Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

26 meeting of the Hudson's Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. Ms. Rodak, would you please call the roll? Mr. Scott?

Present.

Mr. Jones?

Here.

Mr. Dyer? Here. Mr. Carl?

Here.

Chair Bronstein?

Here. Thank you, Ms. Rodak. At this time, I would like to identify city staff that is present. We have... Mary Rodak, who's associate planner. We have Nick Sugar, who is our city planner. We have Chris, and I am so sorry. Chris Thomas, I'm writing it down this time. Chris Thomas, who is our city solicitor. And we also have Samantha Diorama, who is our city council representative present in the audience. At this time, I'd like to swear in staff and audience who plan to address the board tonight. If you're on the fence about addressing the board, I recommend standing up. So if you could please stand up and repeat after me for anyone who wishes to give testimony tonight. Please raise your right hand and affirm the following. Do you swear under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you will provide tonight is the truth?

I do.

All right, thank you. Moving on, we will go to approval of minutes. We have two sets of minutes tonight. We have BZBA June 18th. Has everybody had a chance to review the June 18th minutes, and are there any edits or comments to be made? Seeing none, is anybody willing to make a motion to approve the minutes for the June 18th meeting?

So moved.

Second.

Mr. Rodak, would you call the roll, please?

Mr. Scott?

Yes.

Mr. Jones?

Abstain.

Mr. Dyer? Yes. Mr. Carl?

Abstain.

Chair Brownstein?

Yes. And the June 18th minutes are approved. Moving on to the July 16th minutes, does anybody have any edits or comments to make about the minutes from that meeting? Seeing none, can I get a motion to approve the minutes?

So moved.

And a second?

Second.

Ms. Rodak, would you call the roll, please?

Mr. Scott?

Yes.

Mr. Jones?

Yes.

Mr. Dyer?

Yes.

Mr. Carl? Yes. Chair Bronstein?

Yes. Thank you. We have approved minutes for the July 18th, or July 16th meeting. Thank you. All right. Moving on to public, sorry. Public hearings, old business. We have a case that is BZBA 26-38. And this case is being continued. Do I need to read this all out for the record or? No. Okay.

No, we continued it to this date certain at the last meeting. So I think we're okay to just keep an agenda for the public to track.

Perfect. So it has been continued to the September 17th meeting. All right. Moving on to public hearings new business, we have in front of us case BZBA-26-906. The subject of this hearing is a request for an appeal pursuant to section 1212.01b from the final decision made by the Architectural and Historic Board of Review on June 12, 2026. for a request for an exterior alteration, including the replacement of a commercial front door per AHBR case number 2025-1478. The appellant is Attorney Joseph Kiernan of P.O. Box 1458 Norton, Ohio 44203. The property owner is Declan Thomas LTD 88 North Main Street, Hudson, Ohio 44236. for the property at the same address in District 5 Village Core Gateway within the city of Hudson. Ms. Rodak, may I have the staff report, please? Yes.

This property is in District 5, situated along North Main Street within the historic district. Owners purchased the property in 2017. The door replacements were observed last year, and staff then confirmed a permit had not been obtained and pursued code enforcement for the door and the sign replacements. Any exterior alteration in the historic district requires a zoning certificate and approval by the Arc Board. The owners then applied for a permit and presented their alterations to Arc Board. The first went January 28, 2026, was continued to February 11, 2026, and the final meeting was April 22, 2026. At this meeting, the Arc Board moved to deny the design of the front door replacement, which is the subject of this appeal. And the ARC board did not grant a waiver based on their criteria. And the final decision with the board's findings of fact are included. The appellant is here for any questions the board may have.

Thank you. At this time, the applicant on the appeal has the ability to come up and provide their comments not to exceed 30 minutes. Is that correct for the appeal? Yes, correct. Thank you. And please identify yourself when you come to the podium.

good evening madam chair and members of the board my name is attorney joe kernan i represent declan thomas limited on the appeal for the denial of the waiver on the front door of the property located at 88 north main street before i get started and go into what we were talking about it was my understanding that perhaps that this would be referred back to the architectural review board There were some questions regarding executive session that occurred, which I think is probably a concern at this point as far as the appeal is concerned. So I guess I wanted to know what the board wanted to do as far as that is concerned. If the board wishes to go forward, I would ask for some further time to prepare for that.

I think it's It's up to us tonight during the hearing to make the decision as to whether or not a remand would make sense based on the evidence. We at this point have not had evidence presented to us other than the staff report and what was provided previously as to this case. So I think that that is, the onus is on the applicant at this time to provide their case and then we would make the decision.

Sure. And I guess I would wonder from a legal standpoint what happened in the executive session, because I'm not sure I can address that without knowing what happened in that executive session. So you stated that it was unlawful.

in your Appeal if you could just elaborate on that. I think if I can actually I've got

Section 121.22 of the Ohio Revised Code indicates that all public hearings must be public. There are some very specific exceptions to that, obviously, and I've had to deal with this myself because I was in local government in Norton for some time. But there are some very specific exceptions to that, none of which I believe were present when the public hearing was called for at that meeting. and again referring to section 121.22 of the ohio revised code generally speaking first of all those executive sessions must be published and they must be on the agenda There must be a stated reason for those executive sessions, what is going to be discussed, why there is a need for an executive session. Usually there are things regarding if there are legal questions that the body has to discuss with their attorney or if there are questions that they're discussing regarding employment questions or things of that nature of a public employee. um and there are some other there are some other ones that aren't quite as common however the problem is is that none of that happened at that particular meeting so i don't know what was discussed the public doesn't know what was discussed i think that's a fatal error and so i think that we need to have that opportunity to have all of that consideration in public. And then if we have an adverse, you know, an adverse decision, then I guess we come back up here again. But, um, having said that, I, I, you know, I think that that's going to be a problem.

Anybody have any questions for the applicant at this point regarding remand?

I think the question is, would you like us to base our deliberation on that unlawful plank, or would you like to make any arguments on the merits of the

can certainly make arguments on the merits and and i'm prepared to do that to some extent i i i guess my understanding and and i had spoken with some folks from the city and they had indicated that it probably would be remanded um so i am prepared to make some arguments but i would certainly like to have some more time uh to flush those out a little bit more if that's what the board wants so My apologies that I didn't flush those completely out. It was my understanding that it would be remanded today.

It seems to me that there's three possible outcomes here. Number one, we could disagree with the ARC board on the merits. executive session is moot. Secondly, we could decide to approve the decision below, in which case the executive session becomes, is in play. And then we would have to deal with that. And then the third is that we don't think the executive session is a problem. And we think the art board ought to be case you lose all the way around. So those are the three options. It seems to me that the best way to go at this is to hear the merits. And if it turns out that we like what our board did, then we'll think about whether or not to go back because of the executive session. What do you guys think?

I guess I'm looking at it a little differently. If staff and our attorney were to say that there is an issue here and it needs to be remanded, I think anything that we discuss, we'd be discussing again if it came back and it'd be duplicative. um and that it could come back in two months so at least with my memory um you know that's a long time so i i just i don't think there's a a reason for us again it's all dependent on what you all tell us uh if if you believe it should be remanded

I think there certainly is an issue with the executive session and how it was entered into and why it was entered into. Remanding it back would basically allow them to have the hearing, hear the hearing, discuss the issues, and make their decision without the inappropriate or questionable executive session.

And in the absence of that, I want to ask, because I think this will help with the deliberation as well, based on what Bob has raised here, or Mr. Carl, would it be your request if we aren't ruling on the remand that you're asking for a continuance to prepare? Correct. Okay. So the request from the applicant is either to rule on the remand or to ask for a continuance, which we could vote on. and either agree with or pass it or deny.

Well, if we give them a continuance, it doesn't solve any problem. Nothing gets solved. So we're either going to have to decide this thing on the question of whether it has to go back for another hearing.

And if I may just to add, if we go forward tonight and the decision is adverse to our position, obviously we're going to appeal that. And I think that the executive session question is a fatal error and we're wasting even more time. So, I'm just throwing that out there. Certainly, you have counsel to advise you of that. I'm not trying to step on his toes in any way, but that would be my opinion.

Well, it seems to me it all depends on your confidence and the strength of your case.

I mean, I think we have a strong case, but I'm certainly not willing to take the chance and then waste more time appealing to the next level.

There is also the question of introduction of new evidence. Correct. So if we compel or encourage him to introduce evidence at this stage, he may not be able to have more evidence later. If he so chooses. I don't know if you're prepared to introduce more evidence at this point or not, but based on the new revised administrative process, they only get to do that one.

I have a procedural question. Is there a mechanism for us to bifurcate the issues where we take up the remand question first, and if we decide that It should not be remanded for, I'm sorry, we take up the executive session issue first, and if we decide that there was no issue with that and it will not be remanded, give the applicant an opportunity to move to continue the second issue on the merits.

Procedurally, I think that makes sense to me. I'm open to counsel, but I think that it's a foundational question.

I think that's appropriate. I mean, with just motion and second on whatever... You would want that motion and second to be, and then move on to a second issue if that's the pleasure of the board.

So we have to make a motion to do a deliberation on the first? Well, you said there was a motion. Is the motion after we deliberated on the remand?

Raise a motion, then deliberation, or raise motion second, deliberation, vote. That's what I was asking. Yeah.

So essentially, if we vote to remand, then we're done tonight. If we vote not to remand, then we move on to the case.

But there's two issues that could cause the remand. The first is the executive session. The second is the merits, right? And what I'm hearing from the applicant is that he's prepared to discuss the executive session issue but would like additional time to prepare for the merits issue.

Well, if we're remanding it back, he gets a whole new case. I mean, he gets, correct me if I'm incorrect, but essentially it starts over and he will be heard on the merits again in front of the art court and can introduce new evidence at that time. If there is any.

Okay. So I have another procedural question and I, this could be for the applicant. This could be for counsel. Um, What does the statute say is the remedy if there is an improper executive session? The first question is, what does the law say? And I guess the second question is, what remedy is the applicant seeking?

Well, the law says you can't do it. The law says there are six reasons to go into executive session.

Right. But what's the remedy if executive session is

is entered and there's not an applicable exception it's not outlined under the law so there is case law there's case law on this from the ohio supreme court in 2024 on barca which states that um there would be a new hearing essentially that would need to be in the public yeah yeah and my understanding is is um

If it gets to the court of common, please the court of common, please can issue an injunction and can award attorneys fees and costs and things of that nature. So that is outlined in 121 22. I won, um, and to a, um, you know, obviously there's a reasonableness standard regarding those damages and things, but

is mr scott and what you found is there any analysis of whether the executive session impacted the final decision of the board that improperly entered into an executive session or is it binary it essentially rendered the the hearing illegal it's a foundational issue yeah and so therefore it needed to essentially start over

That was the remedy to that. There was no other remedy that the court could come up with.

So are we looking for someone to make a motion to remand?

No, we need to deliberate a bit on that first.

Someone makes the motion, and then we deliberate. That's what I heard. That's what I'm saying. Right.

Make a motion, get a second.

So I'll... I would like to ask the applicant one more question, if that's possible. Sure. In your review of the Art Board's final decision, were there any findings that were unsupported by evidence that was presented during the open session? I believe that there were. What were they?

The essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered. The variance would not adversely affect delivery of government services. The applicant's predicament can be obviated feasibly through adjustments to the proposed door. There was a finding and I'm not finding it quickly here regarding that there would be damage to the surrounding properties, the value of the surrounding properties. I don't think any of that was discussed in the open portion of the hearing, but I haven't looked at the transcript for a bit.

I'm sorry, this is just for the recording. Can you please come to the podium and identify yourself?

Samantha Arnold, I'm one of the owners. I've watched, I was there for the meeting. I'm the one that pointed out the executive session. And I just watched it on Friday. It was not addressed in the meeting at all. They called executive session. went in there, came out with the decision on the board before they even sat down.

Thank you.

Refused to let us talk.

Did you have anything else you wanted to add on the... on the issue around the executive session. We just want to make sure we do.

Sure, absolutely, and I appreciate that. Again, just to indicate that I think probably the most feasible way to take care of this is to send it back, remand it, have a new hearing, do it the way it's supposed to be done. If we get a good decision, great. That's what we're hoping for. If we don't, we'll come back and we go from there. I think it's probably the least amount of time, and I think it's probably the best use of everyone's resources.

Thank you. Is there any discussion amongst the board or any other questions for the applicant at this point?

because of the executive session. Anything else to discuss?

I move that we go to deliberation on the question of remand.

Second. Is that necessary for us to go into deliberation or we can have just a motion?

and i was just going initially i mean you can do with uh is there were you going to second mr jones i'm sorry for interrupting i guess just a point of clarification mr scott your motion is just to open deliberation on the the remand question for executive session second um we have a motion and a second uh miss rodak can you call the roll please

Mr. Scott?

Yes.

Mr. Jones?

Yes. Mr. Dyer? Yes. Mr. Carl? Yes. Chair Bronstein?

Yes. All right. We now can deliberate. Is there anything specifically, Corey, that you wanted to discuss?

So my question to council is around the function of the architectural review board. as a design review committee versus a quasi-judicial entity.

So they are not, even though they behave as a quasi-judicial entity, they are not one. You have to dig deep into case law for this, but because neither Hudson Law nor Ohio Law requires them to have hearings witnesses and so forth which are the quasi-judicial pieces the arc board does it and that's fine to do it but it's not required so they could just get the petition make a decision and wouldn't have to do any of the things that they do so and a secondary is that their the appeals don't go to common pleas they go to another level of administrative which is less decisive, but a weight towards the non-quasi-judicial. So it's rather clear that they are administrative, not quasi-judicial.

And I had a question for staff, just to get it on the record. During that executive session, was counsel present during that? No.

Does anybody else have anything?

Yes. Looking at the statute about executive sessions, it says that the board that conducts the executive session should state Generally, what happened in the executive session? I'm not seeing that in their opinion. Is it elsewhere recorded what the subject matter of the executive session is or was?

It was not in the findings of fact.

It wasn't in the final decision anywhere, but I just wondered, did somebody tell you orally what was going on in there?

I can indicate that when they came back, They simply said that they were going into executive session, went into executive session. When they came back out, they made no indication of what was discussed, and that was the end of the hearing.

I'll state, just for the record, that that was my observation. Also, I think it's important to bring into the record the June meeting on the ARC board where they brought the findings of fact in for a vote. So I don't know if we have those minutes available. So they did, yeah, so this was in June, it was June 10th, right?

Yes, June 10th.

So in June 10th, they brought the findings of fact there, and they asked if there were any questions or comments amongst themselves, and there were none. And then they voted to approve the findings of fact. I think it's important to put that on the record as well.

So your understanding is state what was going on in the executive committee.

I mean, the argument that the art board could have is that, no, actually what was in the findings of fact is what we discussed in executive session. But they didn't say that. But they didn't say that. I'm just saying.

And if they had done that in executive session, that would have been flat illegal. Yep.

But, yeah, I just want to make sure that that was clear. There was also a question on timeliness. So the findings of fact were the quote-unquote decision, at least as far as what was entered into the public record, was on June 10th. However, it was not made available to the appellant until later. It was, I believe, the 20th. And so that we have for appeals, it's a 20 day window. I just wanted to get on record council's interpretation of timeliness, given that if we went off of the Decision date on here. It would be it would be too late to correct.

Correct. If you go off the decision date of when the decision was made available, then they're within their time. And that's what you need to do. Due process requires they be given notice and then the clock starts.

That might come up again in a future case. I just want to make sure. any other deliberation or can i get a a motion relative to the subject of the deliberation i think um i mean i think we should just uh just so that or um practicing what we preach i i want to state on the record that i believe the the uh i agree with the appellant that the um the executive session was unlawful It failed multiple standards, including, by the way, a roll call, which is required, and there was no roll call in that meeting. You know, the purpose was not stated other than to discuss the matter, which is insufficient. It did not meet the Open Meetings Act definitions for when that would be in place. So I personally believe that it was

I agree with Mr. Scott. I think that it was a mistake to approach the hearing this way. And I think our best option procedurally to alleviate this is to do what the applicant has suggested and that it makes the most sense.

I'm happy to include this in a motion if I make the motion. But I do think we should specify that we did not pass on the question of merits at all, that they were not considered, and that we include specific direction that at the subsequent hearing that all applicable Ohio statutes and Hudson ordinances be followed.

I agree. And thank you. This tripped a trigger in my head for council. Chris, uh, because this remand is not specifically so in, in our, um, hold on, let me go back up to the expectations for when we remand a case because the expectations are not outlined for this type of situation. And I think I want us to be clear in our instructions as to what we are remanding. Um, but hold on, let me go to the rule. Re-mand order. So in 1212.01 , it says a reviewing body may re-mand the matter to the underlying body or decision maker if the original findings in the appeal decision are determined to be incomplete, unclear, or not supported by sufficient evidence. The remand order shall include instructions for underlying body or decision maker to gather more evidence, conduct further analysis, explain its reasoning more clearly, or re-examine facts and issue a new, more thorough, we're essentially remanding this for a completely new hearing, correct?

Yeah, this situation doesn't fall under the- All under this specific remand.

Yeah. Okay. So I just want to be clear, do we in the motion need to set out beyond just a sentence on why we're remanding it or we're going to be issuing a written decision with the remand specifics? I just want us to make sure we get this right.

You certainly can put in there whatever you choose to put in there. So the more you put in, the more detail. I think the message will probably come through as far as what was done wrong. And I would think.

I appreciate that. It went off of your question, Mr. Jones.

It seems to me that the decision that we issue should state the specific problem that as a result of this problem, the decision is null and void. That's what the statute says. which is based upon the record.

And a new hearing.

And a new hearing because the old hearing was marked by an executive session that wasn't described.

Do we need to issue a written order on this?

That was my question.

I'm sure we do because it's a remand and they're going to say, so what's going on?

But our remand, our written decision can come 20 days after. I believe that's what it is. I believe it's 20 issued, 20 days. It won't take us that long.

If that's the case, do we need a formal motion on our remand?

decision or you need to make sure everything's covered in deliberation yes yeah yeah which i think we have well it seems to me that um we should we should agree among us as to what the direction of the order is going to be and then somebody draft it and circulate it and if we all you know have each other then then in the end that this is the order that we want to issue. As we've done in the past with the written decision.

Yeah, and essentially the function of the vote tonight is that we, if we all agree, is that we are agreeing that this should be remanded. We will provide our written decision.

Yes, we agree that it should be remanded for the problem. Because an executive session is held without the proper decision that the board put out is known.

Other questions, comments? Or is somebody prepared at this point to make a motion?

I'd like to make a motion. I move that.

Do I need to do the outline or the whole outline? Well, at least provide the case. Yeah, sure.

So this is docket number 2026-906, an appeal under section 1212.01B. from the final decision of the Architectural and Historic Board of Review in case 2025-1478 for the property at 88 North Main Street, parcel number 3201390. The applicant is Attorney Joseph Kernan. For the behalf of the owners, Kevin and Samantha Arnold. The property owner of record is Declan Thomas Limited. So we find the decision unlawful for the following reasons. Ohio Revised Code Section 121.22 provides that a formal action adopted in an open meeting is invalid if it results in deliberations from a meeting not open to the public. unless those deliberations are for both a purpose specifically authorized in Section G and conducted an executive session and held in compliance with the statute. And the record does not show either. During our deliberation, we discussed all of those factors. So I'm further moved that we remand and that's back to the Architectural and Historic Board of Review, asking them to reconvene their hearing on this matter and that they meet all requirements around open meetings law as well as Hudson code. for conducting their meeting as well as their own administrative rules.

Are there any additions or a second?

ask that we add to your motion mr scott that a formal decision will follow in writing yes and the formal decision will follow and write second miss rodak we have a motion that has been seconded may you please call the roll mr scott yes mr jones yes mr dyer yes mr carl yes chair bronstein yes

You got your remand. We will issue our written decision and circulate it.

Thank you for your time. Thank you.

All right. And with that, that's a great question. Do we want to vote on that tonight? And who's going to be writing that? I mean, we don't have to vote, but will somebody raise their hand to volunteer for that? All right, Bob was volunteered. Um, you could circulate, uh, an initial draft and we can comment on that. Um, Ms. Rodak, I don't see anything other under other business, but do we have, um, we obviously have one case for next month, which is the continued case. Yes. Are there any other cases?

Yes, we have a lot of cases and I don't believe all of them will go, but we got, and I just got one right now, nine applications. So generally we do four. We don't have a specific in our administrative rules, a specific number to cut off. Did bring up our calendar which has this in the event. There are more than five cases for any regularly scheduled monthly meeting At the discretion of staff and consulting with the chairman any additional cases may be subject to a meeting date one week after the Regularly scheduled meeting or at the discretion of the board.

So so we're there.

So we're there I Have to look through make sure which ones can actually go through. Some people are still, they have until tomorrow to see if they submit enough documents. I believe at least two will be knocked off, but that will still be above the five. So after I can determine which will be next week, which cases will actually be moving on, I will then reach out and discuss, do we want to do a week after? Do we just want to push it to the next meeting? Are we going to do a special meeting? Does anyone have any opinions off the bat?

Well, of the nine, can you give us an idea of what types of case we're looking at? Yes.

So the continuance, the new house, the work in the wetlands and stream corridor from the last meeting. One is an accessory structure, a pool in a side yard instead of a rear yard. One is an addition requesting a side yard setback variance. I have to review. This may be An expansion of non-conforming structure, which can be less, but I would still need to review that first. Another for an addition requesting a side yard setback variance. Another request to expand non-conforming structure. A potential dentist office requesting maximum parking spaces variance. A variance for front-facing garage doors. And a variance for to exceed the max square foot of an accessory structure. And the one that just came in, I'm not sure what that one was.

So no appeals at this point.

No appeals at this point. No, no appeals. No, I believe this goes, if this gets done, this may come back in October or November, depending on that process.

I guess just generally, does anybody have an opinion on additional meeting or pushing to the next regularly scheduled meeting?

Just on my schedule, I was not going to be able to attend the next meeting. 17th meeting. And I'm also, we'll be out of town on the 24th.

So the week after as well?

Yes. I will also not be available on the 17th or the 24th. Oh.

Will other three be available the 17th? I will be available the 17th. Yeah, I'll be here.

Same.

Okay, great. Then we have quorum. Okay. We'll have to reach unanimous decisions. Yes, that's true.

All right. We can usually be unanimous.

So the options would be to wait until first week of October, just push it to the 15th of October, our regularly scheduled October meeting, or any other day. It's at the discretion of the board. So there's a couple meetings at Town Hall. So we might have to go to City Hall. It just kind of depends on what people's availability is. And we still have an entire month, so even if we push these four cases to October, we may then have more coming in in the next month, and then we have to push it again until November.

How much notice do we have to give to the applicants that would be pushed to a different meeting?

We send out notices 15 days before the meeting. So I would, after I've figured out.

That's to the neighbors. Yeah, let's. So we really work off that. Yeah.

And then administratively, how long can we wait to hear an applicant that has come before us or is asking to come before us?

We can, I don't have that on hand. I can look at that.

I don't know if we have specifically how long they have to wait.

Would Lydia, Bob, and Keenan be available the 24th if we need that meeting?

I don't have anything on my calendar right now, but I'm scheduling a mediation, and it's up in the air. And it's on Pacific time.

I'm available on the 24th. Okay.

have to look through to see if we have a specific timeline that they have to be heard i don't remember seeing that in our admin rules but i'll have to double check if it has to be on a thursday october 1 i know i don't have anything right now it doesn't have to be on a thursday it can really be up to the board whenever and wherever so it could just be at city hall on a wednesday we just have to juggle other boards and hctv and those types of things yeah is there a requirement that we hear no more than five There is not a requirement that you have to stop at 5.

We have to leave the building. But yeah, they do have to leave the building.

The lights go off at, what, 1130 or something?

I cannot recall a meeting where we were able to get through 5 since I've been here. That's quite an undertaking.

Let's break that record.

If you're efficient.

And if they are non-conforming structures, those tend to be smaller discussions.

It's just tough if people come here and then they can't be heard. That's really bad. That was my question, I guess. You have to send people home? Right. That's not good.

And the reality is that hopefully the first case in front of us that's continued will be at least self-explanatory at this point.

So it sounds like you're going to look at what we have.

Yeah, I'll have to look out. I will reach out to the board and say, we definitely have nine cases, and we definitely have six cases. What's the availability? How do we want to manage this?

Great.

All right. With that, can I get a motion to adjourn?

Move we adjourn.

Can I get a second? Second. So moved. All right.