Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, time flies. Call this meeting to order. This is the Industrial Design Subcommittee. It's Monday, October 12th, 2026. 645. Nick, you do roll call?

Okay, Ms. Marzullo, you want to have any questions?

I don't have any questions and so I'm ready if you want to make a motion.

That's the brick that's there currently? Yes.

Okay, there's a motion. I'll second it. All those in favor?

Sure. I think as you guys are all aware, Last week's scheduled meeting is being held right now because we didn't have a quorum. And that means a number of us were not able to make the scheduled meeting last week. And so we're holding it today. And last week I received an email out of the blue by Mr. Hannon that indicated that I was in violation of attendance rules for the Planning Commission, not attending enough meetings during the course of a 12-month period. Of course, I disputed that, and then a notice was sent around that the meeting was going to be held tonight, and I was left off that n

And you said last meeting we could leave for the restroom.

Just to conclude this evening, you mean conclude this for this part of the topic, but we'll address it at the end of this meeting.

I have a question. Ms. Smith. Aren't these more personal matters with individual commissioners that should probably be discussed with commissioners?

Is that really our purpose to discuss them publicly?

I would only point out, too, that the change in procedures seems to be following immediately after I was critical over the majority of city council.

No, that's fine. We did recommend approval with no exceptions. The only thing I'd add, Nick, is part of the application that we reviewed earlier were brick piers included in the submittal which added to the confusion of what was actually approved more than two years ago so that that was part of the issue that was at hand but we did recommend approval thank you mr intermerato now it would be the opportunity for the applicant to give initial comments not to exceed 30 minutes please make sure you state your name and address if you have any

Yes. Nick, can you put up the phasing schedule that they included? So based on if I'm reading this correctly, then you're not going to proceed with any of the work until 27? Last time you were trying to get some work done this year, but you've changed that, I'm assuming?

This year in May of 27. So then when you do the asphalt parking lot, you're not doing a complete parking lot at one time? You're going to do that in separate phases? Yes. And you would leave the section that has the entrance into the property area? incomplete before, and you do the other half without doing the entrance?

I was just surprised why you wouldn't do the entrance.

Okay, I understand. Okay, no further questions.

I only asked because the, the bond, the job has been delayed substantially and costs have gone up. So just so that the bond captures the increased costs that's been experienced over the last couple years. It's my only concern.

I voted yes last time and I will vote yes this time.

I do have several things I'd like to ask. First of all, thank you for that. I know that's a lot of work, and I appreciate the very thorough detail update for us. So I do have a couple questions. The... So the market hall and the, I'll just start with the market hall. Is that something that will be city owned or will that be privately owned?

Okay. And then with the survey, with the colors, the red, blue, and green, how many total was that? How many total surveys combined was that? Was that the combination of all the surveys that people took or was that just the online let's talk?

Okay. But that bar chart was 145 responses. Yes. Okay. This might be a random question. You might not know this yet, and that's fine. On Owen Brown, I know that now with the stoplight, there is a line that you're supposed to stop at. Do you know approximately how many cars from that point to the stop sign that can fit on the street? And I'll tell you why I'm asking, because I'm seeing if we're going to be having a market hall and a co-working space and a hotel and a community flex space. And now we have 74 houses that you're putting in, as well as the Fairmont houses, townhouses that are going

Are we looking to put in public bathrooms anywhere? So you're talking about a family gathering place. That's my biggest pet peeve with what we have now is that there's no public bathrooms for families and other people to use too. But when you have little kids, they have to go to the bathroom all the time. So is there a proposed public space so that people can use bathrooms like in the community hall and the...

So would they, I'm sorry, just a few more questions, I promise. So I know that from what we had and what you spoke to people about, the people were saying market hall and coworking space and a flex space. Do you feel that there's enough need for that in Hudson that those will be filled and not take away from, so I'll start with that. Do you think that there's enough need in Hudson for that to be filled?

Okay. And then another question I have, for the market hall, if we're talking about, like, I don't want to say program, but places people can go grab food and lunches. Did you speak with any of the restaurant owners downtown, business owners, even if they're not local to Hudson, but so the owners to see? I'm worried also about that taking away some business from lunch business or dinner business when our restaurants we currently have might not have enough to keep them going, that this would just...

Oh, and then another question that I had, and then this is, I'm wrapping it up, I'm sorry. Fine, please. I am curious a little bit too about the, if we have residential so close to businesses, will you put limits on hours for deliveries, for lighting, for noise? Just because this, if that's a market hall backing up and it's a venue space right up to residential, I'm worried that some of that might run in, we might run into some issues looking forward.

Perfect. Those are just a couple of comments and questions that I have. But thank you. I appreciate the thorough report and insight.

Mr. Intermerato. Just one question. When you had the public input, did you provide the participants any guidelines of density per the land development code, or was it just whatever they thought?

But participants didn't have an idea of what the allowable density of homes looked like to meet land development code were before they provided you input?

Yeah, thanks for the summary to all of you. It's a good introduction. I really just have a question, I guess a couple specifics on the traffic study. For the traffic study, who's determining, I think you said there was going to be 30 intersections that were considered?

Okay, so our engineering team did that, not the consultant, as far as like, maybe you work together, but at least we're having some say in what the study is, which intersections. And I just didn't know, obviously we recently approved the Fairmont project right across the street. Is that already being considered in the traffic study that's gonna be done? Have we confirmed that? I know that I forget how many houses or how many 18. Yeah.

I just have some comments. I appreciate all the work that you did with the community to get their ideas. I think it's a really good start. But just some feedback, because I do see with the Land Development Code some modifications to improve it overall. One overarching theme I'm seeing is I'm really seeing what looks like two different two different sections, and I think more could be done to tie them together, because I know we have the residential section and then we have this public section, which is much smaller, but I think that we just need to do a better job from a development perspectiv

I guess I have a real plan to review at the next meeting, but just traffic and density is my biggest concerns right now. One quick question, we're talking a lot about the economics. Have we taken a look at what the potential impact is of this development on the home values on Owen Brown?

My question to staff would be, we're talking about modeling these lots and homes with historic references to Division Street, Church Street, Owen Brown Street. My question to you is, because I'm having a difficult time envisioning what does a 60 foot lot, less than a 60 foot lot with eight foot on each side, where in Hudson can I go before the next meeting and look and say, okay, this is a visual of what that looks like.

Yeah, if you don't mind, that'd be really helpful.

Yeah, that would just be really helpful. I appreciate that. And then the last question would be based on the numbers you're projecting. What type of? Sales costs are we looking at for these single family homes? What type of range are we looking at or cost per square foot?

I'll just say I agree with both of you so far. It's just really, I read that and I was just obviously frustrated, but very disappointed at the ignorance behind the comments. I'll just address the engineering questions. We're reviewing site plans. We're reviewing civil drawings. I've been doing that for 35 years. That's all I do is look at civil drawings every day, especially now. You know, a lot of times that's to, you know, it's to confirm what's on the drawings, it's to confirm intent, it's to confirm logistics, it's to confirm a lot of different things that go into approving that site plan.

I would add that I agree with just about everything that's been said. And the three items that she mentioned just blew me away that she was questioning why we would have questions on a cost estimate, construction methods, and borings. Well, it begs the question, I don't know what questions she's expecting us to ask. If I don't ask those questions, what are we talking about? When best to find out if the applicant has a project that's gonna financially fail? Before or after we approve? I THINK IN LIGHT OF THE MOST RECENT APPLICATION WE HAD WITH THE SHOP PROJECTS, THE GUYS THAT WERE JUST HERE, WE

Yeah, I was a little bit surprised, honestly, when I read the email. We are, I guess the reason I was surprised was because I always thought the planning commission's role was to support council and have and work with them and they would take what we say and take it into consideration. Council can't do all of this all the time between all the different boards, all the different proposals that come through. They're supposed to lean on their commission and boards which is, which is a point. Now, I was appointed by the prior council, but at this point, I've served this council almost as long as I

Yeah, I thought I would echo what the rest of you said. Look, unfortunately, it's not out of character. My prior experiences before, during, and now have been that there's contentiousness with certain members of council, including Amanda. I'm not gonna sugarcoat it. I do think it was an intimidation tactic I think it was a bit of kicking and screaming and I think it was a bit of vindictiveness She doesn't like to be questioned and you know, you see the the timing of these emails and you can understand my frustration and I know we're not gonna talk about it just yet, but you can see my frustrat

Ms. Smith, one last chance, no comment. Thank you. Hey, sir, I wanted to add one other item. And if you wanted to consider what the applications, applicants think of us, let's just look at two recent applications. applicants the daycare facility that we reviewed uh we asked a lot of questions about the cost of the earth work the soil conditions and did they have enough sufficient cost in they went back and they looked at it and then we had a continuance they came back and they thanked us for our questionings and help on understanding Mr. Nystrom helped them greatly with their underground utili

I'll just add, Sarah, your summary was great, not just about the other planning commissions around, but the statistics of what we've approved versus what we haven't approved. That's logic, that's evidence, that's empirical data that really can't be countered. Thank you.

I would suggest a motion for you to be that liaison and speak on that issue. I would absolutely make that motion.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. A liaison to whom?

I know that. I disagree with this. I don't understand. I am going to speak on this topic. I don't understand why we're pushing this. My opinion is this is not our role. It is not our role to comment on legal matters affecting the city. I'm not comfortable with it. It's not the oath I took. With all due respect, Chairperson, I respect you a lot, Sarah. I just don't think this is our role. It's making me very uncomfortable. We had a legal opinion that was written that said we're not an independent body. We're not entitled to independent counsel. I don't know why we're doing this and dividing the

Let me clarify when I say backroom. Backroom to have a better understanding. We shouldn't be talking about this in a public forum because this isn't the role of the commission. The role of the commission is to look at applications and... compare them to the land development code and to vote on those applications. I've heard a lot of comments about politics and the city and decisions and council's out to get us and personal about whether I personally am gonna be on planning commission next year. And I just thought it's not appropriate for this forum. It's not, that's my opinion. I'm not comfort

Can I ask you something? Mr. Garnasch, go ahead. You mentioned, this is the second time you've mentioned that there's information that we're not aware of. Is there something that you should share?

One of the members or something said that from the city that they can't share all the information with us.

Have you been made aware of any of that information?

No, I haven't. But I know that one of the statements from the city or from I remember reading it said that they can't share all the information they have publicly about this legal matter. I remember reading that.

You mentioned it twice, so I need to ask you about that.

That stuck with me because if you don't have all the information, how can we be a judge and jury when we don't have all the information, number one. Number two, it's not our role. There's people that are hired in the city to do this work. I'm not an attorney. I'm a volunteer. I'm here serving on the Planning Commission. I took an oath for the Land Development Code to vote on applications. I'm not comfortable. I'm not an elected official. I'm not going to sit up here and comment on the politics of the city or their legal decisions. I'm here to vote on applications. That's what I'm here to do an

not at all outside of our jurisdiction this is we're talking about a um decision that we made that was upheld by the summit county court of common pleas and is now being overturned by uh city council and an inexperienced city council at that and a city council liaison who through a series of emails over the last month has proven her lack of understanding of what our agenda is um also by the way a conflicted out in my opinion uh city council member who really shouldn't be making a decision on something like this uh given the prior uh involvement with the censuring and undoing the centering um t

CONSULT MEETINGS, THEY PROFESS THAT THE MAIN REASON THEY HAVE TO SIGN THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS A REAL POSSIBILITY OF LOSING THE HARDSHIP CASE. AND EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT THAT IS THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. AND MY FEELINGS IS THEY'RE RUNNING WITH THAT. I don't know if they believe it or not, but it clearly misrepresents to the public the facts that it's unlikely that we're gonna lose the hardship. And as far as I can tell, that's the main reason they're providing as to why they need to sign this settlement agreement. Ms. McCoy.

Yeah, I'll just, I mean, I'll speak a little bit to that. I mean, I, Ms. Smith, I get it. It makes me uncomfortable, too, in the way that I don't like being in this position, but I feel like we're being put in this position because of the settlement. All we're asking is that it goes through the right processes, that it just comes back to planning commission, and we had some great recommendations. I read the settlement. I'm not a lawyer. I know this, but there were some things that stuck out to me that I don't want... for the citizens of Hudson who currently live here, who have surrounding hous

I'll just reiterate, it's not an excuse, it's that it makes me uncomfortable is one thing, that's how I feel, but the fact is, it's not our role.

I just wanted to reiterate that again, it's not our role. Our role is to vote with the land development code. This is about a past vote that became a court case and the city is settling a legal matter. It's not coming to us as an application anymore. I don't understand why we're getting so involved and why we're becoming a liaison to sit to the city and it's just not our role. It's not appropriate. It's not what I took an oath to do.

Yeah, I'd like to make the motion to have you, I don't want to use the word liaison.

Sure, and before I ask the questions, I just want to be clear. I have no ill will or concerns about city staff. I think Mr. Hannon does a great job. I think Nick Sugar does a great job. I'm happy with both of you. I think you do a lot of hard work. You've got a lot on your plate. Please do not take any questions that I ask as critical of you. As I've said in the email and my meeting on Friday with city staff, If there was an issue with timing or that this was missed the first go-around, no problem at all. We're all human and I make mistakes all the time and I'm certainly imperfect in what I do

You can advise that and if you want to instruct him not to answer, you can instruct him not to answer, but I'm going to ask the questions and they're not going to be with regard to the filling of the public records requests are going to be with regard to why this email was sent internally to Tom Sheridan, Michael Bird and Amanda Weinstein. So with that, Nick, I'm talking about the October 13th, 2026, 843 AM email, which was Tuesday, the morning after last week's meeting was continued to today. Was there any person that asked you to send this, or was there a discussion that you had with any per

I didn't hear you instruct him not to answer. Have you instructed him not to answer?

Yeah, I did get some information from that, though. I did get on Saturday morning, your office sent me this email. That's the only email I'm asking him about. So, Nick, yeah, go ahead.

I'm just going to leave. I'm not comfortable staying for this. I'm sorry. This is too contentious for me. I'm just going to leave. Thank you.

The document that was provided to me on Saturday has one. It's not accurate, but that might be what he's referencing. Specifically, it's missing a meeting that we had in August that I attended.

The emergency meeting we had was September 1st, if I recall correctly. That's right, the one that I attended. Which should count. Yeah, I don't believe Ms. Smith attended that.

Ms. Smith was not present for that, and I believe that would bring her below the 75% threshold.

Ms. Obert was not present on the meeting. The rest of us were there.

Well, I can tell you at least from what was provided to me on Saturday morning, that would still keep me under the 75%, but it would also put Ms. Smith under the 75%. And I don't believe she got any notice, at least none that she referenced on not complying with the attendance requirements. nor did she get left off of the notice for today's meeting. And of course.

Hold on, are they allowed to answer that question? You're getting it from the public records request.

One more discussion, if I may. Yes, sir. Since my professionalism has been called into question. With regard to my questioning, it's with one goal in mind. What prompted this? Because it came directly after I was critical of city council's decision to settle. and it came directly after and was posted to the agenda for last week, Amanda Weinstein's email to you on September 23rd, which, which they had available to them when.

when I gave an explanation two months ago and then it being put forth inconsistently with me as compared to someone who spoke more positively on City Council's behalf at the last meeting. To me, that seems like it's selective enforcement. And I don't think that that's staff that made that decision, quite frankly. I don't think Mr. Sugar would have done it. I don't think Mr. Hannon would have done it. I base that on my prior dealings with them and my opinions of them. And that's why I asked the question, because I think it's unfair. Right now, where this is left is it makes it look like THEY DR

The selective and unfair enforcement after the emails from a man to come. Correct.

I don't believe that based on the fact that it's going to be truncated and they're not even agreeing to ask city council to pull their own information.

I expect there to be an incomplete response because they've already foreshadowed that they're not going to ask the city council for. No, I understand that. I'm clarifying for the record.

I also would caution that there is material evidence that does not have to be in writing. Conversations can be held that are not in writing. There's no paper trail for. Paper trails can be damning. It can be the smoking gun, but it doesn't have to be that. I don't have any tonight. I'm done asking my questions tonight. I'm making the point to clarify the record that it's still not going to be complete, in my opinion, based on the the letter I got on Saturday morning, I'm still not gonna have a complete response. I'll have more of a response, but just like they can be selective in how they're enforcing, and when I say they, I mean city council, they can be selective in what documents they produce. Yeah, this battle's nowhere near to being over.

YOU KNOW WHAT? I TAKE ISSUE WITH YOUR GIVING A PARTIAL EXPLANATION WITHOUT GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS. I really do. I respect you more than that.

Yeah, I mean, I'm sure she could go back and find out. I'm pretty sure you're on vacation, but that's okay.

This one for Ms. Smith. I'm sorry, which one was that? That was the one on August 31st, I think it was.

And then Mr. Romano has... She has a total of five out of 17 missed.

FIRST OFF, I WAS AT THE 8th, AT LEAST ON THE RECORDS HERE.

SURE. I DIDN'T GO BACK TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS. I JUST WENT TO THE CHART THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME ON SATURDAY THAT WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT. BUT THE MEETING THAT I MISSED ON MAY 11th WAS BECAUSE THE My son graduated from college and was also commissioned to be an Army officer on that weekend. So the 9th and the 10th, I had family in from the West Coast that I was hosting to celebrate him. The one on... June 22nd I was not able to make for work purposes. I will note that that was not a meeting that was... On the second Monday. That's correct. It was rescheduled because other people h

And guess what? If they weren't excused, I would accept the responsibility for that. I don't think anyone is going to really question it. I don't think staff is really questioning it. I will say this. They were aware because I gave an email to Nick on August 24th. So long before the email came to me last week, I went ahead and gave them the explanations on why I missed those three meetings in a row, or what it's worth.

just want to reiterate i don't think that it was a nick issue or a greg issue if it was i have zero problem with it um i think they were put up to it that's that's my view right now thank you for your opinion mr romano any other questions is there a motion to take any action on the 2026 absences of the members I'm gonna recuse myself from this vote, given that I think this has all been triggered by the notice that was given to me last week and the lack of notice that was given to me for tonight's meeting.

Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to excuse members from the calendar year 2026.

Your notice to me was triggered after Nick's email was sent. I was just gonna say, I can appreciate that, but the time your email came to me Nick had already circulated this email with information that he compiled. And you and I talked about that on Friday. And I didn't know about this email, but I, right?

I don't see any now, but obviously my...