr. Jones?

Yes.

Mr. Dyer?

Yes.

Mr. Carl?

Yes.

Chair Bronstein?

Yes. Variance is approved. Thank you. Moving on to other business, Ms. Roedek, do we have any cases for next month? Yes, we have three cases.

One variance for You

set that up.

One variance for a rear yard setback for an addition, one variance for a stream corridor setback, and one variance for a wetland setback.

Okay. On water. Yeah. Water is always fun. One thing that I did wanna raise is I got a request from the city to attend a charrette, I think is you pronounce it, as a representative of this board to, it's information gathering regarding Clenting Crossing and it was requested that the chair and the vice chair be considered to go and to provide comments, so I don't know if you already got the invitation as well.

I got an invitation to something about downtown.

Yes, it's the Clinton Crossing I think is what it's essentially the phase two. But I wanted to also point out that I think there's going to be a second information gathering session and all members of the public can attend and it's also encouraged that members of the board can members of boards of the city of Hudson can also attend that. I don't know if there's a date for that but could you provide a little bit of information?

Yes, we can send out these dates but this is for the Clinton Crossing project which is the city owned property downtown. It was formerly the downtown phase two project. So we are working on kind of a hands on design process with the community called the charrette, which is a three hour process where you're at small tables and small groups with a facilitator and you walk through the site, you walk through the history of the constraints, the comprehensive plan that Mr. Karl worked on and we're sort of coming up with ideas and layouts for the site that will go through a number of iterations and then be presented to the community. So there are as Ms.

Bronson mentioned, there are two dates. One is more of a for stakeholders, members of the boards, things like that and then there's an open to the public. It's the same exercise. So we can share those dates with everyone as far as the open public meetings.

I just wanted to encourage that even though I'll be attending for the board to the one that is closed, I encourage if anybody has interest in it to join the one that is also open to the public. All right. Any other news? Okay. Well with that I think can we get a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Alright. I guess that's what do I say? I don't wanna get this wrong this time I did it wrong last time. What? Unanimous acclamation? By unanimous acclamation, we adjourned. Alright.

I will not be here for most of June.

Okay. So you won't be at the next meeting?

No. Okay.

I won't

be at the high school either.

Oh, well, that's actually a good point. Do then we need to have a runner-up for you.

I think you should have a runner-up.

Okay. So Mr. Carl was just saying that he's not gonna be here in June. So we'll need to have another board member attend. Is there anybody who is specifically interested or available on June 10?

What what is this for?

This is the the Clinton Crossing Charette process that mister Sugar was was mentioning. Is anybody specifically interested

in think it's six to nine.

Yes, on June 10 which yes, it's a Wednesday. It's a three hour process and it was specifically stated in the invitation you gotta be there the whole three hours.

Locking the door. I am,

potentially interested and available. I just need to clear it with my family. Mister

Dyer, were you interested as

well? Yes.

Okay. Alright. Why don't you both let me know if you are available and

Corey, you were the one was that you that No.

Mister mister Jones Keenan

was mentioned.

Yeah. Okay. If he can't do it,

I'll Okay.

Alright. Well, if you're available