City Council - Regular Meeting

We are 07:30, we're gonna go ahead and get started. Hello and welcome everyone. We did start early tonight with an executive session to interview applicants for boards and commissions. As such, we will now resume our normally scheduled public meeting. I would like to take a moment and welcome everyone who is here in attendance tonight, as well as those who may be watching remotely via the HCTV video feed. We will resume with item three on our agenda, the Pledge of Allegiance. Will you please stand and join me?

Which stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you everyone. We will move on to section four on the agenda for roll call. Miss Wheeler, will you please call the roll?

Doctor. Bird? Here. Mr. Brezovich?

Here.

Mr. Ramo? Here. Doctor. Goetz? Here. Mr. Sutton? Here. Doctor. Weinstein? Here. Mr. White?

Here. Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. We do have a quorum tonight with all seven members of council present. We will close section four and move on to section five approval of the minutes. Item A number 20 six-fifteen includes the 02/17/2026 combined council meeting and work workshop minutes. Do we have a motion from council to accept the minutes as provided?

I move we accept the minutes as provided.

Thank you, Councilor Gaetz. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Councilor Brezovic. Is there any discussion on the minutes as provided? Seeing none, Mrs. Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote?

Mr. Brezovich? Yes. Mr. Ramo? Yes. Doctor. Getz? Yes. Mr. Sutton?

Yes.

Doctor. Weinstein? Absteen. Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird?

Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. The approval of the minutes as provided passes by a vote of six in favor to zero against with one abstention. We will close section five and move on to section six, which is public comments.

Counsel and myself value and respect comments from the public aligned with the City Of Hudson codified ordinance 220.03 titled rules item G subtitled decorum. I'm kindly asking everyone in attendance to remain respectful of the process and display courtesy professionalism and order at all times. Please mute your electronic devices if you have not already done so and if you must leave the room prior to the completion of our meeting, please do so as quietly as possible. Also per ordinance 220.03 and sub item G, public comments are to be kept within five minutes. Given the amount of people here tonight and the expected public comments, I will be holding everybody to that five minutes and not considering any additional two minute extensions.

As a continued reminder, there is a device on the lectern with three lights, a green light indicates that the five minute timer has begun. An orange light will come on and illuminate when there's one minute remaining, it will flash at twenty seconds and at the end of that five minute time period, it will turn red notifying the speaker that your time has expired. I will help verbally remind everyone as well. Therefore per the City Of Hudson Charter Article three, section 3.02, if there is any resident of the municipality here tonight who would like to speak to City Council regarding any topic that's relevant to the City of Hudson, kindly raise your hand, gain my attention as you are verbally called upon. Please approach the lectern, state your name and address and counsel will hear your remarks.

Is there anyone here tonight who would like to speak to counsel? If you would approach the lectern, state your name and address into the microphone for the record, sir.

My name is Richard Roller, 38 resident at 70 East Streetsboro Street, Hudson. Thank you sir. My pleasure. Mayor, council, thank you. I'm here tonight because I'm not really happy with the possibilities of rezoning South Of 91 in front of Terex.

Lived here this many years, seen a lot of unfortunately businesses come and go in the downtown historic district. Restaurants, retail, what have you. And in those years, I've also managed to know quite a few of the store owners. And a lot of these stores are running on a real, real thin line. And I know some of the restaurants are not that great either under those circumstances.

And I just feel that if we rezone this, from what I hear as far as what I've read, restaurants, retail, maybe a hotel or motel or what have you. That part doesn't bother me, the retail and the restaurants do. As far as taking that that money out of downtown. And I I feel it's with 1st And Main, what the city has really accomplished with 1st And Main, is a destination point for the region. And there's not a lot of turnover, especially with the national retail at 1st And Main.

But we as you have seen over the years, quite a number of changes in the local retail part of 1st And Main, as well as Main Street itself. Wasn't that long ago that there were five empty storefronts on Main Street. That's too many. It doesn't look good for the city also. So I'm just getting my opinion as far as how I feel about it. We love this city. We're antique dealers. We live in a 172 year old house. Everything in that house dates back to that time frame. And we love the fact that the city embraces history.

And I'm hoping that without this zoning change, it'll continue with our downtown. And thank you very much.

Thank you sir. Additional public comment tonight? Sir? Just state your name and address sir.

Jacob, 1727 Norton Road. So I've lived here twenty six years, actually on a family property that dates back to 1948 when it used to be Darrowville. So the family's seen a lot of change. I'm on the Hudson side of the road obviously. I don't want my Hudson side of the road to become like the Stowe side. Stowe Side is a mishmash of just all different things. They don't even have a downtown. I mean, Mark's is the downtown. It's not even a good Mark's if you ask me. So I don't want that.

I concur with the other resident about what it would do to the businesses. So I do like that about Hudson. I would say they could do a better job with the downtown and I would probably focus on that before we try to build like another little downtown or whatever's gonna go on there. But actually what concerns me the most is the multi family and the townhomes. I'd like to know why was that added? I looked at that cheat sheet. Those are on there. Also veterinary offices, which sounds kinda innocent. But if you look on 91, there's already four veterinarian offices. There's Keystone Veterinaria, Instow, that's Darrowville to me.

Hudson Chiropractic, which is alternative pet care, Hudson Veterinary, and also the Veterinary Center of Hudson. They're all right there in 91, I don't know why we need more. So where did this come from? And again, with the residential, what resident says I want townhomes near me? I want multi family near me. I don't get it. So I know that the demographics may be changing, maybe some older people and we need more. But I look at the value of the multi family in downtown. For example, my friend bought, I guess it's called Versailles. He bought a condo there for like 50,000 just a few years ago.

So obviously the values aren't doing that well. So why would I want something like that next to my property? And what kind of multi family? Is it gonna be like some multi story unit? Again, don't wanna be like Stowe. And also the multifamily that exists here in Hudson, there are several examples where these properties are dilapidated. There's several on 91. And I just feel like we don't need more quantity, we need more quality. Shaker Heights has code enforcement, you gotta do certain repairs. I would like something like that on the existing properties.

We don't need to just proliferate more in my opinion. And I don't need more congestion. Again, I'll go to Stowe if I want that. So thank you.

Thank you, sir. Additional public comment tonight? Mr. Roth.

George Roth, 28 Hudson Common Drive. As a former council person and council president here, I was in office when we when I pushed to get 1st And Main built, and it had been debated for twenty years over what's gonna be built, and where it's gonna be built, and how we're gonna maintain the downtown. And it's seeing I know something has to be done down there at the Joanne Fabric site down there, there's no question about it. This town still needs is desperately in need of single family housing for empty nesters like me. Lived in a nice 3,000 foot historic home up here in the Corner Of Oviatt 303, and now I'm at Hudson Commons over there at about 2,100 square feet.

It's new, it's different, it's not as visible as I I was on that corner up there to see all my friends from the police department, the fire department, and the other city employees, as well as the neighbors. I have to place empties out. Regardless, my concern is is that we made a commitment when I was on city council that we were gonna maintain Downtown Hudson as the hub of all business and restaurants and so on. And to me, this is we're opening up a whole section down there that needs to be developed, but I don't wanna see restaurants and businesses down there that are gonna take away from the businesses downtown. It's important that we maintain downtown, just like Richard Roller and Ryan were saying.

And

it it just disturbs me to see some of the things coming out of the Planning Commission and what's been done over the recent few years, a lot of bad decisions have come out of there, and it's just unfortunate. And I don't wanna see another bad decision come out of the planning commission that this council will subscribe to or may subscribe to. So I just implore you to keep in mind the commitment that a former council former councils have made to the businesses and restaurant tiers in town here to keep the downtown downtown. That's what I got to say, thank you.

Thank you, sir. Additional public comment? Ms. Curtin.

Good evening. Cynthia Curtin, 1102 Cutler Lane, longtime Hudson resident and also former chair of Planning Commission, actually oversaw the new downtown development. I too here am here to express concern about this proposed rezoning, redistricting of the Joanne property. Our country is based in law. We have codified laws and we have laws that are set in precedent and so I ask you, what is the precedent for doing this, for making this type of decision?

What is it? Let us know. People move to Hudson for a variety of reasons. They come for the charm, the schools, because it's far from Cleveland, near the Turnpike, whatever it is, then they wanna come in and change it. So what is, I ask you, what is the urgency for wanting to redistrict this property right now?

In case you're not familiar, we have in our city charter, in section nine that talks about the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is in effect shall be the operative growth management policy for the municipality. We just had a recent comprehensive plan approved by the city not too long ago and also if you're not familiar, on page 19 of the comprehensive plan, it talks about how to use the plan and it says, a comprehensive plan is a community's blueprint for the future. Nowhere in this recent comprehensive plan does it talk about redistricting, rezoning this parcel of land. So again, I ask you, what is it?

What is the urgency and what is it that you're relying on and pointing to to make this change? I think that by ignoring things that are set in the comprehensive plan, I consider it an abuse of power by this body. I think that sometimes you have to do what's right. It takes courage sometimes to do what's right. If it doesn't smell right, doesn't feel right, doesn't sound right, then perhaps it's just not right.

And so why not take a step back and I'd urge you and respectfully request that you vote no on this ordinance, take some time, get more input, think about it, get professional input, get citizen input before you make any decision. Thank you.

Thank you ma'am. Additional public comment tonight? Ma'am in the white sweater.

Nora Jacobs, 34 Division Street, been here for forty seven years. I'd just like, if you'll indulge me, to read into the record the email that I sent to everyone earlier today if that's acceptable. Dear members of council, as longtime residents of the historic district, my husband George Snyder and I are deeply concerned about the rezoning of the Joann property that is being considered by council. We see every day how the presence of stores and restaurants in our downtown commercial district lends enormous vitality to what is undeniably the most important and distinctive part of our city. We also see how challenging it is for these businesses to be successful.

Retail is hard, margins are thin, and customers can be fickle. That is why we believe allowing these types of businesses at the Joann site poses an enormous threat to our community. Time and time again, we have seen downtown communities hollowed out when retail is allowed to spread unchecked on the fringes. One only need Google the Walmart effect to appreciate what has happened to small towns across America when too much retail is permitted to compete in a small market. We urge counsel to pause its approval of this matter to fully consider the consequences and the disastrous effect it could have on Downtown Hudson.

There are plenty of restaurants from the Barlow Road Drug Mart Plaza stretching to Norton And Fish Creek Roads. We suspect, that Stowe's planned AMP will provide a necessary retail boost in that area as well. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Additional public comment tonight, sir?

McClosman, Hudson, Ohio, Blue Heron Drive. You've probably never had this said before, but I was reflecting on the last State of the Union address when President Trump asked the question, is it the government's job to protect citizens or illegal immigrants? You have the same type of question. Not that, but same idea. Is your rezoning effort done in a manner that is protects existing businesses?

If it doesn't, you shouldn't do it. You make a bad decision on bricks and mortar and you'll live with that forever, Ever. It won't go away. It'll always be there. If it becomes just another strip center, which I think it will, with businesses flowing in and out, low end retail, you're not doing anything for the city.

Worst of all, all these people at First and Main are left out hanging in the wind, blowing whatever can be said that puts them in a position that you will put them in, you'll be putting them in. I spent a lot of time down there. Since COVID, restaurant business hasn't been the same. Traffic hasn't been the same. It's all changed.

Now, you have a comprehensive plan. Learned a few things. I was stunned to learn this. From 1920 yeah. 2020, 2010 to 2020, this city grew 1,711 people.

We're not a growth area at all. We are a little town. Why you wanna create another strip center down here where Terex is is beyond anything I could dream of in a way of a justification. If you look at the comprehensive plan, it tells you some interesting things. How much more of the following types of development response we'd like to see in the future?

Restaurants dine in and carry out. 50% just about right or we have too much. What's that tell you? It tells you don't do that. Okay.

Our respondents rate the filing city current growth in the following areas, commercial and restaurants. It indicates that we're at 56% are in the just right to too fast. We're over 50% again. Why would Are we trying to go the other way? I don't know.

Maybe you are. What's our biggest problem? Everybody knows that because everybody complains, traffic. What's the most important element of this town, business of this town, it's education. It's the Hudson School System.

That is the magnet that draws people here. That's why they come here. They don't come here to shop at strip malls with low end retail and restaurant availability. So, I think it's pretty clear. I think the citizens have spoken. And I ask this question, was there some some kind of a study done of First and Main and the business there? How well they're doing? Anybody looked at how many closures? There have been remarks, and I know there have been significant number of closures. So why are we doing this?

Bad mistakes live with you forever. I hope you don't make one. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Additional public comment tonight, sir, in the dark

contrarian. The shops on downtown here, they don't just compete locally, they compete with other areas around there. Either there's a compelling reason that people wanna go there or not. Adding or whatever the rezoning idea is, down where Joanne is, I kind of weave two things together. If they want more business, how about more people in town?

Think two pieces that would be complimentary and if I'm going to put multifamily houses or housing down there, I think if I live in that neighborhood, it'd be nice to have a coffee shop there or you know some little kind of thing. So yeah, have some foot traffic and it makes it really compelling kind of a nice little center community down there. So the other options is the owner of that large building. If they can't get some plausible, and it's a business, some plausible profitable use of that land and that building, At worse, it just becomes a derelict. They don't use it and it just sits idle.

I don't think that's much of a help to the city either. I know you guys are really in a jam to kind of split hairs on this thing, but I do see a compelling reason that you grow the city, you grow the community that's gonna go and visit these places downtown. And again, they might have a challenge now with economic conditions and trying to make a go of it, but that's not gonna change if there's stores down there or stores in Twinsburg or Stowe, people either wanna go there or don't.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Additional public comment tonight? Sir in the black jacket.

Hi, Steve Rudrick, 5 Laurel Lake Drive, Hudson, thirty year resident. I agree with almost everything that's been said here tonight, and I would emphasize a couple more positions. One is, it seems like, the community put a lot of effort into the comprehensive plan, lots of citizen input, many, many meetings over lots and lots of time. And this redistricting just doesn't seem consistent to me with the comprehensive plan. We have a comprehensive plan.

Seems like we ought to follow it or pay more attention to it. This redistricting seems, I wasn't prepared to make remarks tonight, but it seems like it's more developer driven by the owner of the current property and not citizen driven. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Additional public comment? Mr. Zidek?

Todd Zidak, 16 Hudson Common. I've been a resident for sixty years. I was honored to be a part of the comprehensive plan creation and I thank the community members here assembled for apparently finding value in that. Developers are very, very good at looking out for their interests, which they should be, good for them. However, my community's interest extends far beyond the short term interests of any developer or any property owner.

The timeline for my community is a hundred years, not three. The only way that major developments should move forward is to first articulate the values of the community. Why do we live here? Why did we move here? Why do we stay here?

The comprehensive plan attempted to do that through outreach, surveys, it was torturous, and it was really valuable. We then hired three independent, professional urban planners to review the space available, the values of the community, and you say go forth, return with ideas, with ways to use that property, use that land, in keeping and bolstering the values of the community in which it exists. You then select you as a body, select from all of those ideas the three best in your opinion, and you put those up for a vote. And the community decides, I'm not qualified to say what should go into that property, I have no idea. I have no idea the economic impacts, the long term ramifications, but I do know that making a mistake, making a short term decision, is painful for a long time.

I know that. And I know that this community has put forward an effort. We have many, many long standing community members. Why are people speaking here today who've lived here for ten, twenty, thirty, forty years. And are you about to do things that encourage that, that bolster that?

How does the addition of a strip mall, a shopping mall, at the Joann Fabrics bolster our community? How does it do it? You can ask yourself the question. How does that tie into our values as a community? The playground that's being built, wonderful.

How does that tie into the values of our community? About every which way, which is why it's wonderful that it's being done. It's wonderful that the previous council moved it forward, it's wonderful that this council didn't block it, it's wonderful, the whole thing is great, because it speaks to what we value. I wrote things down.

You have one minute. In

conclusion, a large number of community members spent a year and a half of every other Wednesday for month after month, putting together that comprehensive plan. I think it's wonderful, I worked on it, but I think there's much value in it, and it's said, use the values of our community to leverage and direct what we're trying to do. And I hope you listen. Thank you.

Thank you sir. Additional public comment tonight? Anyone else? Mr. Revita.

Anthony Ravita, 1746 Edgar Drive. My counsel sent me something to play for you guys. Think it has something to do with what's going on here.

They have to lie. Because if they were to be honest with people, they would have to tell them that you beat them at a game that you didn't even wanna play. You didn't even know you were playing. They designed and they were cheating at. And after all of that, they chose to villainize you.

So they can't be honest because honesty would paint them as an idiot.

When I say this, I wish I can say that in a honorable way that any any of this stuff that I've gone through with this has been done in an honest way. It's been just the absolute opposite. I gave you guys some printouts and a lot of it is just self explanatory. But one of the things I had mentioned is that there is no law against mesh. And I went through three, four hundred pages.

I talked to Mr. Sheridan this week and the only thing that came up with is the only thing that in this material that the city has is that all other fence materials, including chain link fence or vinyl Chad chain link fence is prohibited. The mesh is not prohibited. It's part of whatever they, you know, it's not something that the city would be like, that's chain link, we can't do it. I'm in an area where there's nothing but mesh.

One of the things on this, one of the articles, Article three, fence heights and materials shall be compatible with their site location and surrounding development. Surrounding development is all mesh fence. I match my neighborhood. There's six houses in my neighborhood and from my understanding from my neighbor that's been here forty five years, there's never been anything used for the easeway. The easeway is something that again to remind you, it's for electricity, gas, sewer.

We don't have any of that. We sidewalk. Don't have We don't have a street light. So in her forty five years, that ease way has never been used. When engineering came out, they basically said you have to be 10 feet out. Understood that. I understood. I made 11 feet back just to be safe. The engineering department never found the pins, so they couldn't tell me exactly where it was, just said be 10 feet back. I was 11 feet back.

This to me has been just a waste of time for everyone, a waste of money. And it's a shame that the city can't go forward with this. I think you'll see on the first page that Mr. Foster had said, if I die tomorrow, this is his statement, if I die tomorrow, this city will still go after your violations. There is no violations. And I believe the city is still following his direction. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.

Additional public comment tonight? Name in the back.

Hi, my name is Larkin Rogers. I live on Elm Street. I have lived in Hudson on and off since 1970. Some of you know my mother, Ginger Rogers. And I agree with everything that has been said, about the comprehensive plan, the redistricting and so I'll be quick because what they said.

So I would like to ask you to slow your vote about, to rush to amend the official zoning district map seems to be a reinterpretation of the comprehensive plan, a plan that was developed with deliberation, care and consideration. I've read much of the supporting documentation on this redistricting issue and it seems that there's confusion about, as to what this latest iteration of the comprehensive plan set out to achieve. Before any construction starts, it would be well to clarify what the direction and goals were as set out in the original plan. I'm not against any development, but feel it's crucial that is approached with the utmost care. Surely the goal whether intended or not is not to make the existing downtown as well as phase one and perhaps even the as yet unrealized phase two redundant.

Yet proceeding to amend the official zoning district map to establish zoning District 11 would most likely achieve just that. It's not a fitting way to honor the city's legacy. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional public comment tonight? Anyone else? I do have a letter, but I will read that into the next section under correspondence and council comments. If there is no additional public comment from the audience, we will close section six and move on to section seven. Mayor. Order

Yes. Do we want to give our comments about District 11 during the legislation discussion of District 11 or do we wanna do it during comments?

Your point is well taken. My comment there is I believe we should do that in this next section correspondence and council comments. There could be a motion before we get into discussion. Let me back up and further clarify this. If you wanted to hold comment to the discussion on the legislative item, we could potentially not have a motion to pass that and then we never get to a discussion point.

So there is a potential of not having a discussion on that legislative item. So therefore I would recommend that any council comments relative to the legislative item or any feedback from residents here in public comment that we make those in section seven for correspondence and council comments. They will be then guaranteed to be into the record. Thank you, Council President Byrd. We will continue then with Section seven, if any council member has correspondence that hasn't already been generally distributed and or council comments, we will hear those now. Please gain my attention and allow me to verbally recognize you and assign you the floor. Are there any comments from council tonight? Councilor Durema.

I would like to begin by thanking everyone who has sent emails, attended the meetings in person, and taken the time to share their comments. Your engagement shows how much you guys care about the community, and I truly appreciate that involvement. As a new council member, I understand that this rezoning feels like a significant change. I I also recognize that a new council brings change as well. What I assure you is that we are all here because we love the quaint charm of Hudson and I would find that, in fact, that's the reason why most of us moved here.

I know that was the reason I did. So I would guess that preserving the character is one of the main reasons for this. But I wanna clarify that District 11 is not a new development. This proposal has been under discussion for some time and included a subcommittee made up of members from our previous city council. This has been a continued process, not something that has just recently emerged.

We've been presented with detailed information and analysis from qualified city staff and that's kind of how I take into all my information. I'm in health care, I'm not in economics and I have considered their expertise along with the feedback of residents in reaching my decision this evening. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that we will attract another business like Joann Fabrics to that space. Economic conditions have shifted and we must adapt adapt to those changes if we wanna remain financially responsible and support long term sustainability for our city. I know this proposal has gone through Planning Commission and we've already actually made some of those modifications throughout this process.

So I just wanted to kind of put it on public comment that I appreciate everyone's comment. I hear what everyone's saying. I'm I'm not gonna, you know, go back and forth on social media so I like you guys coming here. But I want you to know that my intent is to preserve what we have. Joann's rezoning is not in fact a new downtown. It's a it's a not a very attractive space in general in fact and I just wanna know where where I'm coming from when I vote this evening. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Deremo. Additional comment from council tonight?

Councilor White. So I have two things, one, not District 11, it's around EAC so a little boring, but first, I met with EAC last night, they were appreciative of the time that we awarded them for the council workshop. They are working towards the creation of some subcommittees. We're gonna discuss that with city staff to see how many they should be making and the direction of city council. We may want to have a discussion item in the next couple of weeks to discuss some major goals that we as a council would like them to focus on.

I feel like they are biting off a little too much than they can chew. One last thing I wanted to put in there is Suzanne Kim, I wanted to thank her. She's on the EAC. She was able to reengage with the owners of cardboard recycling bins across the city. They've been overfilled. Staff has had some trouble interacting with them to get them picked up. She has been able to reactivate pickups. She's now passed this on to staff and I feel like those are gonna be served more in a more timely manner now. So I just wanna thank her publicly. Second, I have a resident's email that they wanted me to read into the record so I'm going to do that if that is okay.

This is from mister Barak Krausz, 5763 Reserve Lane. His letter states, Hello Mr. White, as a resident in Ward 2, I'm reaching out to you regarding tonight's rezoning vote on District 11 zone. I serve on the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and per our report, a rezoning like this was not wanted by the people of Hudson. Increasing the housing density was not something that the residents of Hudson wanted per the statistically valid survey. I am also against this rezoning and respectfully ask that you vote no on this proposed zoning change. Please read my comments into the record at the meeting. Thank you. Into the record.

Thank you, Councilor White. Those are complete, thank you. Additional council comment? Councilor Weinstein.

I just wanna share some of the statements by Councilor D'Aramel. I appreciate everyone's comments. We are out there trying to listen to community members that are here on social media that we see at events. She and I had a town hall where we talked with people about District 11 recently. I appreciate the comments.

I know we have a shared value of loving this town. I don't think there is anyone in this room here that does not love Hudson. We love Hudson, want it, keep it the town that we all love. I would also like to offer some additional clarity on the zoning in District 11. The ultimate goal as I see it is to support offices in that space.

As Sam said, the chances that a new Joann's comes into that space is very, very slim. I don't see it happening. If you look at the market in Northeast Ohio and beyond, the chances that we get a new Joanne two point o is just unlikely, which means if we do nothing, it could potentially stand empty for quite some time the way that we've seen other spaces stand empty. So the goal is to focus I think on the office space, on making sure it's a place where we can have light industrial, where we can have that office space, bring back some of the incomes that were coming from Joann's that support our broader city services. I do not see it as another strip mall, that is not how I see that zoning.

I understand we can see the zoning differently and see what the purposes are. But the idea of the zoning is to update the zoning so that it matches the current market circumstances that we face here in Hudson, Northeast Ohio and more broadly to attract that office space. Trends that were happening before the pandemic that have only increased post pandemic, and getting people back to the office. And getting people back to the office, they wanna see some amenities. So one thing we saw from the comprehensive plan is people express a desire for a mix of housing to attract people at various life stages.

I see the goal of any housing there would be for young professionals. We don't have a lot of housing in this town for young professionals for when my daughter grows up and goes to college and comes back. I would like to see some housing options for young professionals there who might also work in that office space and have some, I would say kind of quick place to grab a bite for lunch and go back into the office. We don't have a lot of that in that space. I see that space not only spatially is very different than the historic district and should be, it serves a different purpose.

The purpose of our historic downtown is not to support office space, it just doesn't and it shouldn't be. But what we need that space in Johansson and what it did do is it supported the headquarters jobs that are there. I see that updated zoning would help that area become an area that can actually support the office space and update the zoning to match the markets that are there. My goal is not to force any particular outcome but to create a framework that allows for a plan with that in mind so that residents can actually react to that plan. They can have something concrete so that we can then going on from the great work that I think the previous council did on this, I completely agree with them.

For the subcommittee that was Chris Foster and Skyler Sutton and Mike Bird, they had the right idea. They knew that these markets were changing. I agree with what they did on that subcommittee. I agree that we need to update our zoning to match market conditions, which is the intent of this zoning. And should another plan come to develop that site to better support offices in that area, we will have more opportunity to react to that plan, to react to something tangible so that residents can react to each part and say, I like this part or I don't like this part.

And numerous stages from town halls to asking the developer themselves, why did you put this here? Why do you have this there?

Should

be implemented going if there is a plan. Numerous opportunities at Planning Commission, here at council to provide input on a specific plan. I think it's hard to provide input on ideas that may or may not come to fruition but a plan something tangible that we can react to is a lot easier to react to. And I've also heard from residents that could not be here tonight. I've heard from residents that could not be here tonight that are not supportive of it just as you say.

I've also heard from residents who are not here tonight who were and residents who would like to see Joann's filled instead of vacant like some of our other spaces. And I thank you all for being here.

Thank you, Councilor Weinstein. Additional Council comment? Council President Byrd?

Okay. You

have the floor unless you want to.

No, thank you. So a couple additional comments that I'll make and I thank everybody so far for the residents that are attending and council members so far for their discussion. Couple clarifications, there was kind of accusations or concerns that this was sort of done by surprise or suddenly it's the new council doing this but as Amanda mentioned, this was started by the previous council almost a year ago. Again, it was Councilor Foster, Sutton and I that were on the subcommittee. The current proposal is very similar but actually it's slightly more restrictive than what that subcommittee recommended in July 2025.

Several uses that are currently allowed in District 8 are not permitted in the proposed District 11. For example, adult businesses, auto repair, RV and boat storage and many of the uses not permitted will continue to be permitted like auto service gas stations. To note restaurants, retail are currently permitted in District 8. I think there's some confusion around the comprehensive plan or there's a reference to it that this is not following the comprehensive plan and I should have highlighted the actual pages but it speaks to developing the Darrow Road corridor and I quote, A blend of mixed use and infill development should be supported in the area and under the vision for Darrow Road was creating a mixed use district that complements Downtown Hudson. Now mixed use, one definition is that it integrates residential, commercial, cultural, institutional or entertainment uses into one space promoting walkable dense and vibrant communities.

That's one use of a mixed one definition, but this is in the comprehensive plan saying this is the vision for the Darrow Road corridor. So I don't see how some of these things are in conflict with the comprehensive plan. I appreciate the concern about competing with downtown and not harming downtown businesses. Our downtown is special. We want it to stay that way.

But regarding the addition of a few reference, I'm not convinced that they would significantly pull business from downtown. Not dissimilar to a Zeppey's or a Pad Thai or not dissimilar to Rosewood grill pulling from downtown 140. A plan development that could be proposed by developer would involve further discussions and decisions along with public input and council approval and I think Amanda explained that pretty well. And I think Hudson will be worse off if this area does not get developed and an employer is not found to replace Joanne's employees income taxes and the city has less revenue to spend on parks, roads, sidewalks, a community center and city services. Thank you.

Thank you, Council President Byrd. Councilor Goetz and Councilor Brezovic, had Councilor Goetz will give the floor to you.

I just wanna expand on what Doctor. Byrd said about when this started which was April and there were, seven city council meetings, discussing this. There was a public hearing on February 17 where everyone had a chance to come. There were three Planning Commission meetings about this. Mr.

Sheridan has talked about it at least two or three times at the State of the City. Doctor. Weinstein and Mrs. Dramov talked about it at their forum, so when people have said that we did this and didn't let people know about it, we did. There was, it was placed on the city website, it was in, the one thing it was not in was the e news and so maybe that's an area that we could improve on, but I think the statements that this was done quickly and was done in the dark is not accurate, so I just wanted the public to know that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Goetz. Councillor Bresovic?

Thank you. I'm going to start with some comments from the Architectural Review Board that I attended last week and then I will address District 11. One moment as I jump back to that. So yes, I attended the architectural review board last week in Doctor. Goetz' stead, she was not able to attend.

My main goal was to listen to the feedback on the gazebo in that area. While not unanimous, the general group did feel that the expanded amount of concrete was reasonable, especially those who went out to the site, saw the physical location staked, they really felt that it was a reasonable size. The lift also had general support, not unanimous so long as it was well integrated to the look of the gazebo and there were strong safety measures put in place for children. They really wanted the underside of the stairs that would collapse to really be closed off, no risk to children, safety precautions around the operation of the list, etcetera. There were definitely still some of those who would have preferred a ramp, be it some sort of embankment that made its way up, something more passive.

There were a few thoughts on improvements to the landscaping and then a former city arborist did speak during public comment talking about the lack of shade on the green. They had some very good points about the summer evenings, the sun in the sky can really make that brutal to sit in front of the bandstand and how some well placed trees could improve the area. Moving on to District 11, if you will stand by, I had my notes in a separate section anticipating this to be under legislation. This is a decision I've really struggled with. I do believe some amount of rezoning in this area is necessary as a number of the council members have mentioned, we're very unlikely to get a straight replacement for Joann's.

It's a difficult area to deal with such a large building, 1,400,000 square feet under that roof, mainly warehouses of differing ceiling heights with walls in between. My understanding is IRG is trying to parcel it but the reality of the situation is it's going to be difficult. I struggle with this because do think, while I do think the rezoning might be necessary, I don't feel currently like we have enough backing both of the citizenry, our planning commission and I'm not entirely certain where our council members of Ward 2 and Ward 3 where this new zone will take place stand on the issue. I would prefer today not to pass this new zoning as it stands, but I don't know if that will be the view of the majority of council. I have prepared a motion today, an amendment to be made to the current zoning that we could consider.

And councilor, we would take that

when we get to the

way that we can set it but I'm going to pass it so that it can be read in advance. The idea behind this amendment was it would put a one hundred and twenty day moratorium on any new applications to this new District 11. It would be a way to give the Planning Commission some additional time that they have requested to review any additional changes to this site before any applications could be made. As stated, I think I still today would vote against the the new zoning as it stands but I don't want my vote to be in vain. So if if the council wants to move forward, I would present this potential amendment as a middle ground.

Thank you, the councilor Brezovich. Additional comment, councilor Sutton, you have not spoken. If you would like, I would offer you the floor.

I will hold my comments until we get to the appropriate item on the agenda. I feel that this discussion has been entirely inappropriate for both archival and historical reasons.

Okay. I have a letter that was requested to be read into the record from Deborah and David, and I hope I get this right. Peter Silge, I believe is the last name. So resident letter that I will be reading for them. Good evening, I would like to address counsel with a few questions.

One, why are you considering voting on a development plan that goes against an existing plan that was thoughtfully developed by the Comprehensive Planning Commission over past several years that takes into consideration input from over 1,000 taxpayers, I'm sorry I'm just looking at, this is handwritten, I apologize, And expectations, input that included desire to be less density housing. Item two, in a prior council meeting, a council member made the comment, we were told to get this passed. Who told the council member this has to get passed, whose interest do you as council members represent? Item number three, why don't you do what Mr. Sutton suggested and do more research on what taxpayers think about further development of our precious land resources here in Hudson.

Thank you for your time. Again, this is from Deborah and David Peter Silge. I will make just two other comments outside of the discussion so far today on a lighter and more community centric note. The Hudson PTO pancake breakfast is this Saturday. It is March 7 from 8AM to noon in the Hudson High School Commons.

Tickets will be available at the door, can pre purchase those as well. Always a great community event that really showcases Hudson well, I believe. I'll be there volunteering again and hoping that we can break the record for attendance. Second general statement, we did have a ribbon cutting ceremony this past week and I'd just like to officially on the record welcome Charter Communications. They did open their regional multi state offices here just on the West Side of Boston Mills Road.

They've been in that space for a couple of months now. We officially opened that and dedicated that. They're looking to have about 150 jobs and maybe more down the road. So it is a nice income tax base that has been brought into Hudson. Those are my comments.

We will open it up to a second round of council comments if any councilors have additional comments tonight. Additional comments from council? Seeing none, we will close section seven and move on to section eight, which is the report of the city manager. We did put item A number 20 six-thirty two back into this section so that we could have a update from council and or staff, excuse me, from staff and or Mr. Sheridan with additional council comment as needed. So item A number 20 six-thirty two, Mr. Sheridan, I'd like to offer you the floor to have a discussion on that item under report of the City Manager.

Thank you, Mayor. Can I just go over two quick things that just came to my attention today? Yes, sir. Public Works will be installing an underdrain from the corner of Church And East Main Street over toward the gazebo to help with that shaded area that always has water collecting. We're gonna start on that next week.

We should be able to get that done relatively quickly. It has nothing to do with the gazebo per se, but basically it's been a wet area and you can't really put too many heavy things over there. The second item, I sent to counsel, that we are alerted to today is the State of Ohio Department of Transportation has been looking forward to working on the Stowe Road overpass of I-four 80, Underpass I guess you could call it. And they will be closing that the week of March 16. It will be closed for approximately eight months, two hundred and forty days.

A detour will be set up. City of Hudson Public Works has we'll be putting out a message board in advance. Usually takes about seven to ten days for the motorists to get accustomed to that. Also ask for the city engineer to take a look at 91, we'll be moving approximately 12,000 to 15,000 cars if they don't turn at Middleton, anyone going north. So there could be some delays on 90 1.

So I want the city engineer and their staff to take a look at that. So those are the two things I wanted to bring counsel's attention to. The other item, as the Mayor mentioned, is the gazebo. The last meeting we had, Council asked that we put this back out, the new design without the ramp for Let's Talk Hudson. We got the results back on that.

I believe all of you were copied on that either late last week or early this week. And then as counsel mentioned tonight, the Arc Board did and this is also copied in your attachments. The Arc Board did make comments on the gazebo and the changes that were made. So hopefully had a chance to look those over. One of the items that I had heard was that they were concerned about the lift and if it's in the stair mode, they didn't want to see any young children getting trapped underneath there.

We can easily put a picket fence on the sides of it, actually in front of it too, as long as it has an ADA type handle on it. The enlarging of the landscaping beds I saw in there is something that we can easily expand upon if Council would like to. The railing on the set of stairs on the lift, we did talk to the manufacturer. We can get something a little bit closer to our current railings, won't be exact, but it'll look very similar to that. And ARC Board did acknowledge that they feel that there is a need for ADA compliance.

Cost estimate wise, we've been working on that. If we just put in concrete based on the existing square footage of the plaza, we were gonna paint and replace any bad wood, so we already had that budgeted. We got a price for the sandstone steps replacement, they're cracked, they cannot be repaired. The same contractor that did the World War I Memorial gave us a price to do the sandstone replacement. The lifts we got a price on, that is the step lift, So that is the higher one and it's commercial grade.

It comes with a battery backup, it comes with safety measures, so nobody can go underneath it and the lift comes down on them, it won't allow it. Staff will put in a video camera that'll be above it. And then if any of you are familiar with our City Hall building, on the back doors, the public community rooms, we have two little red boxes with a button on it. Those go directly to dispatch. We would put something like that on the lift too, in case anybody needed immediate assistance, we can have the Fire Department up here relatively quickly or police officers.

The standard concrete with all those items included is equated to $68,000 Sorry, I had some work done on my eyes today, so it's hard for me to seize things. The standard concrete option from our engineering department, total cost on this would be about $116,000 $117,000 if we do a standard broom finish. If we do a dyed concrete, it would be approximately $137,000 And if we do pervious concrete, it'll be approximately $160,000 All those numbers also include all the other items about painting, the sandstone steps, the video cameras, the security and all that. So happy to answer any questions that Council has and staff has brought up the different gazebo views.

Thank you, Mr. Sheridan. Are there any questions for Mr. Sheridan from Council? Councillor Goetz.

If the concrete ramp had been done, what would have been the cost of that? The one that went all

the Yeah, way

it was approximately with the retaining wall and everything, it was approximately an additional $20,000

Over the 160 you mean?

Correct. Okay. But there again, you wouldn't put in the lift so you would save money on that.

Additional questions, Councillor Gantz? Councillor Duremo, you had your hand up before.

This was just quoting the concrete, not the lift though, right Tom?

No, that's everything.

That's everything.

Yep. Oh,

cool. So three different options. If anyone has concerns, which I read about, about perviousness and having it be a green, we can reduce the size down if the Council would like us to do that. We heard that from the stakeholders that they like the bigger plaza. You've already reduced it down a little bit, but the pervious pavers would compensate for that green, they would allow that water and with the city staff running an under drain over to near there, the contractor can easily run under drains underneath this plaza and then that water would be drained away.

As for Breswick?

Clarification, when Doctor. Getz asked about the ramp going all

the way around, was that because there was

an option that only took the ramp up to the platform and there was one that took it all the way up to the gazebo and I thought the one that went all the way up to the gazebo was a good bit more than 160,000 or 180,000, I thought that one was bordering on 300.

Yeah, that was but she asked what was the addition of the cost was, so that's what I was told by staff.

I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood it to be the difference in the cost of this lift option versus the ramp that went all the way around up to the gazebo and wouldn't that be somewhere in

the park of $120,000

difference?

I can find out exactly. Okay, I just We're not asking for approval tonight,

but that was what Okay, understood. That I information confused me a bit. Okay, you're bringing to us right now is to go with the lift option, three different concrete finishes, 117, I lost the middle one there when you

were speaking. $137,000 Thank you.

And 160,000 and you need direction from us tonight on one of these options so we can move forward?

It's up for vote on the seventeenth.

Apologies, I assumed you need a direction from us tonight. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Brezovich. Additional questions for Mr. Sheridan from Council? Council President Byrd? Any difference in the lifespan of the concretes?

Not that I can There believe, is more maintenance on porous concrete but that's just vacuuming, keeping it clean.

Additional questions for Mr. Sheridan from council? Councillor Weinstein?

Not a question. I just appreciate the iterations that the staff and everyone did and listening to feedback and I like where we got to, I like the benches, I think the benches will be nice where people can sit and enjoy when there's choirs and bands up there and I like the additional landscaping that's on there. So I just appreciate all that you guys did.

Thank you, counselor. Additional comments or questions for Mr. Sheridan in this section? Seeing none, Sheridan, anything else from yourself or staff?

No, that's it. It's just that in two weeks, we hope council can give us guidance. Because this is a lesser of improvement, again, we're not under any time constraint. We can easily get this done before July 4. But I would like to get moving on it at the next meeting in March because you are on recess and I would hate to put this off until April. That's all, thank you.

And just for clarification, Councillor Brezovich, made the comment. Yes, this item is on legislation since it got pulled from consent and postponed. So it is a second reading tonight. So there would be a third reading before this is actionable if it holds with the third reading. Thank Thank you, Mr. Sheridan. We'll close section eight and move on to section nine for appointments. Council President Byrd, do we have any appointments tonight? Yes, we have a

couple appointments, three people in total. I nominate Matt South and Corey Harris to be on the tree commission.

And those are both for full terms?

Those are both for full terms, yes.

I second that.

And just one second, were you making those as a combined appointment? A combined, yes. Okay. Altogether. For those two, so then I would ask counsel if there's a motion to approve the appointments as made by Doctor. Byrd. Counselor Guts, would you like to make that motion?

I approve those appointments made by Doctor. Byrd.

We have a councilor to Guts' motion to approve the appointments? Second thank you councilor brezovic is there any comment on those appointments seeing none mrs Wheeler will you please roll call a vote on doctor. Byrd's appointment of Matt South and Corey Harris to the tree commission for both for full terms as motion for approval by Councilor Getz and seconded by Councilor Bresovic.

Ms. Zarema? Yes. Doctor. Getz? Yes. Mr. Sutton?

Yes.

Doctor. Weinstein? Yes. Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird? Yes. Mr. Bresovic?

Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. That motion to pass the appointment by Council President Byrd to appoint Matt South and Corey Harris to the tree commission for a full term each passes by a vote of seven in favor to zero against. Council President Byrd, do we have any additional appointments tonight?

Yes, one more mayor. I would like to nominate Lisa Canterbury to the economic growth board.

And that is also a

full term.

Thank you Council President Byrd. Is there a motion from council to approve that appointment tonight?

I move to approve the appointment.

Thank you Councilor Bresovic, is there a second? Second. Thank you, Councilor White. Is there any discussion on the appointment of Lisa Canterbury to the Economic Growth Board for a full term as appointed by Council President Byrd and moved by Councilor Bresovic, seconded by Councilor White. Any discussion or comment? Seeing none, missus Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote?

Doctor. Goetz? Yes. Mr. Sutton?

Yes.

Doctor. Weinstein? Yes. Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird? Yes. Mr. Brezovich?

Yes.

Mr. Remo?

Yes.

Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. That appointment of Lisa Canterbury to the economic growth board for a full term as moved and seconded by counselor Brezovich and counselor White passes by a vote of seven in favor to zero against. Additional appointments tonight council president Byrd.

There are no more. We are still interviewing for a couple more boards and commissions and we should be pretty much wrapped up by the March 17 meeting and we should be able to appoint several others at that meeting.

Thank you, Council President Berg. We'll close that section on appointments item number nine and move on to section 10 for the consent agenda. Council members if there are any items on the consent agenda that you wish to have considered separately, please allow me to read the item and gain my attention and state your wishes. There is only one item on consent tonight, it's item A number 20 six-thirty four, an ordinance to approve the editing and inclusion of certain ordinances and resolutions as parts of the various component codes of the codified ordinances to provide for the adoption of new matter in the updated and revised codified ordinances to repeal ordinances and resolutions in conflict therewith and declaring an emergency. Again as that is the only item on consent tonight, do we have a motion to suspend the rules to allow passage of the item on the consent agenda?

Need to suspend the rules to pass item 26 dash 34.

Thank you, Councillor Goetz. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Councillor President Byrd. Mrs. Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote?

Mr. Sutton? Yes. Doctor. Weinstein? Yes. Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird? Yes. Mr. Brezovich? Yes. Mr. Ramo? Yes. Doctor. Gitts? Yes.

Thank you Mrs. Wheeler. The rules are so suspended by a vote of seven in favor to zero against. As such, do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda item?

Move to approve the consent agenda.

Thank you Council President Byrd. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you Councilor Brezovic. Are there any comments on the motion to approve the consent agenda? Seeing none, Mrs. Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote.

Doctor. Weinstein? Yes. Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird? Yes. Mr. Brezovich?

Yes.

Ms. Deremo? Yes. Doctor. Getz? Yes. Mr. Sutton?

Yes.

Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. The consent agenda has been approved by a vote of seven in favor to zero against. We will close Section 10 and move on to Section 11 for legislation. Item A is number 20 five-one 146.

This is an ordinance amending the official zoning district map of the city of Hudson and chapter twelve oh five, chapter twelve oh six and chapter twelve thirteen of the land development code to establish zoning District 11. This ordinance has already had three readings and is actionable tonight noting that there is a staff request for council to consider the amended legislation dated 02/25/2026 which is the first link on the agenda tonight and per the rules 220.03 and item N council can move to adopt as substituted with the language dated 02/25/2026 if they so choose. Does council wish to enter a motion on legislation item two five dash one four six?

I move that we adapt the amended wording for the legislation from dated 02/25/2026.

And for clarification, counselor Getz, you're moving to pass legislation two five dash one four six with the substitution of the language dated 02/25/2026 is that correct?

Okay.

Thank you councilor gets is there a second to that motion? Second. I will take that down as councilor Weinstein. So that motion to pass as substituted with the language dated 02/25/2026 has been made and seconded we will then open up legislation two five dash one four six and this motion to pass as substituted for discussion. Is there any additional discussion from counsel tonight? Counselor Sutton.

Yes, thank you. So first, the reason it's important for us to have our discussions during the appropriate agenda item, this video and audio footage gets archived, it's tied to the legislation when people search for this, this is what they see. So anybody who's watching this video in the future and you feel like you're missing part of the conversation, go back in the agenda and look at council comments and you can see the whole discussion. Having said that, I was part of the subcommittee. So I will admit that part of what we see here, I was in those discussions and I think there is some good inside of the D11 proposal, but I also think there's a lot of bad.

My original vision in those subcommittee meetings, basically we don't want Joanne to blight. The comprehensive plan committee also indicated they didn't wanna see heavy industrial pop back up there, they wanted light industrial and flex and we kinda wanted to push heavy industrial or I should say they wanted to push heavy industrial towards Seasons Road. So my original vision and it's if you sift through it, you can kinda spot pieces of it here in the proposal is that you take what's around Joann's and you pull it inward towards Joann's. So medical, office, some of the light industrial that you see on Hudson Industrial Parkway, those bones are still in there and I think that is still valuable and I think that's something we should research further and pursue. The bad parts that I don't agree with, I was adamant in those meetings from day one, I will never support and you will not get a vote for me for any plan that puts forward residential in this area, especially the concept of a live work play.

I don't think it's appropriate particularly for that area, let alone Hudson in general. It doesn't really align with the comprehensive steering committee indicated. And I was the liaison to those meetings as well. So I'm saying that with some reasonable confidence. Obviously, you heard from some of them tonight, but I would agree that that was the general conversation in the room.

That is not what what they wanted to see there. They wanted to see that space used for income tax generation, revenue generation for the city and residential is realistically, it's non revenue generating. It's a revenue loss for the city. And I don't mean that as an offense to anyone, we're all residents here, but we use the services which is where the loss comes from. Having said all that, I don't understand why it feels like there's pressure for us to get this passed tonight.

The fact that it is a third reading and is actionable does not mean we have to take action on this. Last week I asked if we could send it to the Planning Commission so they could have more time with it. I think they did their best to sort of provide us some good guidance and I think having heard all this resident feedback, they could give us better guidance. We can delay this vote, we can work on it at a workshop. I don't know that killing it outright is the right thing to do because you're resetting yourself back to zero.

I think the better thing to do would be to continue to iterate on this until we have something that the residents are happy with and then we can vote to pass it at that time.

Thank you, Councillor Sutton. Additional council comment? Point of information. Yes, Councillor Brezevik.

My understanding was that we had twenty one days after a public hearing, is that to take action? So respect to Councillor Sutton's point that we don't have to kill this tonight, we could send it back. I want to make sure that our options are fully understood. We can at this time decide to send this back to Planning Commission despite that public hearing.

And I would like to confer with the solicitor. I mean, we could certainly do we have a time that we need to make that. Mr. Hannan, would you like My to add to

understanding, the Land Development Code is clear that council does need to act within twenty days of the public hearing. My understanding though is if council were to continue this in some manner, then another public hearing would have to occur before action.

Thank you. Okay, that makes sense. Does that answer your question? Thank you. Additional Council comment?

Councillor Weinstein?

A question just clarification from Councilor Sutton. So if we push this out, do you have a date that you're suggesting?

Yes, I will allow that in this discussion. Councillor Sutton.

I don't have a specific date, just when it's right and the residents feel that it's right.

Councillor Weinstein, the floor is back to

You know, I guess I'll wait and see if there's a a movement. I'm, just kind of curious, like, if there's suggestion on the, like, the next step. So for us to do tonight, would you like us to move it a meeting, move it a month, send it back to Planning Commission one hundred and twenty days? Just trying to get a little clarity just on the timing of what you're suggesting. Not for when we would vote on it next but just what is the next step for tonight?

Yes, I will jump in and add to that and Mr. Pitchford, I may ask for your information. The motion on the floor is to pass as substituted with the 02/25/2026 language. We can accept an additional motion from counsel which could be a motion to postpone to another date certain. Mr. Hannan, I believe if that then pushes out that twenty days, we would just have to have another public hearing again. So that will take care of that depending on what a potential motion to postpone to a date certain would be. Certainly I'm not advocating for this, but we could motion to table this which would table it indefinitely until it is pulled back from the table. I'm not sure that Mr. Sutton has stated that that's not necessarily his suggestion.

I would agree with that. There's a lot of work that has gone into this. It feels to me like the residents have spoken and they have asked us to consider this in additional detail. So my comment to Mr. Pitchford then is what are the other options for council tonight? Since this is a third reading and actionable and we have a motion on the floor to pass with the substitute language.

Mr. Hannan has it correct that if we wanted to not vote on it tonight, we would need to move it to a date certain. I would be recommending because we would, as Mr. Hannon suggested, need to have another public hearing. Is it a public hearing on May 5, or we could also schedule it on April 21, which would be two weeks before, but enough time to still pass within the twenty days.

So point of clarification Mr. Pitchford, a motion to postpone to a date certain as suggested potentially May 5. That just puts it back on that May 5 legislative agenda, we would have to have the additional public hearing but does that go back to Planning Commission or is that how do we add that in if we want Planning Commission to re review this which is what I heard as a possibility tonight.

So we could simply just refer to back to Planning Commission and then the process, we will start the clock over there in Planning Commission. Then they would have one hundred and twenty days.

So just for clarification for counsel and everybody's information, believe that is in our rules 220.03 as well that we can accept a motion to refer back something back to the Planning Commission. Correct. Okay, those would be the options. Additional discussion or comment from counsel tonight. Again, the motion on the floor is to pass 20 five-one 146 with the language substituted dated 02/25/2026. We are in the discussion phase of this legislation. Councillor White.

I would just say I may be in support of the postponement due to many residents now listening, reaching out, speaking up, I've received a lot of feedback, some good, many bad. This public hearing could be a good option for residents to reach out through this time, maybe we hold some town halls, we allow people to come speak to us, we gather feedback, we workshop this. I'm open to that. I've been conflicted on this, but that could be a reasonable solution here. Thank

you, Councillor White. Additional comment from council. Just trying to make sure we had opportunity for everybody else who has not spoken.

I'm just a point of information.

Okay, please. Yes, Councilor Brosovic, point of information.

No, sorry, my original comment was just a point of information, I've not spoken.

Oh, okay then. You are correct, thank you for the reminder. A lot of information shared tonight, sir, the floor is yours for comment.

Thank you mayor. I think I will just attempt to

get the ball rolling starting with I suppose the most,

I don't know if drastic is the correct option but I move we refer the legislation back to Planning Commission.

Okay. Councilor Brezovich has made the motion to refer legislation two five dash one four six back to the Planning Commission. Correct, sir? And do we have a second to that motion?

Second.

Thank you, Councilor Weinstein. I will have to confer with the solicitors this motion debatable or not on the motion to refer to the Planning Commission.

Yes.

Okay. Is there any discussion on that motion then to refer twenty five-one hundred forty six back to the Planning Commission? Councillor Brezovich?

Thank you. Yeah, as stated in my original council comments earlier for any of those watching at home, I do think that rezoning is needed and I think that action is needed here, but I do believe just through council, through resident feedback from tonight, from emails, from speaking with residents, from the position of the council members here today who represent the wards in which this new district would lie, that this legislation is not ready. Planning commission themselves have requested it back, and I feel that this would be in Hudson's best interest.

Thank you, Councilor Bresovic. Any additional council discussion on the motion to refer 25Dash146 to the Planning Commission? Councilor Duremo?

I just appreciate the thoughtful feedback from everyone on the day this evening and I just I'm always up for, you know, everyone further in this conversation but I just want us all to remember there's 23,000 people in this city and just because some people didn't come and we didn't read their comments doesn't mean that we all don't have different viewpoints. So I just wanted to state that.

Thank you, Councilor Dremo. Additional discussion on the motion that's on the floor to refer 25 dash one four six to the Planning Commission. Additional discussion from council. Councilor Weinstein.

I have a point of clarification or question. So if this gets moved back to the Planning Commission, do they have a hundred and twenty days and then from after that we have to have a public hearing, is that correct? And so then that would be a month later, is that right?

Additional comment was that? Counselor Gatz comment on the motion that's on the floor.

It doesn't have to be one hundred and twenty days. They've already had one hundred and twenty days. Could we make it just thirty days or sixty days?

Mr. Pitchford, I don't believe we can change that. They have up to that timeframe if they need it. It could certainly return it sooner if I'm not misunderstood, but we can't make them I believe.

Yeah, the

mayor has it corrected. The land development code says within one hundred and twenty days.

Vice President Byrd, you had a comment?

Can I ask staff a question?

Yes, Mr. Sheridan. So

I guess my question is around the comprehensive plan and why do you think that there's confusion as to language that says Darrow Road should be a mixed use area and there's people here that were part of the comprehensive plan and they heard something very different. They had different discussions maybe but it's in the comprehensive plan in writing, mixed use. So when we were doing this, we were following the comprehensive plan which represents the community's input and not just the people here tonight or the people we got emails from.

Yeah, I obviously of course can't fully speak to the impressions of the testimony that you heard or the public comment that you heard this evening But as you noted, the focus area plan does reference that mixed use intent. The couple key pieces from the comprehensive plan that we just kind of briefly summarized was that the comprehensive plan directly requests commercial along the Joann's frontage. It requests stepping down from the heavy industrial to a light industrial flex. And when the comprehensive plan was being prepared, Joann's was still operating out of that facility. My understanding is the Comprehensive Planning Committee knew that Joann's may not be there forever.

There may be needs for future uses but it was a different intent because at that time there was a business in site and now it's 100 acres and 1,400,000 square feet that's fully vacant. So that perspective was not available to the comprehensive plan committee.

Mr. Hannon, Mr. Council President Byrd, does that answer your question or do you have any additional I do

have one more additional comment. So I think the work that needs to be done is around communication and getting more input from others, having people understand the value of income taxes and businesses business will bring to this area. I am not sure that the planning commission work is will add really much to this because this is again, is pretty much what the comprehensive plan spells out as far as a mixed use area.

Thank you, Council President Byrd. Councilor White, you had

a comment? My only question was the, we were talking about a date certain of May 5, but would we have to kick that out much further than due to the one hundred and twenty day planning commission?

Those are separate motions. So the motion on the floor is to refer back to the Planning Committee.

Okay, I was just asking because that was the referral for.

We had made that comment that that was an option that council could make a motion to postpone to a date certain. That motion was not made. The motion that is on the floor from Councilor Brezovic is to refer 20 Five-one46 back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pittsford, comment? Just wanna make sure we're handling this property properly.

This has only been in front of Planning Commission once, correct?

Sorry about that. Planning Commission had their review, I believe they had four discussions and in essence were complete with a hundred and twenty days that they gave back the comments to city council requesting the incorporation of the red line sedate plus requesting additional discussion on three topics. Planning commission then headed back for one additional meeting and referred back additional comment.

Just for council's edification, we are only able to refer matters back to Planning Commission once. That's why I was asking the question. Or if it already been referred there, like back there once, we can't refer it back there. So it can't be in front of Planning Commission on third time. So this will be our one time to refer

it back.

So the motion on the floor is still valid? Yes. Yes. Thank you for that additional detail. We're still in the discussion point of the motion that's on the floor to refer the two five dash one four six to the Planning Commission and the additional comment councilor Weinstein I'll hold that just to make sure anybody who hasn't spoken yet give them the opportunity to do so councilor Brezovich, councilor Dramo, councilor Weinstein, Gatz, Bird and White have already spoken councilor Sutton is there any additional comment from you before we get to a round two?

Thank you, Councilor Sutton. Councilor Weinstein?

I just also another point of clarification because I'm I'm trying to compare the motion that is on the floor right now of referring it back to Planning Commission restarting that one hundred and twenty days and then have the public hearing out there versus if we move it to a date certain May 5, would Planning Commission still have the option if they wanted to take their meeting time to discuss it and provide us more input, could they during that time before May 5, could they provide us with more comments should they want to? Yes.

Additional comment Councilor Weinstein? Have the floor.

Verification, I don't know what this is. If I wanted to make a different motion, I do that time or do we need to consider the motion? Know we're like a motion on a motion.

I'm trying to figure out

Do we have to wait for that before I could do a different motion?

Have. Depends on the motion.

Yes. Okay. Well then how about I give it a try?

Well why don't you state what you're looking to do and

What would like to do is I would like to move to postpone this legislation to a date certain of May 5.

My understanding Mr. Pittsford is we cannot handle that, we have to handle the motion on the floor. Is when we would not be able to handle unless it's one faith.

You. Yes,

thank you. We are in the second round of discussion on the motion to refer this back to the Planning Commission for twenty five-one hundred forty six. Councillor Weinstein has spoken as additional council comment in round two of discussion on the motion. President Byrd.

Can I ask staff a question again?

Please

do. So can you describe the, so this passes now or if this passes in May with information from planning commission input but may perhaps not a formal give get that can you describe the process of all that would be in a plan development, all the decisions that council would have to weigh in on input from the stuff.

I can try to give a summary to that. The keynote in reference to the plan development is some of the uses are only permitted if proposed within a plan development. And that includes a residential as well as grocery. And those are only allowed within a planned development. And one of the key criteria is that a planned development must be a minimum 50 acres in size. And then there's also restrictions on residential. It can't exceed more than 20% of the area of the planned development.

But a planned development requires a preliminary plan that goes to Planning Commission and the City Council, both are public hearings.

And then also a final plan, which is a public hearing and goes to Planning Commission. And that would also involve a Council adopted development agreement, and that would require document any performance standards by the city as well as by the property owner. What would be typical is if it were a larger scale investment, there may be some type of financial incentive, maybe it's an income tax incentive for a large employer coming in, it may be some TIF financing or something to assist with streetscape enhancements, things of that nature. And then that gives the council the ability to dictate and put additional conditions to the approval. For example, first name was a planned development and that included restrictions such as requirements that there be no bookstore, that a certain percentage be small independent retailers, so that's not all national retailers.

So those are the types of conditions that council could look to with a plan development.

Thank you.

Mr. Hannan. Council President Byrd, any additional comment? You have the floor still. Thank you. We are in round two of discussion on the motion to refer back to Planning Commission. Council Weinzini and Council President Byrd have spoken any additional comment from remaining council members.

If there

is no other comment, we can go to a round three. I'm just confirming with the counselors who have not spoken. We will answer round three. Councilor Weinstein.

I was also wondering if I could ask staff a question if they could explain a little bit about the process for a plan development and what would that look like in terms of getting input from the public?

Well, as noted, it would require public hearings by the Planning Commission at both a preliminary and a final step and a public hearing by City Council at the preliminary. That's the base code required items. What would certainly be typical is if if it was a plan development where it's involving some level of city direction or participation that there will likely be significantly more engagement than that. By the city kind of, in essence, being a partner in the project, we can have more say on how it's reviewed, how it's engaged with the community. So likely, similar with 1st And Main, there were significantly more workshops, community open houses, things of that nature as the project developed.

Mr. Hannan, Councillor Weinstein, still have the floor if that was your any additional comment?

Can you also clarify, right, so if a plan development comes to the public and they get feedback from the public, I'm assuming it could then be amended based on feedback from public hearings for example and like is that typical?

It would be typical just as a site plan or a use would go through the Planning Commission. It would be very common that there will be changes to the plan, the uses or design elements as it goes through that preliminary and final steps.

Thank you Mr. Hannon. Additional comment, Councillor Weinstein. We were in the third round of discussion on the motion to refer back to the Planning Commission. Additional comment or discussion from council members.

Seeing no additional discussion on the motion that's on the floor, Mrs. Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the motion to refer legislation item 25 dash 146 back to the Planning Commission.

Doctor. Bird? No. Mr. Brezovich?

Yes.

Mr. Ramo? No. Doctor. Getz? No. Mr. Sutton?

Yes.

Doctor. Weinstein? No. Mr. White? No.

Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. That motion to refer 20 five-one 146 back to the Planning Commission fails by a vote of five against with only two in favor. So we are back to the motion that is on the floor with regard to passage as amended or substituted with the language dated 02/25/2026 for legislation 20 five- one four six. We will go back to the discussion point of the motion to pass as substituted. Is there an additional comment from council on the motion to pass as substituted? Councilor Duremo. Excuse me. Councilor Duremo.

I hope I'm doing this right. I moved amend ordinance 25 dash one four six to a date certain of May 5.

Thank you, Councilor Duremo. So that motion to postpone to a date certain of

May 5

just wanted to make sure I got that correct do we have a second to councilor deremo's motion to postpone two five dash one four six to a date certain of May thank you councilor Weinstein is there any discussion on that motion to postpone to a date of May 5?

President Byrd? So I just I don't wanna drag this out any further, but I wonder if May 17 would give us more time for to schedule a public hearing or do adequate?

I would put that back to councilor Duremo or would you be willing to amend your motion to postpone to May 17 was your request? Councilor Duremo that would be up to you.

Yes. I'd be willing to amend ordinance 25 dash one four six to a date certain of May 17.

And councilor Weinstein, you have to agree to that as well as you were the original second.

Can I do just a point of clarification? Yes. May wait. Am I getting this right? May 17 is a Sunday? Wait. May 19? Is that what you meant?

Yeah I thought we met on Sundays okay yes. I did

not have the calendar up let's just confirm that.

May 19.

May 19 okay I will go back to so council president Byrd just wanted to restate your your request in the discussion was to have councilor Duramo consider amending her motion to postpone two five dash one four six to a date certain of May 19. Is that correct, council president Byrd? That is correct. Councilor Duramo, do you agree with that?

Yes, I agree.

And Councilor Weinstein you would have to agree with that since your original second.

I agree with that.

Okay, additional comment on the motion to postpone twenty five-one hundred forty six to a date certain of May 19. Additional comment from Council. Councilor Sorry,

it's me again, I'm sorry. I agree with Councilor Brezovich in that we know that this zoning does need to be updated to match the market demands. I think that is that is pretty clear exactly how we do that is a little bit less clear. It's a little bit more fuzzy. I like this option. I think it gives us a lot of flexibility to get more public feedback both online, in person, in a town hall are lots of flexibility. I think it also offers a Planning Commission flexibility to give them a little bit more room to discuss it and discuss some of the details of this and come back to us with us, to us as a council to provide more feedback on this and more insight. That's it.

Thank you, Councillor Weinstein. Additional comment on the motion to postpone twenty five-one hundred forty six to a date certain of May 19. Councilor Bresovic. Just a quick question for

the chair that would include having the public hearing on the seventeenth or sorry the nineteenth.

Mr. Pitchford that is if we're postponing it that long we do need to have the public hearing again, correct?

We have to have a public hearing. That was not a part of the motion. So we do need to have another hearing if we adopt it that evening.

A pause real quick, I guess. You could have

it that evening, you could have it on May 20 days.

But do we need a motion to have that? I would just assume that since we have to since it's beyond the time limit, we would have to put that on a future agenda either before or at, we'd have to put it within that timeframe before the May 19 date.

It could only go on May 5 or May 19, the hearing?

Correct, from a timeframe of was it twenty or twenty one days, Mr. Hanna? Twenty days. So correct, so that's gonna happen regardless. We don't need to have that as part of the motion.

That's my perspective, yes.

Okay, just to clarify.

We can schedule the hearing without a motion.

Yes, okay, but knowing that we have to have it on one of those two dates given the twenty day timeframe for a public hearing before that legislative item. Okay, thank you for the clarification. Councilor Brezovich, does that answer your question? Thank you. Okay, additional discussion on the motion that is on the floor to postpone 20 five-one 146 to a date certain of May 19. Additional comment from counsel. Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. Mrs. Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the motion from Councilor Dremo seconded by Councilor Weinstein to postpone legislation 25 dash one four six to a date certain of May 19.

Mr. Brezovic? Yes. Ms. Deremo? Yes. Doctor. Getz? Yes. Mr. Sutton? Yes. Doctor. Weinstein? Yes. Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird?

Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. The motion to postpone legislation two five dash one four six to a date certain of May 19 passes by a vote of seven in favor to zero against. Thank you.

We will move on to item B on legislation, which is number 20 six-twenty one. This is an ordinance amending section one, plan submissions and general notes of chapter fourteen nineteen, engineering standards for infrastructure construction of the building and housing code. Just pause for one moment to let some of the guests leave the room this evening. I will state this is a third reading tonight, so twenty six-twenty one is actionable tonight. Therefore, does council wish to enter a motion on legislation 26 dash two one as it is a third reading and actionable tonight?

Move to pass 26 dash two one.

Thank you, Council President Byrd, is there a second? Second. Thank you, Councilor Brezovic. Is there any discussion on the motion to pass legislation item 20 six-twenty one? Seeing no discussion, Mrs. Wheeler, we please roll call a vote on the passage of legislation 26 dash two one.

Mr. Ramo. Yes. Doctor. Gitts. Yes. Mr. Sutton. Yes. Doctor. Weinstein. Yes. Mr. White. Yes. Doctor. Bird. Yes. Mr. Brezovich.

Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. Legislative item 20 six-twenty one passes by a vote of seven in favor to zero against. We'll move on to the next item on legislation, this is item C number 20 six-thirty two, a resolution authorizing the city manager to advertise for bids and enter into contracts with the lowest and best bidders for the Gazebo legacy project and declaring an emergency.

As stated earlier, this is a second of third reading, so this will appear on the next regular city council meeting as a third reading at that time. The last item on legislation is item D number 20 six-thirty three, an ordinance amending city council rules to define the role and duties of council liaisons. This is also a second reading tonight. That will close section 11 on legislation. We will then move to section 12 on the agenda for an executive session. We do have a second executive session this evening. Do we have a motion from counsel executive session?

Yes, I move to enter into executive session pursuant to Hudson Codified Ordinance 220.05 B2 and five to consider and discuss the transfer and or purchase of real estate in matters that are required to be kept confidential by law. Invited to the executive session are all members of council, the mayor, the city engineer, the city solicitor, the assistant city manager and the city manager.

Thank you Council President Byrd. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Thank you Councilor White. Is there any comments on the motion to enter into executive session? Seeing none Mrs. Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote?

Doctor. Goetz? Yes. Mr. Sutton? Yes. Doctor. Weinstein? Yes. Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird?

Yes.

Mr. Brezovich?

Yes.

Ms. Duremo?

Yes. Thank you Mrs. Wheeler. We will now enter into a private closed door executive session as stated by the motion by Council President Byrd by a vote of seven in favor to zero against. Please note for the public at the conclusion of our executive session, we do not anticipate any additional public business other than to adjourn our meeting. Thank you.