[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:02] 730, where I'm going to go ahead and get started.
[0:06] I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is a duly notice regular meeting of Hudson City Council held in accordance with the Sunshine Laws of the State of Ohio, Section 121.222, and the City of Hudson Charter Article 3, Section 3.02, for Tuesday, September 15, 2020. It is 730 p.m.
[0:26] I'd like to take a moment, welcome everyone who is here in attendance tonight, as well as those who may be watching remotely via the HCTV video feed.
[0:35] We'll close section one and then move on to section two, Pledge of Allegiance.
[0:40] If you're able, we please stand and join me.
[1:04] Thank you everyone. That was maybe the second best Pledge of Allegiance other than when the Boy Scouts were in attendance.
[1:10] Thank you.
[1:11] We'll move on to section three for roll call.
[1:14] Mrs. Wheeler, will you please call the roll?
[1:16] Dr. Bird.
[1:16] Mr. President.
[1:18] Mr. President.
[1:18] Mr. Ameau.
[1:19] Here.
[1:19] Dr. Gats.
[1:20] Mr. Sutton.
[1:21] Mr. Weinstein.
[1:23] Mr. White.
[1:24] Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. We do have a quorum tonight with all seven members of Council.
[1:30] We will close section three and move on to section four, which is approval of the minutes.
[1:37] Item A is number 26-0074.
[1:41] These minutes will include the August 10th, 2026 Council and Planning Commission joint meeting
[1:47] on Clinton crossing in those minutes. Also, the September 1st, 2026 Council meeting
[1:54] minutes and the September 8th, 2026 Council workshop minutes. Do we have a motion from Council
[2:02] to accept the minutes as provided? I move to accept minutes as provided. Thank you, Council
[2:08] We have a second.
[2:10] Second.
[2:11] Thank you, Council President Bird.
[2:12] Is there any discussion from Council on the Minutes as provided?
[2:19] Seeing no comment or discussion.
[2:21] This is Wheeler.
[2:21] We please roll call of vote on the motion to pass and approve the Minutes as provided.
[2:26] Dr. Bird.
[2:27] Mr. President.
[2:28] Yes.
[2:28] Mr. President.
[2:31] Yes.
[2:32] Dr. Weinstein.
[2:33] Mr. White.
[2:36] Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler.
[2:38] The approval of the minutes has provided passes by a vote of seven in favor to zero against.
[2:45] We'll move on to section five for proclamations. We do have four proclamations tonight.
[2:51] Item A is number two six dash zero zero seven five. I'll read that in its entirety.
[2:57] Special recognition of the two thousand and twenty six mighty Vincent project.
[3:01] We're as the city of Hudson, Ohio, which is to recognize the continued work of mighty
[3:06] Vincent.
[3:07] A Hudson-based 501C3 nonprofit organization dedicated to bringing joy, compassion, and love
[3:14] to the world by facilitating volunteering service and by creating awareness of those in need.
[3:22] And we're as mighty Vincent builds upon five prior years of organizing service projects, which
[3:31] and 35 volunteers, providing 6,000 and 17 hours of in-person community service to 31 non-profit
[3:40] organizations, while raising more than $108,000 to support the poor, and vulnerable, including
[3:48] those served by the Society of St. Vincent DePaul. And whereas, might events and provides
[3:53] an annual opportunity for all in Northeast Ohio and beyond to make the world better through
[3:58] in-person service projects, acts of kindness, charitable donations, consideration to participate
[4:05] in the friends of the poor walk to benefit the society of St. Vincent DePaul, and other
[4:11] community service actions and efforts that we may individually find applicable within
[4:16] our lives.
[4:18] And whereas Mighty Vincent envisions a world in which being a good Samaritan is the default
[4:23] response to human suffering.
[4:26] A society grounded in sensitivity to the vulnerable and marginalized, and a day when works of
[4:32] mercy are taken for granted habits.
[4:35] Now therefore I Jeffrey L.A. and Zavino, mayor of the City of Hudson Ohio, do hereby proclaim
[4:40] the week of September 9th through September 27th, 2026, as the 2026 might events in
[4:48] project in the City of Hudson and I urge residents to recognize this observance.
[4:54] In witness where I have here on to you set my hand and cause the seal of the City of Hudson
[4:58] to be fixed on this 15th day.
[5:00] May of September, 2020 and 26. Are there any comments from council on the proclamation tonight?
[5:11] That's where it gets.
[5:13] This 501C3 does excellent work for our city and is such a good role modeling for our children.
[5:22] Thank you, councilor Gets. Additional comments from any council members?
[5:29] I just want to say thank you for all of the work that you have done over the years.
[5:33] I know I've got to go on the walks and see you there.
[5:36] I love seeing all of the good works that comes from the mighty Vincent project.
[5:41] And it is a real honor that that is in our community and spreading that love and kindness that you do.
[5:46] Thank you.
[5:47] Thank you councilor Weinstein any additional comment from council members? Council President Bird?
[5:52] So, I love this sentence in here that might even spend some visions of the world in which being a good Samaritan is the default response.
[6:01] I mean, that is just so important today in this world, and it's kind of a mindset that we all need to adopt.
[6:12] Thank you.
[6:13] Thank you, Council President Verde.
[6:15] Any additional comments from Council members?
[6:18] Any comments from staff?
[6:20] I will just add Lindsey, it's been amazing to see what your family and the board and all of the volunteers have done and to see those numbers continue to just creep up.
[6:33] If you could tell, I emphasized those numbers when I was reading the Proclamation because they really are impressive.
[6:39] I've done some past work, I've been in all the walks with you and I'll be there again next weekend.
[6:45] So thank you for what you do for our community and the broader community.
[6:47] Thank you.
[6:50] If there are no further comments, be honored to present the proclamation to Lindsey, yourself, any of your board members in person.
[7:47] Thank
[7:57] you again and congratulations. We'll move on to item B under proclamations, which is number
[8:03] 26-0076. I will read that in its entirety as well. It's the proclamation, special recognition
[8:13] of Jacob Meachum, whereas on a recent occasion in our community, Jacob Meachum and his friend
[8:20] encountered an unforeseen emergency when Jacob's friends sustained an injury that left him
[8:24] unable to move and an urgent need of assistance. And whereas Jacob demonstrated extraordinary
[8:31] calm, clarity, and composure well beyond his years, recognizing the seriousness of the situation
[8:38] and acting decisively to ensure his friend received the critical assistance he needed.
[8:45] And whereas Jacob successfully communicated detailed information about their location, an
[8:50] area that would have been extremely difficult to find without his accurate guidance.
[8:55] Thereby enabling responders and family members to reach the scene quickly and effectively.
[9:01] And whereas throughout the incident, Jacob not only secured help, but also provided steady reassurance
[9:07] to his injured friend, helping him remain calm, during a frightening and unpredictable circumstance.
[9:14] And whereas such exceptional conduct exemplifies bravery, responsibility, and compassion,
[9:22] qualities that reflect the highest ideals of our communities' youth.
[9:26] Now therefore I, Jeffrey L. Anzavino, may of the city of Hudson, Ohio, do hereby recognize
[9:31] Jacob Meachum for his outstanding actions during a moment of crisis, and for the extraordinary
[9:37] leadership he displayed. I encourage all residents to recognize Jacob, whose actions serve
[9:43] as an inspiration to us all. In witness where I have here on to you set my hand and cause
[9:49] the seal of the city of Hudson to be effect on this 15th day of September, 2026.
[9:57] Do we have any
[9:58] comments from council.
[10:01] That's a white. Yeah, this was an incredible display of courage and bravery to step up when it matters most in under very intense pressure. So the community is very proud of you. Jacob, and I hope that you are proud of yourself. Great work.
[10:16] Thank you, Councillor White. Additional comments from council members? Councillor GANS?
[10:20] Jacob, maybe you need to think about going into police or fire or EMS. We could use a person of your caliber.
[10:30] Thank you, Councillor Gats, additional comment from Council members, Council of Duramo.
[10:35] You're going to make things, I'm sure your parents and family are so proud of you and
[10:39] keep up the good work for our community, so glad to have you here tonight.
[10:43] Thank you, Council of Duramo, any additional comment from Council members?
[10:48] Comments from staff?
[10:51] Council President Burden?
[10:53] I will just add that resident contact of the city and that message got to me and they
[11:00] what can we do to recognize this young individual and first off they said can we do something
[11:07] and I said absolutely this is the thing that we want to highlight and recognize within our city
[11:14] and it's just a great example of everything that we stated in the proclamation and I'm more than
[11:20] honored to read this presented to the family and Jacob who is here tonight he's hiding in the back
[11:27] So if there are no other comments, Jacob and your family, if he would please come forward, I'd be honored to present the Proclamation to you.
[12:41] But the appreciation and gratitude, so this is for you, thank you, I'm
[12:57] happy to be here.
[13:19] Congratulations and thank you again, the Jacob and his family.
[13:24] We'll move on to our third of fourth proclamations tonight.
[13:29] This is item C, number two, six, dash, zero, zero, seven, seven.
[13:34] This is a special recognition of the Hudson Kiwanis Club's 75th Anniversary.
[13:39] I'll read that in its entirety.
[13:42] Proclamation, special recognition of the Hudson Kiwanis Club, 75th Anniversary.
[13:47] Whereas since it's founding in 1951, the Hudson Kiwanis Club has been a steadfast champion
[13:53] for children, families, and the greater good of the Hudson community.
[13:57] And whereas the club's members have generously given their time, talents and resources to projects that inspire learning, promote leadership, and foster a spirit of service among all ages.
[14:11] And whereas through scholarships, youth programs, community events, and hands-on volunteer work, the Hudson Kiwanis Club has touched countless lives and strengthened the bonds that make Hudson a vibrant and caring place to live.
[14:25] And whereas the dedication, fellowship, and civic pride demonstrated by the Hudson Kiwannis Club serves as a shining example of what can be achieved when neighbors unite for a common purpose.
[14:38] And whereas September 24th, 2020, marks the 75th anniversary of the Hudson Kiwannis Club, which was locally chartered on that date in 1951.
[14:50] and subsequently receive their National Kiwanis Charter on November 12th, 1951.
[14:58] Now, therefore, I Jeffrey L.A.
[15:00] We know may of the city of Hudson, Ohio, do hereby honor and commend the Hudson Kiwanis Club for their legacy of service and enduring commitment to building a brighter future, and therefore proclaim September 24th, 2026 as Hudson Kiwanis Club Day, in the city of Hudson, and I encourage residents to recognize and support the ongoing contributions of this outstanding organization.
[15:25] In witness whereof, I have here on to set my hand and clause the seal of the city of Hudson to be a fixed on the 15th day of September,
[15:34] 2026.
[15:36] Are there any comments from council?
[15:38] Councilor Weinstein?
[15:40] I'll just say you all have done so much good work in Hudson.
[15:44] I do have a favorite.
[15:46] When my oldest was an infant, I was very afraid to take her to a pool, and I didn't want to.
[15:52] And my husband said he wanted to run for council and I said, I want to splash pad and he made that campaign promise to me and had no idea how he was going to keep that campaign promise.
[16:03] I worked with the city manager, I said, go talk to Kuanus, they love the ideas, you all were in and he was very excited when that splash pad had that groundbreaking.
[16:16] So my family, whenever we see it, we think of that and we love this space. It's such a great safe space for kids to play in the water.
[16:23] I love driving by and seeing the community there, the community together, just enjoying that space and enjoying each other.
[16:30] So the work you all do is really the fabric of our community.
[16:34] So thank you, and I know my husband says,
[16:36] thank you for helping you keep this campaign promise.
[16:40] Too many people, but also to me, I think he was maybe
[16:42] most afraid of me, and so he definitely appreciates you all.
[16:45] Thank you.
[16:47] Thank you, Councillor Weinstein.
[16:48] Additional comment from council members?
[16:53] Council, Councillor White, excuse me?
[16:55] Yes, I just want to thank the colonists Hudson club for everything
[16:59] do for the kids and families in the community. I've been fortunate enough to help coach baseball
[17:04] with the Cuanas Program for years. It's a well-oiled machine. Everyone's having fun out there. They're
[17:08] learning a lot and just really appreciate you guys and continue to do that year over year. So happy
[17:14] 75th and keep it going. Thanks. Thank you Councillor White. Any additional comments? Councillor Garema?
[17:20] Yeah, I just wanted to thank everyone in the mirror set it perfectly. You know the Hudson Cuanas gloves
[17:25] She serves as a shining example of what can be achieved when neighbors unite for a common purpose.
[17:30] So thank you guys and look forward to working with you.
[17:33] Thank you council of Dremo additional council comment.
[17:37] Any comment from staff?
[17:40] I would just add that it was my pleasure working on this proclamation with the group and looking forward to attending your dinner,
[17:48] Gala, extravaganza that you have coming up here later in the month.
[17:53] I believe that's is it next Thursday?
[17:55] Yes, so I will be there.
[17:58] It would be my pleasure if you would come forward to officially accept the
[18:01] Proclamation.
[18:33] You just want to make sure that you can
[18:42] do
[18:55] this in the background.
[19:02] We want to thank you, Mr. Mayor, and this is great and honor for us to
[19:07] receive.
[19:08] And we also really want to thank the community for their support.
[19:13] When Dr. Weinstein mentioned the splash pad, we are known about the splash pad, but we're
[19:17] also known about past couple scholarships and we have an extensive footprint in the community
[19:22] and I'd like to say we want to continue for the next 75 years. I won't be there for that,
[19:28] but we'll continue to support this community the best way we can. Thank you very much.
[19:49] Thank you and congratulations again.
[19:55] We'll pause for a moment and continue with our last
[19:59] proclamation on the
[20:00] Thank
[20:12] you. Item D is number 2-6-0078. This is a proclamation for a special recognition of Constitution week,
[20:23] 2020-6. Whereas the United States Constitution, America's most important document, stands as a
[20:32] testament to the tenacity of Americans throughout history to maintain their liberties, freedoms,
[20:38] and inalienable rights.
[20:41] And whereas Constitution Week started by the daughters of the American Revolution, it celebrated annually during the week of September 17th through 23rd.
[20:50] To commemorate its history, importance, and bring attention to how it serves still today.
[20:57] And whereas it is fitting and proper to accord, a official recognition to this magnificent document, and its memorable anniversary,
[21:04] and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate the occasion.
[21:09] And whereas public law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation,
[21:14] each year by the president of the United States of America,
[21:18] designating September 17th through September 23rd as Constitution Week.
[21:22] Now therefore I, Jeffrey L. Anzvino, mayor of the city of Hudson,
[21:26] hereby proclaim, September 17, through September 23, 2026, as Constitution Week in Hudson, Ohio,
[21:35] and I urge all citizens to study the Constitution and reflect on the privilege of being an
[21:39] American with all the rights and responsibilities which that privilege entails. In witness
[21:46] where I have here on to set my hand and cause the seal of the City of Hudson to be fixed on
[21:50] 15th day of September, 2026.
[21:56] Are there any comments from council members?
[22:01] Any comments from staff?
[22:04] Diane, you're where are you at?
[22:07] You're hiding back there.
[22:09] Always a pleasure to work with these with you
[22:12] on these proclamations and happy and honored to present
[22:15] this officially to you again this year.
[22:17] If you please come forward, I'll officially present you
[22:20] with the proclamation.
[22:58] Just to let everybody know, our chapter along with Stowe's Cogophiles and Akron have gotten the revolutionary war exhibit that will be at the Cogophiles library from October 4th through the 17th.
[23:19] So I invite everybody to come review it, look at it.
[23:24] It's supposed to be really spectacular.
[23:27] So please, please come.
[23:30] It was something, it's a traveling revolutionary work,
[23:34] so we were lucky that we actually got it.
[23:38] Okay, thank you.
[23:39] Thank you, and congratulations.
[23:48] We will take a short pause.
[24:17] Thank you, everyone, that does close out section five for proclamations.
[24:20] We will move on to section six on our agenda, which is public legislative hearing.
[24:29] That is item A, number two, six, dash one, one, eight.
[24:34] This is a resolution authorizing a settlement of the Prestige Builder Group LLC, versus
[24:39] the City of Hudson lawsuit, and related claims surrounding the Canterbury Meadows development.
[24:46] And please bear with me.
[24:46] I'll give a little bit of a background here before we start with some information from
[24:52] the city. So tonight we will be accepting testimony on the proposed settlement agreement between
[24:58] in the city and the development.
[25:02] We will start with some opening remarks from the city's outside legal council, Michael Cicero, and then turn the floor over to Sarah Kelly and Delaney Sillman with planning next.
[25:15] Planning next is an outside independent zoning expert that the city retained in order to evaluate and provide advice on whether the proposed replacement,
[25:24] development plan meets and or exceeds the requirements of the city's land development code
[25:30] and how it aligns with the city's most recent comprehensive plan from late 2024.
[25:38] The next step would be initial testimony from the developer, however it is my understanding
[25:42] that that step is being wave this evening. Please note that the developer does have the right
[25:47] to enter final comments via testimony after all public comment has concluded.
[25:52] We will then continue this evening and open the floor to anyone who owns property within
[25:57] 300 feet of the proposed development.
[26:00] As always, please allow me to recognize you and assign you the floor.
[26:04] The time limit for each speaker in this section will be 15 minutes.
[26:09] After this portion of the hearing, I will open the floor to any other resident of the municipality
[26:14] who may wish to provide testimony during our hearing.
[26:17] The time limit for each person in this section will be the standard five minutes.
[26:24] As noted previously, final comments via testimony will then be reserved for the developer.
[26:30] Please also note that this topic is also on our legislative agenda tonight where it will have a second of three readings.
[26:37] Therefore, no action by city council is planned or required tonight.
[26:42] that third reading of the legislative item for this topic is planned for our council meeting
[26:48] on October 6th.
[26:52] Furthermore, for our hearing, I'm asking city council members to hold questions
[26:56] until the end of each presentation or individual speaker or group speakers this evening.
[27:03] Anyone speaking tonight during this hearing is required to be sworn in. However, this does not apply
[27:08] the Council members given our sworn oath of office, nor legal counsel.
[27:13] Thus, based on the amount of testimony that I'm expecting tonight, I will be swearing
[27:18] in speakers for the different sections that I previously outlined.
[27:22] Thank you.
[27:24] We now like to turn the floor over to the city's outside legal counsel, attorney Mike Cicero
[27:29] to introduce himself and the topic of tonight's hearing.
[27:37] Thank you, Mr. Bear.
[27:38] President of Council, members of Council, community members and stakeholders in the audience
[27:43] and city officials.
[27:45] My name is Michael Cicero.
[27:47] I am what is known as Norma's Legal Council.
[27:49] I am here before you tonight.
[27:51] What is Norma?
[27:52] It is the Northern Ohio Risk Management Association of Dishealth Insurance Pool, which here.
[27:57] The STEAM Finance Director is President of the Board of Trustees and has been for a number
[28:00] of years.
[28:01] You and ten other municipalities have pulled your resources to an essence, ensure yourselves against any claim.
[28:10] And I would not be here before you, but for an issue that occurred during this project,
[28:17] as you are aware, planning commission denied the application, this council confirm that.
[28:24] It was then appealed to the Court of Common Police.
[28:26] That was a firm that now is pending in the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
[28:30] But your code has a separate provision that can be an administrative review of a constitutional claim.
[28:38] And it's unique, but it exists, and that claim was made by the developer, which then had caused Mr.
[28:46] Pitchford, your law director, to notify the pool, because a constitutional administrative review is a precursor to a federal lawsuit.
[28:55] Usually for deprivation of some civil rights in this case, it would be some sort of a due process violation.
[29:01] So then the pool, I have been legal counsel or assistant legal counsel for the pool for over 30 years, asked me to step in and review this.
[29:10] And when I gave it a view from 35,000 feet, which is sort of my role at that time and looking at the constitutional issues,
[29:16] The threshold question becomes, what is the viability?
[29:21] What is the likely constitutionality of the zoning ordinances?
[29:26] Number one, and number two, what is proposed?
[29:29] And in this case, there was already the resolution was proposed
[29:31] by the time we were notified and the hardship claim filed.
[29:36] So, I'm not just a lawyer.
[29:39] I am the law director for the Village of Hunting Valley,
[29:43] which has extraordinarily draconian zoning.
[29:45] I am the Assistant Law Director for South Euclid University Heights Newberg Heights in the
[29:50] prosecutor for Hunting Valley, Mayfield Village, Gates Mills, Richmond Heights University
[29:56] Heights, Newberg Heights, and when they beg me I help out in South Euclid.
[30:00] All I do is municipal law. So given my experience over the past 36 years and also representing Bedford, Highland Hills, seven hills, etc. I reached out to a couple of colleagues that I've worked with and in recent years I've worked with Sarah Kelly and her colleagues at planning next, they are very highly reputable planning and zoning firm in Columbus.
[30:23] And I referred her firm to the city and then your council hired that firm to do an analysis of the proposed settlement agreement from a stand point of compliance with your land development code.
[30:38] And with that, what I would like to do is to turn it over to Sarah Hook and give you some some sort of comments about that.
[30:44] Thank you, Mr. Cicero.
[30:47] Sarah and Delaney, if you would.
[30:49] You do have a PowerPoint presentation.
[30:52] Mr. Griffith, is that loaded and ready to go?
[30:56] And I will swear.
[30:58] I will swear both of you in at the podium.
[31:05] Before we get started, would you raise your right hand?
[31:08] Do you solemnly swear under the penalty of perjury
[31:10] that you will tell the truth, the whole truth,
[31:12] and nothing but the truth during your testimony this evening?
[31:15] If so, please say I do.
[31:17] Thank you, please continue.
[31:18] in the correct mode, please.
[31:24] And let's see if I can not write.
[31:31] Thank you very much for having us here this evening.
[31:34] We appreciate the opportunity to share our expertise with you.
[31:39] There are a few things that we would like to do in our time with you.
[31:43] First, wanted to give you a little bit of introduction of who we are and the credentials that we bring to this particular item.
[31:51] We then are going to move on to a number of topic one is how the proposed plan complies with the city's LDC.
[32:02] To sort of how we define conservation subdivisions more generally in the field of planning.
[32:10] For we're looking at the conservation subdivision spectrum.
[32:14] So the range of types of conservation subdivisions that exist and where your conservation subdivision fits within this broader spectrum that we're familiar with as planners.
[32:30] Number five you want to compare the open space conservation subdivision to your underlying regulations and then we will conclude have some concluding remarks.
[32:45] So I would like to start off by sharing a little bit about ourselves and our firm.
[32:52] I am a principal at Planning Next, and Delaney is a senior planner with our practice.
[32:57] We are a community planning consulting practice based out of Columbus, Ohio.
[33:02] We work all over the state of Ohio and throughout the rest of the country as well.
[33:08] Our practice has been a business for 29 almost 30 years.
[33:12] our combined experiences well over 20 years doing this kind of work.
[33:19] We consider ourselves to be seasoned professionals.
[33:21] We have direct experience interpreting Ohio zoning and land development codes
[33:27] and planning the planning work we do that is varied in nature.
[33:33] This includes quite a bit of experience with conservation,
[33:37] or sometimes called cluster subdivision standards,
[33:40] as they are a part of many communities throughout the state and beyond.
[33:47] We are both trained as city planners.
[33:50] I hold a Master of City Planning from MIT.
[33:53] I am accredited by the American Institute of Certified Planters,
[33:56] which is the main accrediting body for planners in the US.
[34:01] Actively involved as a member of the Board of the Ohio
[34:05] Chapter of the American Planning Association, Delaney, also involved with the American Planning
[34:11] Association, served for almost six years as a planning commissioner in the City of
[34:16] Grand Vee Heights where I live.
[34:19] And then of course we continue to work in communities across the state, across the Midwest,
[34:25] and beyond, who are dealing with complex planning issues of many kinds.
[34:30] We have worked here in the region, and our firm has worked in Shaker Heights and Hunting Valley.
[34:36] We've also worked in many communities that I think share a common interest to Hudson in creating
[34:44] really quality places and making quality of place, you know, a really central part of who you are,
[34:52] something that you really value. So we've worked in, you know, Dublin and Upper Orleans, Tinnohia.
[34:57] we've worked in many other...
[35:00] Communities that I think strive for a lot of the same things that you strive for here in Hudson. And so we're really familiar with those high expectations that a community like Hudson brings to its planning decisions and feel very, very comfortable helping communities to sort of negotiate how to achieve the things that they're most looking to achieve in terms of the built environment.
[35:24] So a bunch of awards on our side places that we've worked that have recognized us.
[35:32] In those cases, the American Planning Association has recognized our work.
[35:36] So with that, I want to turn it over to Delaney.
[35:38] She is going to be walking us through this evening, the analysis that we've conducted.
[35:44] And then we'll pause and happy to entertain you questions.
[35:49] You have?
[35:51] Oh, wrong way though.
[35:55] All right, so we will go into each of these points in more detail, but first we want to outline
[36:03] very specifically with as much clarity as possible, our professional opinion that the proposed
[36:10] plan complies with the land development code requirements, that the land development code
[36:18] is open space conservation subdivision fits very firmly within the common definition
[36:23] of a conservation subdivision that there is a spectrum of requirements within these conservation
[36:30] subdivisions as they exist throughout the country and that the LDC's open space conservation
[36:36] subdivision is very firmly within the spectrum and allows for types of development that also
[36:43] are within that spectrum. And then finally that the open space conservation subdivision requirements
[36:49] compel better design than what is allowed in the underlying regulations.
[36:59] To support this first
[37:00] point, the proposed plans, the proposed plans,
[37:11] supports, sorry. Oh my goodness, are you able
[37:16] to go back? Thank you. Thank you so much. The proposed plan complies with the city's land
[37:25] So, we reviewed the plan and we found that it is within the residential conservation zone district, that the open space conservation subdivision is a conditional use that is allowed in that district, as long as it meets all the conditional use criteria and we found that this proposed plan does so.
[37:50] We also found, oh, it's very great, I think we want
[37:58] to help this is great right here.
[38:00] Alright, and then we also found that the proposed plan meets all the spatial standards,
[38:06] including the required open space, the amount of density that is allowed,
[38:11] which is the same as the underlying zone.
[38:13] We also found that it meets the minimum lot size and setback requirements that are outlined in the LDC.
[38:19] Finally, we also find that the proposed plan aligns with the comprehensive plan, not only
[38:27] is that important, but that's also one of the several criteria for conditional use.
[38:36] All right, now taking a step back away from the LDC and the specific plan, we want to identify
[38:43] what a conservation subdivision actually is.
[38:46] So in this case it's a little bit broad and we've got several examples of the sources that we've used here.
[38:55] Sarah mentioned the American Planning Association, which is a very well-regarded authority in planning practice.
[39:03] And that's organization.
[39:05] has identified that 50% of developable land within a specific area is set aside as
[39:16] contiguous open space. That is really the broad umbrella that a conservation subdivision
[39:24] fits within. Many of them also define how open space is calculated, meaning can a specific
[39:34] that's required be included in your open space calculation can, you know, manicured park spaces
[39:40] count as open space, et cetera. Other things like the priority features that are to be protected,
[39:47] so that could be things like wetlands or steep slopes, and then finally flexible lots of mentioned
[39:53] standards. There's lots of variability with different codes throughout the nation.
[40:00] Secondly, the definition doesn't touch on any of those specific points, but they do naturally have
[40:07] quite a wide variety throughout the nation as they're put in practice.
[40:17] And then here we have just a little bit of a deeper dive into, again, that spectrum that
[40:22] we've identified. So many of these ordinances have within a stated purpose. I kind
[40:30] an idea of why the open space conservation design should be allowed or emphasized in certain
[40:37] cases has a specific way of measuring the open space and specifically exclusions, like
[40:45] that example I mentioned, of setbacks might be excluded from open space calculations
[40:49] in certain places. It also discusses, generally, these ordinances discuss what open space
[40:57] requirements and standards there are, if it's, you know, demarcated or, you know, if it has to be left in its natural state, etc.
[41:06] And then, finally, the lot size and density standards are also included.
[41:12] So, we wanted to provide a couple of real-life examples of what these can actually look like.
[41:17] So, we were discussing the ordinance.
[41:20] It's a set of rules that allow for certain types of developments to take place.
[41:24] These are actual real life examples from these first two will be from the state of Ohio and then a couple of others to explain again that very wide broad spectrum.
[41:37] So here you can see a conservation development in the city of Aurora, Ohio, and this conservation development as it's called is used as an example of a conservation subdivision.
[41:53] And you can see that it splits both, kind of,
[41:56] conserve, conventional lots you could say,
[42:01] which are around one acre in size.
[42:04] And those are the yellow lots that you see.
[42:07] And then we also have a zero lot homes
[42:10] on the very far left side of that image that you see up there.
[42:16] And generally, the average for the lot sizes here
[42:19] is about 0.6 acre.
[42:21] So these lots relatively large on average because of those larger conventional lots that you see.
[42:29] A lot of the protected open space here is also likely not highly developable.
[42:35] There's likely some slopes.
[42:36] You can see some topography lines in there.
[42:39] And then also wetlands and obviously just waterways as well.
[42:43] That would staunch development.
[42:46] Our next example is another northern Ohio example.
[42:50] this open space conservation development. You can see on the right side of the image here that
[42:58] these lot sizes, which are a little over one acre, and very as well. They're really maximizing
[43:05] that entire space. There's just a very small kind of buffer around the outside of the development.
[43:12] And then on the left side of the image, you can see that there's agricultural space that's been protected.
[43:17] So, there is, can take you as open space, it's about 50% of the development.
[43:24] And then this is an example outside of the state, but really important in this example is,
[43:30] while those sizes look very small on the screen, there are between one acre and five acre
[43:36] lots.
[43:37] So, this development is protecting a good amount of open space obviously, but those lot sizes
[43:43] are still relatively large.
[43:45] This is developed within the county, so it's on kind of on par with a lot of the development that's happening throughout the rest of the county.
[43:55] That's just another view, so you can see the layout of the development as well in some manicured and kind of set aside open space.
[44:06] And then we also wanted to provide some conceptual examples.
[44:09] This idea of a conservation subdivision is really well documented with these conceptual
[44:17] type examples.
[44:19] So, this is an example from a conservation nonprofit that identifies how the clustering
[44:27] of lots around roadways is really key to the definition of a conservation subdivision.
[44:33] Again, you can see the protected open space as well as some trails that are going between
[44:37] those lot lines.
[44:41] And another conceptual example here, this is from a regional planning organization,
[44:47] which has had just identified a minimized amount of development compared to the open space.
[44:54] Again, 50, 50 open space and development set aside.
[45:01] And then one additional example that we wanted to highlight for a couple of reasons is a conservation subdivision and selective land acquisition that has been completed in London Grove Township in Pennsylvania.
[45:16] So this is an example you can see these lots are relatively small, and there's a good amount of that dark green is marked as acquired open space.
[45:27] So this development did not happen in isolation fully on the, you know, impetus of the developer.
[45:36] There was an effort by the city to also acquire land near this development to help create and allow for this type of design,
[45:46] which you can see is considerably more than that 50% open space, 50% development.
[45:51] And in our research generally, unless you have examples of very large lot sizes and
[45:59] available area, like that example from Wisconsin, you really need some level of intervention
[46:04] to be able to help or to be able to allow a developer to kind of go above and beyond
[46:11] significantly beyond that 50% I mean.
[46:20] All right.
[46:25] Thank you.
[46:27] All right.
[46:27] And then finally, this is the proposed plan.
[46:33] So here we see that it,
[46:41] maybe,
[46:46] that it is fine within kind of that same vein of those
[46:51] different developments that we saw.
[46:55] So these stormwater management areas.
[47:01] I can steer from here if you just.
[47:04] Okay, thank you.
[47:05] Let me know if I don't
[47:11] know if you can get it back to you, screen, I'm a new one, yeah.
[47:16] I think.
[47:22] If you can tip the microphone just slightly down towards you and keep a little bit
[47:28] of a distance, there's a few gaps here and there, but not that.
[47:31] Okay.
[47:33] All right.
[47:35] So.
[47:36] You tip.
[47:37] It was pointing up if you can.
[47:39] Right into the wrap.
[47:41] Oh, right into the top there.
[47:43] Thank you.
[47:51] Okay, so finally, this is the proposed plan, the plan and question that we're talking about today.
[47:58] So you can see here, and clearly, demarcated in this plan is over, slightly over 50% open space.
[48:09] You can see that there are some areas of open space that are a little bit narrow, there's nothing in the code to suggest that that's not necessarily allowed,
[48:17] and it is still contiguous so it's actually even a little bit better than some of those examples
[48:23] that we saw where there were kind of separate chunks of open space if you will.
[48:30] And so it is hitting the open space requirements that 50% very clearly.
[48:36] The code does identify what is allowed to be included in that calculation and this meets that
[48:41] requirement as well,
[48:46] all right.
[48:48] OK, so where does the open space conservation
[48:53] subdivision fit within the spectrum?
[48:57] Where, essentially, what we're getting at is where
[48:59] do Hudson's regulations fit within the spectrum?
[49:03] Not necessarily the proposed plan.
[49:05] We have identified that that proposed plan really
[49:07] does fit the LDC requirements.
[49:10] So going beyond that, the open space conservation
[49:13] subdivision does fit in that spectrum in our professional opinion. The open space requirements
[49:20] in standards, Hudson does prioritize specific features, in particular, aligning with certain
[49:27] planning documents, et cetera. And so that is very much aligned with kind of the industry standards.
[49:36] The LDC also does require specific lot size and density standards. The open space
[49:42] conservation subdivision has a lot size minimum.
[49:46] It does not have a lot size maximum,
[49:48] which is something that communities have and may impose,
[49:53] as well, but the current code does not include that maximum.
[50:00] All right. And then finally, to wrap it up, we want to compare that open space conservation subdivision to conventional development within the rural residential conservation zone.
[50:15] So, the detached single family development is in the loud use within the zone.
[50:20] And then the open space conservation subdivision is the proposed plan is kind of using that conditional use and the design requirements that apply.
[50:31] So the comparison here is that the detached single family if we were to forego the open space conservation subdivision would not require accessible open space.
[50:43] there are open space requirements, but they wouldn't necessarily be restricted to that lot,
[50:49] you know, a developer could make payments and lieu of and things like that.
[50:54] So there would be no required accessible open space on that lot.
[50:59] Second here is that the detached single family development has relatively fewer protections for
[51:06] wetlands, natural forested areas, things that aren't necessarily protected by other types of
[51:11] regulations like Ohio EPA and things like that. Obviously those regulations would still apply,
[51:17] but the Open Space Conservation Subdivision goes a little bit further to include those types
[51:22] of things in the prioritized open types of open space essentially. Next is the setback, the underlying
[51:31] zone, single-family development requires a 20-foot setback from neighboring lot lines. The Open
[51:37] conservation subdivision is significantly larger. It would require a 100 foot set back from neighboring
[51:44] law lines. The minimum law size is one of the key differences as well to allow for flexibility
[51:50] and setting aside open space. The detached single-family development requires that the minimum
[51:57] law size is 2.5 acres and then in the open space conservation subdivision it's a 10,000 square feet.
[52:04] So it's considerably smaller.
[52:06] Again, there is no maximum in the code.
[52:09] Again, that's something some communities
[52:10] have opted in to do, but that is not in the land
[52:13] film and code.
[52:15] And then finally, the density requirements are the same.
[52:18] So that means we take the entire area.
[52:21] And that is what we use to determine the density.
[52:24] So even if the law sizes are smaller,
[52:26] the density requirements are the same.
[52:28] As they would be, with the Open Space Conservation
[52:31] and subdivision or the detached single-family development.
[52:37] All right.
[52:37] And then finally, it's just kind of reaffirm our findings.
[52:41] The proposed plan does comply with the LDC requirements
[52:45] in our professional opinion.
[52:47] The LDC's Open Space Conservation Subdivision
[52:50] fits within the common definition of a conservation subdivision.
[52:54] Number three, there is a spectrum of requirements
[52:56] in conservation subdivision ordinances throughout the United
[52:59] States and elsewhere.
[53:01] and the LDC's Open Space Conservation Subdivision fits well within this spectrum in, again, in our professional opinion.
[53:10] And then finally, the Open Space Conservation Subdivision requirements are compelling better design than what is allowed in the underlying zone regulations.
[53:18] There are changes that the community could potentially opt into policy changes that could be made, including a maximum lot size.
[53:26] But, at this time, even without those additional policy choices, the Open Space Conservation Subdivision
[53:35] is still compelling better design again in our professional opinion.
[53:39] Okay.
[53:41] And that is all.
[53:41] Thank you for bearing with me on the tech.
[53:46] Thank you, Ms. Kelly and Ms. Selman.
[53:49] I will now open up to council.
[53:52] if there are any questions for either Mr. Cicero or the planning next team here with Miss Kelly and Miss Selman.
[53:59] Is there any questions of those individuals from Council? Council of Brisbane?
[54:06] I have one question for each of them. Next is up here. I would like to ask if you could for myself to
[54:15] degree, but the audience at large, why would a developer opt to choose going with this conservation
[54:24] plan versus just the standard used by rights regular and you had a nice grid up there.
[54:30] That kind of comparing the address to them, but why am I as a developer choosing to go for this
[54:34] conservation over just a standard?
[54:42] A non developer, but I will give a couple of kind of general
[54:47] concepts. One is that oftentimes the proximity to that open space is good for the property values.
[54:57] Another is that the layout.
[55:00] That's a loud because of that conservation. Sometimes can reduce the amount of right away that's set aside and also the amount of money that's required to align utilities and roadways and things like that.
[55:15] Anything else?
[55:17] I think more generally just market conditions and responding to what types of housing demands there may be in a community or in a region.
[55:27] Oftentimes, you know, developers are not just developing one in one place and in a community they have a good sense of what's happening or broadly sometimes they're undertaking more than one development within within a community and so they have a sense of what's desired and and what what fits what they believe you know fits with the community and its needs.
[55:51] Thank you.
[55:53] And if I could have Mr. Cistera,
[55:59] thank you.
[56:00] In your opening statement, you talked about kind of what
[56:03] kick this process off.
[56:05] Could you apply in about that a bit more?
[56:07] I believe you said, our city solicitor reached out to you about the risk.
[56:10] Could you kind of talk about that process how you were content?
[56:12] No, the city solicitor reached out.
[56:14] There was a hardship.
[56:17] Constitutional claim made pursuant to your code.
[56:20] That triggers a potential claim for money damages down the road.
[56:24] It's a precursor to a lawsuit.
[56:27] So because your solicitor is very wise,
[56:29] he notified the insurance carrier, which is the pool,
[56:33] we hire a local insurance company to act as our adjusters
[56:37] for the pool, and he notified the pool
[56:39] and the pool's senior risk manager reached out to me
[56:42] as legal counsel for the pool.
[56:44] So this process was kicked off, not by any action
[56:47] of this council, but absolutely not.
[56:49] It was triggered by the developer when the developer applied
[56:52] for that analysis on a constitutional hardship that would then trigger potentially money damages
[56:59] down the roof versus just the what we call the 25.06 appeal which was the planning convention
[57:04] decision affirmed by you affirmed by the trial court and that's the one that's in the ninth
[57:08] district Court of Appeals. That's on the city's dime there's no coverage for that in any
[57:14] zoning matter. But when you get into a potential claim on a constitutional violation it could trigger
[57:21] a federal claim because little most people know there is no cause of action for violating the
[57:28] Ohio Constitution for money. In other words you can violate the Ohio Constitution all day
[57:33] there is no cause of action for money. But you violate the federal Constitution everybody knows
[57:40] that it's civil rights claims and that's what that's what's coming down the road. Potentially. Thank you.
[57:47] Thank you. Thank you Councillor Brezzvic, additional questions for this group from Councilman
[57:51] Councillor GANS? Mr. Cicero, could you explain for the audience more about what you mean
[57:57] about the constitutional claim? Typically, what you do under Ohio law, there is a landmark
[58:11] case that came out of Mayfield Heights in 2006. It was litigated for 14 years, three times
[58:18] up to the Ohio Supreme Court.
[58:20] Anybody that's traveled up to 71 knows about it because it's the Costco that you see on
[58:25] 271 in Mayfield Heights right at the Mayfield Road exit.
[58:28] There's a Best Buy of Costco and that was massive litigation.
[58:33] Now the Ohio Supreme Court found that the zoning regulation was on constitutional and Mayfield
[58:40] Heights was facing a very, very serious claim that was not covered by any insurance.
[58:46] Because, if your zoning regulation is determined to be unconstitutional as a matter of law,
[58:53] which could be done by either an Ohio court or a federal court, then the property owner
[58:59] or developer has a claim for what is known as a taking.
[59:03] Inverse condemnation, you took my property without compensation, so now you owe me money
[59:09] for the taking for the denial of the whole process.
[59:12] And that's what triggers, when you see the constitutional hardship application, again, that's where you're able to direct your solicitor, contacted the pool to say we need further assistance because this might be a precursor to going down a money damage claim for a straight constitutional violation, or challenging the constitutionality of the zoning regulations themselves, which could cause a take-ings case.
[59:40] for which there is no coverage, but either way, it has severe economic consequences for the city.
[59:47] Which is why we got involved.
[59:52] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Gats. Additional comments for the planning next team or Mr. Cicero from Council. Councillor Weinstein.
[1:00:02] I have a question, I think Delaney is for you. So you showed that table, and you don't need to bring it back up, that shows examples of how the open space conservation subdivision compels better designs, and you talked about things about how it requires open, it requires open space and it has larger setbacks. And can you just talk about.
[1:00:25] So in our code, that is conditional use, is that correct?
[1:00:31] And then the other use, which would be not the open space conservation,
[1:00:35] is a use by right.
[1:00:37] So what would that mean if it doesn't get approved to do this open space
[1:00:42] conservation and resorts to the other one, which is a use by right?
[1:00:46] What does that essentially do to the design and do to that subdivision?
[1:00:50] Yeah, that's a great question and there's certainly a few unknowns in that being able to
[1:00:58] cite all of the lots appropriately with right of way and utilities and everything like that.
[1:01:04] It might be challenging to appropriately fit them, but there's nothing necessarily to stop the
[1:01:13] number of units from going into that same space, but for those units to cover the entire
[1:01:21] site rather than to set aside any open space, including the trails that you saw that were
[1:01:29] kind of intermingled through the houses and the space along the perimeter. None of that would
[1:01:35] be compelled as open space and even if, you know, stands of trees or wetlands were still protected.
[1:01:42] And they would not necessarily be open space that would be accessible, it would be within
[1:01:49] a private lot, potentially.
[1:01:56] Thank you.
[1:01:56] Thank you, Councillor Weinstein.
[1:01:58] Additional questions for Mr. Cicero or the Planning Next Team from Council Members?
[1:02:08] There are no, if just one moment, the four Mr. Brezviq speaks again.
[1:02:14] Is there any other questions from Council Members who have not spoken?
[1:02:17] Councillor White.
[1:02:18] Councillor Duriano, Councillor President?
[1:02:23] Councillor Durardo?
[1:02:24] Just one moment, Councillor Durardo.
[1:02:25] Just one quick question, delaney.
[1:02:28] So in our code and what you've seen, there's no, there's no maximum, lots of ice
[1:02:35] correct.
[1:02:37] And what about square footage for houses?
[1:02:43] Is that something that some the stories of had in their code?
[1:02:48] Certainly, yeah, several of them do have either they will have a maximum
[1:02:54] lot size, or they will have a maximum buildable area, or even maximum
[1:03:01] disturbance areas.
[1:03:04] So some of the concepts don't actually require lots, so they can just be a
[1:03:10] unit that does not have its own private lot.
[1:03:13] But in that case, there are usually maximum building sizes associated with them.
[1:03:20] Some of them do, some of them don't, though.
[1:03:23] I would say that it's kind of a mixed bag, depending on the community.
[1:03:30] We did evaluate three different Northern Ohio communities.
[1:03:35] And of the three of them, aside from Hudson, only one of them had a maximum, a lot size
[1:03:41] or build-able area.
[1:03:44] Thank you. Thank you, Council President Bird.
[1:03:47] Additional members of the vote, Councilor Wider, Dremel.
[1:03:51] Councilor Brzeweck.
[1:03:52] Thank you. I have one final question for the planning next.
[1:03:58] Your well credentialed, you have a large breadth of experience in many cities and all over the state.
[1:04:07] You have taken plenty of time to evaluate our land development code.
[1:04:11] This plan that has been submitted via the settlement to you see any reason, any grounds on which via our zoning that this plan should be changed altered or denied.
[1:04:27] Say that we haven't seen anything that would make us in our professional opinion think that it should be denied.
[1:04:36] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Breswick. Additional comments from other council members?
[1:04:44] Councillor Weinstein? I'm just wondering if you could clarify, especially for the audience,
[1:04:49] what's the difference between a permitted or a use by right and a conditional use between those two examples?
[1:04:58] Sure thing.
[1:05:00] The use by rate, and in the case of the roll, residential conservation district, that's single family detached is the example that we gave that would be most closely related to the open space conservation subdivision.
[1:05:17] And a conditional use is an allowed use as long as it meets a specific set of requirements that are identified in the code.
[1:05:28] and those requirements and of course you can kind of impose conditions so that those criteria
[1:05:38] which are in the code are met for a development. In Hudson's case there's a very specific list
[1:05:48] like in other places of criteria for conditional uses and one of those for example is that it must
[1:05:57] me all of their policy documents from the city, including the comprehensive plan, you know,
[1:06:02] it should align with development within a specific kind of buffer area from the development
[1:06:10] that is proposed. Things like that that apply very broadly, so all types of development
[1:06:15] that might be allowed as a conditional use. And so it's allowed per conditions.
[1:06:22] Thank
[1:06:25] you again. Thank you Councillor Weinstein. We're in round two of questions from Council
[1:06:29] for this group. Is there any additional questions? Council would like to ask the planning
[1:06:34] next team or Mr. Cicero.
[1:06:40] Seeing none. Thank you for your time and testimony this evening.
[1:06:44] We will move on to the next section that the opportunity to provide testimony here tonight.
[1:06:51] This will be hearing testimony from those who own land within 300 feet of this proposed
[1:06:57] development.
[1:06:58] Those owners should have received a letter from the city identifying you as such.
[1:07:04] Therefore for all owners who live within 300 feet of the proposed development and who plan
[1:07:09] to speak tonight, will you please stand so that I can swear you in if there are any.
[1:07:17] I see five.
[1:07:20] Would you please raise your right hand?
[1:07:22] Do you solemnly swear under the penalty of perjury that you would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth during your testimony this evening?
[1:07:28] If so, please say I do.
[1:07:31] Thank you.
[1:07:32] A reminder for this group, there will be a 15-minute time limit per speaker.
[1:07:36] Please allow me to individually recognize you and assign you the floor to where you can then approach the lectern and state your name and address for the record.
[1:07:44] By a show of hands who from this group would like to provide testimony this evening.
[1:07:50] Second,
[1:08:13] Skyler Sutton, 2243 Reventistry, with me as my attorney, Mark Stockman.
[1:08:20] When you were sworn into office, you took an oath to abide by and uphold the Ohio
[1:08:25] Revised Code, Hudson's codified ordinances, and the charter of the City of Hudson.
[1:08:31] The settlement agreement posed by you tonight contains multiple violations of both state
[1:08:35] and local law.
[1:08:36] The Terms raised serious questions about the Council's authority to approve the agreement, and about
[1:08:42] whether doing so would be consistent with the oath you took.
[1:08:46] Section 3C of the settlement does not merely establish a process for plan review.
[1:08:51] It actually predetermined the outcome of that review by requiring the City to grant final subdivision
[1:08:56] plan approval.
[1:08:58] When the submittitory materials are deemed to be in compliance with the settlement terms.
[1:09:02] How can a settlement agreement transfer or pre-determined approval that the land development code
[1:09:07] specifically assigns to the planning commission? The answer is it can't. You cannot contract
[1:09:12] around the law.
[1:09:14] codified ordinance 12202A2 explicitly states that only the planning commission has the power to
[1:09:21] take final action on proposed preliminary and final subdivision applications.
[1:09:27] In 1203-10D reinforces that by stating the Planning Commission is the entity with final approval
[1:09:34] authority for both preliminary and final subdivision plants. In fact, ordinance 1657 was
[1:09:40] explicitly passed in 2016 to update the previously quoted text to remove the power of subdivision
[1:09:47] review from the City Council. 1657 was made in response to charter amendments that were approved
[1:09:53] residents in that general election.
[1:09:56] More greaselessly, Section 3CI of the settlement.
[1:10:00] Seeks to give the city manager the power to grant sub-the final subdivision plat of rule, but Hudson City Charter section 902 states that the planning commission shall be the planning commission of the municipality.
[1:10:14] Ohio Revise Code 7303 states that if a municipal planning commission has been appointed
[1:10:20] all planning powers identified in 735-17-3735-26 are transferred to that commission.
[1:10:32] In a 1929 opinion, number 847, the Ohio Attorney General established that plan approvals
[1:10:38] made without approval by the Municipal Planning Commission cannot be recorded in the county
[1:10:43] recorders office.
[1:10:47] Section 120310D outlines a three step process for subdivision approval.
[1:10:53] 120303 outlines the appeal process and 12207 summarizes everyone's role in said process.
[1:11:00] This settlement violates almost every single line of text in those sections.
[1:11:06] To be blunt, this settlement completely abandons the rule of law.
[1:11:10] Our code and processes exist to ensure that all parties are treated equally and provide
[1:11:15] checks and balances through public oversight.
[1:11:18] While the entire settlement could be accused of stripping the public of our rights, section
[1:11:22] 6 is particularly offensive.
[1:11:25] It permits the city manager to approve modifications to the plan with no public oversight.
[1:11:31] State more plainly, the plan we looked out on the screen tonight doesn't even have to be the one that gets built under this settlement agreement.
[1:11:41] Authency ordinance 20610A defines a public hearing as a fact-finding mission to collect evidence and make determinations.
[1:11:51] This council has an obligation to enter the public hearing from a neutral position,
[1:11:55] but social media comments and verbal on the record statements implied prejudice.
[1:12:01] They have hinted at or sometimes outright said that they will explain why this must be passed after the public hearing.
[1:12:09] Based on those statements alone, I would challenge that any determination made by this body will be made in bad faith without fair consideration of the testimony made here tonight.
[1:12:19] When we do finally get a statement from Council, they will likely argue that the city must settle this to resolve the hardship claim.
[1:12:26] A hardship plane is a formal complaint made against the city, claiming that the government has unfairly
[1:12:32] removed use of the property from the owner. Quantum physicists will study this hardship
[1:12:37] claim years from now because it appears to be short and yours cat. It somehow both exists
[1:12:42] and does not exist at the same time. If we truly were in a hardship plane, we would be falling
[1:12:48] the process to find in chapter 1210 of the land development code. Under that chapter, the city must
[1:12:55] appoint a qualified real estate professional to act as an independent judge who collects testimony
[1:13:01] and evidence about the value and uses of the property.
[1:13:06] The hardship claim must be filed within 30 days of the planning commission decision, testimony
[1:13:11] must be collected within 30 days of that, and a written opinion must be issued within
[1:13:15] 30 days of that.
[1:13:16] Those dates have long since passed, no independent judge has been appointed, and no legal
[1:13:20] notice that defines this as a chapter 12 10 hearing has been issued.
[1:13:26] Clearly this is not a hardship claim.
[1:13:29] And yet at the same time the preamble of 26118 implies we are here to resolve a hardship claim.
[1:13:35] Even if we played along with the argument that this was a public hearing about a hardship,
[1:13:40] the legal standard for a hardship is defined in 121003 as,
[1:13:45] quote, denial of all reasonable economic use of the property.
[1:13:49] Again, that's all use, not some use, not preferred use, not desired use, all use.
[1:13:58] Section 12105G goes on to further clarify that the property owner has the burden of proof
[1:14:04] in these hearings.
[1:14:05] They must prove that there is absolutely nothing that they can do with the property,
[1:14:09] and no one would be interested in purchasing it.
[1:14:11] This property owner knows they cannot defend that position,
[1:14:14] because the planning commission itself has offered suggestions on the record for plans that would be approved.
[1:14:21] Even worse for the applicant's case, a local philanthropist has made verbal offers to purchase the land from the current owner.
[1:14:28] How can something of no economic value if there's an interested buyer?
[1:14:33] Selling this as a hardship without using the defined hardship process is yet another procedural violation
[1:14:39] and yet another violation of your oath of office.
[1:14:42] More dangerously, it creates a pay-to-play precedent.
[1:14:45] If I put a large enough dollar amount on my own personal lawsuit,
[1:14:49] will you permit me to install a 20-story
[1:14:51] high-rise apartment complex, or bypass approval processes?
[1:14:54] Once you've opened this Pandor's box,
[1:14:57] you will never be able to close it.
[1:15:00] In Richmond Road Partners LLC versus City of Warrensville Heights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Six Circuit, which covers the entire state of Ohio, noted that when considering a takings claim, the court must consider all relevant factors, including any delay the property owner's own conduct caused.
[1:15:21] For the past three years, the applicant's own conduct has been the primary source of any economic hardship they may have experienced.
[1:15:30] This application process started in the spring of 2023.
[1:15:34] The application was withdrawn and refiled in the summer of 23.
[1:15:38] Almost a full year lapse before preliminary plans were filed in the summer of 24.
[1:15:42] That plan was ultimately found to be non-compliant with engineering standard city ordinances and land development code.
[1:15:48] When the 24 plane was denied, the applicant made choice to appeal to the Summit County Court of
[1:15:53] Common Police.
[1:15:55] And when that case was decided in Hudson's favor in 25, the applicant then made another
[1:15:59] choice to appeal to the 9th District Court of Appeals.
[1:16:03] If the plan contained within the settlement is truly perfect and compliant, why was it not
[1:16:08] submitted at any time between 2023 and now?
[1:16:11] The path to where we are today was driven by deliberate choices made by the applicant and as
[1:16:16] court noted, that conduct must be considered
[1:16:19] and a takings claim.
[1:16:22] For what's worth, I do not believe the plan attached
[1:16:24] to the settlement fully complies with our land development code.
[1:16:27] Interestingly, it appears both the city
[1:16:29] and the applicant would agree with me on that.
[1:16:32] The settlement itself states, this is an effort
[1:16:34] to better comply with the land development code.
[1:16:39] As a reminder, 12076i1 of the LDC states
[1:16:43] that an open space conservation subdivision must comply
[1:16:46] with all applicable standards, and 12.040505, sorry, 12.0405, states that a subdivision must comply with all applicable development regulations.
[1:17:00] The legal standard in our code is full compliance, not mostly compliant, not partially compliant, and certainly not better compliant.
[1:17:09] There's another provision in the agreement that should concern everyone here tonight.
[1:17:12] Section 14E explicitly states that where the settlement conflicts with the land development code,
[1:17:19] the settlement controls. That is not simply an agreement to follow the code differently.
[1:17:24] Is an express contractual provision that discards the entirety of the city's land development code?
[1:17:30] The city lacks the authority to wave statutory or charter mandated approval processes,
[1:17:37] and these parties cannot create this authority by putting it into a settlement agreement.
[1:17:41] but here they are trying.
[1:17:44] It's obvious that this settlement agreement is not compliant with our city charter,
[1:17:48] codified ordinances or state law.
[1:17:50] At a minimum, it violates Hudson codified ordinances 20610,
[1:17:54] 202, 2027, 203, 203, 203, 10, 204, 5, 207, 6,
[1:18:01] the entirety of chapter 1210.
[1:18:04] Ohio revised code 7303, and city charter section 902.
[1:18:10] My hope is that you realize how flawed this settlement agree is agreement is tonight and do not approve it.
[1:18:16] However, should you do so?
[1:18:18] I am ready and prepared to seek relief through the court system.
[1:18:23] That's all I have.
[1:18:26] Thank you, Mr. Sutton.
[1:18:34] Thank you, sir.
[1:18:34] If you are complete.
[1:18:38] Of the other four members who live within 300 feet.
[1:18:41] Does anybody wish to speak next?
[1:18:44] Madam in the back.
[1:18:54] If you just state your name and address
[1:18:55] at the left turn and you will have 15 minutes.
[1:19:02] Good evening. My name is Melissa Jones. I reside at 2-2-3-3
[1:19:06] Revent Street. My property is adjacent to the proposed subdivision
[1:19:11] at the Northwest Quarter. And I'm here to provide comments to the
[1:19:15] city's proposed resolution number 26-1-1-8.
[1:19:19] With me is my attorney, Mark Stockman, a front-forward LLP.
[1:19:25] As an initial note, on September 3rd, 2026,
[1:19:29] I submitted an expedited public records act request
[1:19:32] to the city requesting documents regarding
[1:19:35] the hardship relief petition in related documents.
[1:19:39] As referenced in the proposed resolution and the proposed settlement agreement.
[1:19:44] I also requested all documents regarding any third
[1:19:47] party zoning and planning expert or any other expert that was referenced in Section 2C of the proposed settlement agreement.
[1:19:56] I specifically stated in my request as the public.
[1:20:00] Public hearing on the proposed resolution is scheduled for September 15, 2026. Please kindly expedite this request and provide the requested documents by September 8, 2026.
[1:20:13] On September 4, I received an email from Kathleen Sullivan, the communications manager of the city, acknowledging received of my public records request and stating that she will search our files and get back to me in a timely manner.
[1:20:30] Not receiving any response, on September 11th, I reached out to Miss Sullivan to inquire
[1:20:37] as to when I would receive the documents, and stated, in light of the September 15th
[1:20:42] City Council meeting, it is important that I receive the information as soon as possible.
[1:20:47] I have received no response and I receive no documents.
[1:20:52] The settlement itself states the resolution as promised upon the risk of the hardship
[1:20:56] claim and upon the advice of the third party zoning and planning experts. These documents
[1:21:01] are not attached to the public hearing notice or this agenda. The only way I can obtain
[1:21:07] this information is through the public records request. I timely request at the documents
[1:21:13] I did not receive them. So without seeing these documents, I am prohibited from providing my
[1:21:19] full testimony here tonight. For example, the proposed resolution and the settlement agreement
[1:21:24] make blanket statements about compliance with the land development code. But how these conclusions were
[1:21:30] reached is unknown, at least to me. The proposed resolution and the settlement agreement reference a
[1:21:36] multi-million dollar hardship claim, but the details of this claim or how these alleged damages
[1:21:41] are calculated are also unknown, at least to me. I would like to direct your attention's proposed
[1:21:48] resolution number 26118 which states, whereas consistent with the city council's commitment
[1:21:56] to fairness and transparency and out of respect for the voices of the residents this decision
[1:22:01] affects. The city provided notice the neighboring property owners to hold a public hearing
[1:22:06] and providing the public an interested party on genuine opportunity to be heard and to share their
[1:22:14] use prior to the final action of the settlement agreement.
[1:22:18] The requested documents are required for the Council's fairness and transparency that
[1:22:24] is referenced in this resolution.
[1:22:26] Without them, I do not have the genuine opportunity to be heard.
[1:22:32] I will provide the testimony that I can with what is available to me tonight.
[1:22:37] However, I request that this public hearing remain open until after I received the requested
[1:22:41] documents and have had time to review them with my legal counsel.
[1:22:46] Specifically, but not only, I will not be providing any testimony this evening regarding
[1:22:51] the proposed plans or compliance with the LDC and I reserve the right to do so when I receive
[1:22:56] the documents and had ample opportunity to review them.
[1:23:03] As for the testimony I can provide tonight, let's start with my objections, the legal notice
[1:23:07] the public hearing in the September 1 Council agenda.
[1:23:13] The proposed resolution first mentioned in the City Council meeting agenda and the legal
[1:23:18] notice of public hearing references the development as the now compliant development.
[1:23:26] If Council has already determined the development to be compliant with the LDC, why are
[1:23:31] we here tonight on September 15th?
[1:23:33] If Council has already determined liability for a multi-million dollar administrative hardship claim again, why are we here tonight?
[1:23:42] In essence, if this has already been determined, this is nothing but a dog and pony show for this Council to say they've given us the opportunity to be heard.
[1:23:51] Again, this is important that I receive the documents from which I have sought.
[1:23:59] The documents upon which council premises the statements are again what I requested in my public record to request.
[1:24:09] As for my objections to settlement agreement, I have questions and objections as follows.
[1:24:14] On page two, it states that prestige met with the city staff to address concerns and made revisions to the plans that an effort to better comply with the LVC.
[1:24:23] Are the plans and compliance with the LDC as stated in the proposed resolution where it said they're already compliant?
[1:24:30] Or are they only in better compliance with the LDC? There is a difference.
[1:24:35] Page four, it says the parties which is settled disputes, including a reference to potential claims, such as claims,
[1:24:42] or violations of constitutional rights. These potential claims have never been identified or articulated.
[1:24:48] We cannot provide fully informed testimony without knowing the details of these claims.
[1:24:54] Again, that is what I requested and did not receive them.
[1:24:59] Page 5.
[1:25:00] Next goes through the analysis of City Council, a prior providing approvals for the first two steps of the required three step process with planning commission and then also gives the city manager and in some instances the city engineer, the final authority.
[1:25:17] I'm not going to go through all those again. I know Mr. Sutton addressed them. We all know what it says, but I do want to respond to that.
[1:25:24] By saying, in summary, this settlement is nothing but an end run around of the final judgment
[1:25:31] of the Summit County Court of Common Police.
[1:25:35] Council does not have the authority to grant, to excuse me, does not have authority to grant
[1:25:40] developmental approvals that the Planning Commission denied and the court agreed.
[1:25:45] Because they do not have the authority to do this, the settlement exceeds the court's authority.
[1:25:49] While Council can exercise this legislative authority to resolve lawsuits and petting claims,
[1:25:55] there are parameters. This is not an unlimited power. A settlement cannot permit Council
[1:26:02] to exceed their authority. It does not extend to granting development approvals, the LDC and
[1:26:10] the City Charter, assigned exclusively to the Planning Commission. Under Ohio's constitutional
[1:26:16] home rule amendment, the city charter is the Supreme Constitution of the city. If this charter
[1:26:23] dictates planning commission has the final authority, the final approval authority city council
[1:26:30] cannot override this by a vote or an ordinance. City council does have the authority to amend
[1:26:36] land development code three legislative act. If the council wants to have the final authority,
[1:26:42] It cannot do so by passing an ordinance.
[1:26:47] It can only also be done through a charter amendment,
[1:26:49] through a charter review commission.
[1:26:52] We do not have this here.
[1:26:53] We have this council attempting to do exactly what is prohibited
[1:26:57] by well-established Ohio law.
[1:27:04] Additionally, the settlement agreement is barbed by Ways due to Kada.
[1:27:07] I won't get into law the legal arguments,
[1:27:09] but under Ohio law, the Summit County Court of Common,
[1:27:12] please court decision resolves all matters
[1:27:15] that were or could have been litigated in that proceeding, including this alleged constitutional
[1:27:21] hardship claim. Yes, proceed to appeal, but they cannot raise new issues on appeal. The
[1:27:28] standard of review by the public court makes it very challenging for prestige to prevail
[1:27:32] on appeal. Additionally, the Satellite Agreement is too open-ended. Page 6, it states that it permits
[1:27:42] essentially unlimited variances to the plan that are attached to the settlement agreement.
[1:27:48] It says the city will not object to any changes to the plan,
[1:27:51] provide the changes are in substantial compliance with the plan,
[1:27:54] at whose determination.
[1:27:57] At page 8, for necessary modifications,
[1:28:00] parties recognize, it says, the parties recognize the development as planned,
[1:28:05] may need to be modified to which prestige is only required to work in good faith
[1:28:11] and only the city manager has authority to approve these modifications. In other words, the plans
[1:28:17] can change at any time without limitation without any knowledge to the public or any opportunity
[1:28:23] for the public to be heard. This is not a good faith settlement. Moving on to the administrative
[1:28:30] hardship claim. Without waving my objections regarding the hardship claim or my right to be heard
[1:28:36] upon receipt of the requested documents, I would like to address the claim.
[1:28:41] The Settlement Agreement referenced the claim is being made to LDC Section 1210.04.
[1:28:47] As Mr. Sutton itemized, 1210.04 has a very specific and detailed procedural process
[1:28:54] that must be followed by Council and a petitioner to proceed on their hardship claim.
[1:29:02] Without seeing these documents which I requested, I have no way of knowing whether the hardship
[1:29:08] claim meets any of these requirements.
[1:29:13] However, 1210.04 requires a council within 30 days of filing the petition to make a determination
[1:29:21] as to whether the petitioner has a pre-emphasic case of economic hardship.
[1:29:26] If Council determines the petitioner has not made a pre-Mathasia case, the petition is to be denied by Council.
[1:29:34] If Council, however, does make a preliminary determination of academic hardship.
[1:29:39] A hearing officer must be appointed to review the information and a public hearing must be held.
[1:29:47] 12104 even provides specific requirements about the required notice of hearing.
[1:29:54] The driving force of the settlement is this hardship claim.
[1:29:58] As I have not read, see.
[1:30:00] We need to request the documents. I have no idea if the claim meets any of the requirements of the code. However, as council is basing the settlement on the multi-million dollar hardship claim, they apparently have determined prestige has made the prima facet of showing of economic hardship.
[1:30:15] If so, they are required to appoint a hearing officer and notice and hold a public hearing. This has never occurred, which only means one of three, well it means only three scenarios.
[1:30:27] One, Council determined prestige did not make the prima facie showing, and if that's the case,
[1:30:32] why are we setting on claim that we already determined President Merit or two, Council did not
[1:30:38] follow the procedure, and maybe prestigious claim is really against the city for not following the required procedures.
[1:30:45] Or three, Council just decided to ignore 1210.04 entirely, skip the required public hearing while a sign
[1:30:51] is using 12104 as the catalyst for the settlement, which one is it? It can't be one or the
[1:30:59] other. Additionally, to prevail on a hardship claim, Pristice has a very high burden to
[1:31:05] prove deprivation of all economically viable use of the land. Planning commission on the
[1:31:10] record provide an instructions to procedures how they can have their plan approved. Pristice has
[1:31:16] given the recommendations of how to make the land, the plan, a complaint with the land development
[1:31:23] code, prestige refused because that plan is not as economically viable as they would like.
[1:31:31] There's a big difference between having zero economic viability and it's just not as economic
[1:31:38] as I want it to be. I need to make more money. There is no hardship in that situation.
[1:31:45] So
[1:31:45] closing and to be clear, I am not opposed to the development of this property. I have said
[1:31:51] that on the record many times. My only request has been and has always been that the development
[1:31:58] be in accordance with the land development code. To be clear, I am also in favor of resolving
[1:32:03] this matter. I have been involved in some matter with this property for the past at least three
[1:32:09] years if not more. We all want to be done. I understand, I understand the practicality of being
[1:32:14] with us and moving on. However, this proposed settlement is a terrible resolution. It's illegal.
[1:32:21] It's such a dangerous precedent on so many levels. And I say that's both as a private citizen
[1:32:26] and is a formerly practicing attorney in construction law and real estate for almost 25 years.
[1:32:33] City Council, you must do better. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
[1:32:48] Given the amount of detail provided by Mr. Sutton and Mrs. Jones, I am going to ask council
[1:32:54] if they have any questions for either of those residents.
[1:33:01] The questions?
[1:33:03] Okay.
[1:33:04] Thank you.
[1:33:05] We will move on to there are three more residents who live within 300 feet who have raised
[1:33:10] her hand and been sworn in, ma'am, if you'd like to continue.
[1:33:13] Just please state your name and address and you'll have 15 minutes.
[1:33:17] My name is Kim Kosmasagade.
[1:33:19] I have the horse farm at 2242 Reventestrate.
[1:33:23] We live across the street from Mr. Sutton and the Jones family.
[1:33:28] My biggest concern is the water.
[1:33:35] As I mean, if you drive down the road, you'll see they have a big pump in the middle of the field on the south side
[1:33:43] to drain the water.
[1:33:45] I think it's kind of like right across from Mary Surgey's house.
[1:33:48] The middle of that call to sack, it looks like,
[1:33:50] and where the water's going, I have no idea.
[1:33:54] It's not coming on to Arlan currently,
[1:33:56] but my concern is from Mr. Sutton side and Melissa side,
[1:34:01] they say with the development plan
[1:34:05] that the storm water is going to run over Reventestrate.
[1:34:09] And on to our east side of our property.
[1:34:12] And being, I don't want any more water, I got enough water.
[1:34:17] And that is my concern with the development, whether it goes through, you know,
[1:34:21] as a conservation conservancy, whatever that is, or just a bunch of houses.
[1:34:26] I just would really like the water to stay where it is and not come to our side of the property.
[1:34:32] Thank you.
[1:34:34] Thank you, man.
[1:34:39] There are two other individuals who are sworn in.
[1:34:43] Does somebody want to speak next?
[1:34:44] Ma'am,
[1:34:50] I say your name and address and you'll have 15 minutes as well.
[1:34:54] I'm Nova Buchanan and I'm at 6312 Stowe Road, which...
[1:35:00] Is right behind what is proposed to be locked 21 and 22 of the development plan?
[1:35:13] I came here really
[1:35:14] not knowing, I've lived there now since 1991 and the lot next to me was empty and was purchased
[1:35:24] apparently by Visnig for this development, and I didn't even, the, the foreseal sign by the previous owner was there for two years following that purchase. I don't know, it still might be there with his phone number on it, but I certainly would have liked to purchase it. So, yes, it is, um, of interest. And, you know, it, it juts out. I don't know if you can see, um, and anyway, you know, I guess I would like to share some thoughts about it.
[1:35:54] the actual development. So that piece of land concerns me in that it is considered
[1:36:03] a part of the contiguous open space. First of all, what is that? I've never lived in a development
[1:36:09] so I don't know. And does that mean that anybody can walk along it? So now is there a property
[1:36:15] next to me that was originally zoned residential but is now being zoned for an access
[1:36:22] way or trail or something that walks along my property and now kind of gives full view of my
[1:36:28] backyard.
[1:36:29] I don't know.
[1:36:30] I would like a neighbor.
[1:36:31] We all would like neighbors on either side.
[1:36:33] We can talk, make friends with them, but to have open space where people can just walk
[1:36:38] along just doesn't appeal to me.
[1:36:41] When I moved there, it was a township and you know, I would never want it to become suddenly
[1:36:46] a corner lot or next to a trail, I guess that's my thought and so I did write a letter back
[1:36:55] in 2025.
[1:37:00] I live on Sto Road behind was proposed to be a lot of 2021 and 22 and my biggest concern
[1:37:07] relates to the traffic at this busy and oftentimes dangerous Sto Road and Revenestreet
[1:37:12] intersection.
[1:37:14] Snow Road traffic is generally backed up from this intersection
[1:37:18] beyond my house on any given weekday during rush hour.
[1:37:22] Both morning and afternoon.
[1:37:25] Adding 32 houses.
[1:37:27] Well, I don't know what it is right now.
[1:37:30] What is there right now?
[1:37:31] Yeah, 32 houses.
[1:37:34] Well, likely at least 60 more commuters to this intersection,
[1:37:38] not to mention more school buses and stops.
[1:37:40] Um, this further reduces the rural charm and feel of this neighborhood.
[1:37:47] So, um, that is one of my concerns.
[1:37:51] And, um, and just being able to bring these concerns forward is important.
[1:37:57] And that's, I guess, what I, I'm learning tonight.
[1:38:00] What might be being undermined.
[1:38:04] So, um, you know, this is about a settlement,
[1:38:06] not about planning a design and so if the settlement is approved, does that mean that the design won't be
[1:38:16] you know, just kind of considered a little bit more deeply with the people around it. I don't know.
[1:38:25] So it's a public hearing is a hardship settlement and so public hearing invites in public input
[1:38:32] where as a hardship settlement avoids public input,
[1:38:35] it seems like to me.
[1:38:37] I could be wrong on that, but that's my takeaway on it.
[1:38:40] I'm not that well versed in this sort of thing,
[1:38:43] so apologize for that.
[1:38:44] I do second motion, Melissa and Skyler's comments.
[1:38:48] I think they're very good.
[1:38:50] And I guess I would just like a little bit more time
[1:38:53] and consideration for those that live around the settlement.
[1:38:58] So let's make sure that I was writing down notes
[1:39:01] that was sitting there. Please bear with me as I go through and just kind of make sure I
[1:39:06] covered everything. Yeah, I think I have. So thank you for considering. Thank you, Mrs. Buchanan.
[1:39:15] Has previously noted this council have any questions for Mrs. Buchanan over the prior speaker.
[1:39:23] Seeing no questions. There was one other person sworn in. You remind me who that was.
[1:39:30] Yes.
[1:39:32] No comment?
[1:39:35] Thank you.
[1:39:36] Is there any other resident here tonight who lives within 300 feet of this proposed
[1:39:40] development that would like to speak?
[1:39:42] Again, you should have received a letter, notifying you of such.
[1:39:46] Is there anyone else with those credentials that wishes to speak tonight?
[1:39:52] Seeing none, we will move on to our next section, which is, Councillor Breuseberg, do you
[1:39:59] Thank you.
[1:40:00] Question for any of those? I suppose, now that we had confirmed, there were no more comments. Okay, we have an opportunity.
[1:40:08] Council of Residence? Yes. Thank you. Just keep this very brief. I am not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be one. I think even a well-versed lawyer would not give an opinion after hearing some legal thoughts for the very first time.
[1:40:26] So I plan to confer with a city solicitor and take this feedback, this is actually a public hearing, and I do want to hear that feedback.
[1:40:36] I don't have a lot to give back yet at this time. The only thing I would maybe ask a Tom, I know we don't have Brad here.
[1:40:47] I do believe you did some amount of work on the stormwater, you're somewhat familiar on that. Do you have any comment on the stormwater?
[1:40:55] It's currently a conceptual plan, so they are going to be doing stormwater improvements
[1:41:00] but we haven't gotten it, but we have not gotten into detail design yet.
[1:41:04] I need a thank you.
[1:41:07] Thank you Councillor Brezzvic, before we move on, is there any other comment or question
[1:41:10] from council members?
[1:41:15] Seeing none, we'll move on to the next section of our hearing tonight, which we'll move to
[1:41:20] the portion where we will hear comments via testimony from any other resident of the municipality,
[1:41:26] So as long as you're a resident within the municipality, you have the opportunity to speak at the podium.
[1:41:32] That time limit will be five minutes.
[1:41:35] Therefore, is there anyone here tonight that would like to speak?
[1:41:39] Him?
[1:41:41] And I will swear everybody in, if anybody else plans to speak as a, don't take this wrong way,
[1:41:48] general resident.
[1:41:50] If you will all stand and raise your right hand, I will swear you in.
[1:41:53] And again, this is only to speak on this public hearing.
[1:41:57] This is not general public comments.
[1:42:01] OK.
[1:42:01] If everybody who plans to speak is a resident,
[1:42:04] will you please raise your right hand?
[1:42:08] You solemnly swear under the penalty of perjury
[1:42:10] that you will tell the truth, the whole truth,
[1:42:12] and nothing but the truth during your testimony this evening.
[1:42:15] If so, please say I do.
[1:42:17] Thank you.
[1:42:18] Mam, you are first.
[1:42:20] If you'd like to speak, Mam.
[1:42:22] You have to say our name.
[1:42:23] for the record, we would like you to say, state your name and address, so that we can verify
[1:42:28] that you are a municipal resident of the municipality.
[1:42:31] Great.
[1:42:31] My name is Jennifer Justice, a government and I probably have 400 feet from the development.
[1:42:36] So is the 300 feet rule part of land development code?
[1:42:39] I'm just curious.
[1:42:41] Where that rule came from.
[1:42:43] Is it?
[1:42:43] Can anybody answer that for me?
[1:42:51] Thank you Mr. Zedak.
[1:42:53] Okay.
[1:42:53] This is your opportunity to speak to Council and provide your testimony.
[1:42:58] Okay, and not ask questions.
[1:42:58] If Council chooses to answer or ask questions after your testimony,
[1:43:04] they can do that, but they're not required.
[1:43:05] My main concern, again, having lived here 32 years is the amount of traffic
[1:43:10] that's going to be impacted with the new housing.
[1:43:13] I'm all for getting new families in the community and enriching our schools.
[1:43:18] I also believe philosophically, there's other ways to get people to participate in our schools.
[1:43:23] but that's a discussion for another time.
[1:43:26] However, I want us to do things right,
[1:43:30] and perhaps maybe look at one project at a time and do it well.
[1:43:34] So I hope that this will give be given as much attention
[1:43:38] as all the other projects that the city is working on right now,
[1:43:41] in addition to housing and other areas that we're looking to develop.
[1:43:48] So having lived here 32 years, I've seen people
[1:43:51] Be killed at that intersection, lots of horrible accidents at that intersection, and I just want people to be safe, and this to be done the right way.
[1:44:00] So it also like to include a traffic study, and whether or not more traffic lights are going to be needed there.
[1:44:06] And as other people have proposed and talked about over the years, maybe even a traffic circle there.
[1:44:11] But the way those two roads intersect, stow road in Revenest Street, it's a very dangerous intersection. Thank you.
[1:44:18] Thank you, ma'am.
[1:44:22] Next person, ma'am.
[1:44:31] Again, if you'll just state your name and address,
[1:44:33] and then you'll have five minutes.
[1:44:34] Very Miller 68 Fox trace lane.
[1:44:37] I didn't intend to speak tonight.
[1:44:39] I kind of want to hear and see what was going on tonight.
[1:44:42] I, in the Fox trace, Pinewood neighborhood,
[1:44:46] and many of us have faced stormwater issues,
[1:44:49] and we will be impacted if this is not done well,
[1:44:54] and not done right.
[1:44:56] and hearing what I heard tonight gives me even more.
[1:45:00] Concerned, then when I first came here to have this go through a process where it goes directly to the city manager to make a decision without further involvement with our zoning and planning commission is insane.
[1:45:18] I can't even believe you guys would undertake that.
[1:45:21] I hope you give it the length of discussion
[1:45:24] that the community is bringing up about this now.
[1:45:29] This all impacts a lot of people if this is not done right
[1:45:31] and we don't have, we have a lot of, you know,
[1:45:36] you all know I've lived here almost 60 years.
[1:45:38] I know what our zoning commission.
[1:45:40] We have a great reputation for being thorough
[1:45:43] and it's produced a city that we all love.
[1:45:48] I hope we continue and not having something that's just blanket approved and we don't have the ability
[1:45:54] to continue to have our residents have impact on those decisions made later on.
[1:46:01] So please, please be careful with this decision. Thank you.
[1:46:10] Thank you, Mrs. Miller.
[1:46:14] Who would like to speak next, ma'am?
[1:46:22] It evening, I'm Susan Newman on 2694 Stonebridge Court, and I am here tonight on making
[1:46:28] comments on behalf of the Hudson Heritage Association.
[1:46:32] We have several issues that are related to the proposed settlement on Canterbury crossing
[1:46:37] that we would like you to consider.
[1:46:39] Our first concern is that this agreement seems to contradict the provisions in the city charter.
[1:46:45] The charter section 9.03 states in plain language that the comprehensive plan, in effect,
[1:46:52] She'll be the operative growth management policy for the municipality.
[1:46:57] This does not refer to a prior comprehensive plan, but the current plan.
[1:47:03] City staff has on several occasions downplay the significance of the comprehensive plan, but our city charter does not.
[1:47:11] Our current plan designates this area as rural, residential, and defines what that means.
[1:47:17] The proposal by the developer was submitted in September of 2025 after the current version of the comprehensive plan was in effect.
[1:47:29] We do not understand why in the settlement with this developer we are not starting out with the current version of the comprehensive plan as our settlement position and supporting the planning commission.
[1:47:41] We should follow the rules of our municipality.
[1:47:46] Secondly, it seems that this settlement is also undermining the planning commission and other boards by circumventing their authority.
[1:47:54] One example is that in the charter, in section 9.02, it states in plain language that the planning commission is the
[1:48:03] planning commission of the municipality.
[1:48:06] However, in the settlement, under Part C2,
[1:48:10] the city manager is given the authority
[1:48:12] for the final subdivision plat approval
[1:48:15] and is also given the authority to determine
[1:48:18] if the applicable LDC standards have been met.
[1:48:22] This also seems to be in conflict with our city charter.
[1:48:26] Our city is governed by a charter
[1:48:28] and this settlement needs to follow it
[1:48:31] since those are the rules of the municipality.
[1:48:34] The State of Ohio, under administrative code section 2921.444,
[1:48:40] Part E, takes a dim view of public officials
[1:48:43] who tried to circumvent the policies and procedures
[1:48:46] established by a city charter.
[1:48:49] We ask that you consider the foregoing
[1:48:51] when voting on this proposed settlement.
[1:48:54] Hudson Heritage supports the boards
[1:48:57] and the commissions created by the charter
[1:48:59] As well as the process is put into place, protect our historic district and the entire surrounding community.
[1:49:07] Thank you.
[1:49:13] Thank you, Mrs. Newman.
[1:49:16] Was there somebody over here that had the sworn in?
[1:49:22] Am in the wait.
[1:49:28] You please state your name and address and you'll have five minutes.
[1:49:33] Hi, my name is Christine Decade Othaxon.
[1:49:35] I live at 2710.
[1:49:37] Reventest Street, I am a co-owner of Thaxon Family Farm,
[1:49:42] Thaxon's organic garlic, business owner here in town,
[1:49:45] heavy cotourism, and a lot of investment, the rural residential areas,
[1:49:50] as my neighborhood. First of all, I'd like to thank you all for your service.
[1:49:54] Of this point, you've done great, and I would hope that you will continue to
[1:49:58] present our city the same way.
[1:50:00] By backgrounds are in environmental. I was a vice president, director of an environmental laboratory for eight years, testing soil and ground water for priority pollutants to the EPA. I was director of that lab. We tested soil and ground water for underground storage tanks, ground fields, and all of those associated ground waters. I am pretty well educated in the ground water store, modern situation. I'm going to bring up some concerns that I sent to all of you in the past. I'm going to bring up some concerns that I sent to all of you in the past. I'm going to bring up some concerns that I sent to all of
[1:50:29] writing today, before 430.
[1:50:32] First of all, this is Roe Residential.
[1:50:34] When I moved here in 1991, Roe Residential was five acres
[1:50:37] when we were at Township.
[1:50:38] Now, we're a city, it's 2.5.
[1:50:41] We have a lot of discussion about that.
[1:50:43] I personally, this just me personally,
[1:50:45] don't believe that this development
[1:50:46] is following those Roe Residential codes.
[1:50:50] Second of all, the community surveys and concerns.
[1:50:53] The people in this community are surveyed all the time.
[1:50:55] This is not the type of development they're looking for.
[1:50:58] They're looking for housing that older people like myself or other people can sell their
[1:51:04] canterbury homes and move into a price point and a nice area for a home that fits their
[1:51:10] needs.
[1:51:11] This is not that.
[1:51:11] This is a baby canterbury.
[1:51:14] The groundwater and surface water and soil stability are an issue.
[1:51:19] There is a well on that property.
[1:51:20] It was drilled directly.
[1:51:22] The direction of the well is heading towards Reventest Street and if you look at the
[1:51:27] demographic maps, the elevation of the storm water ponds are higher than the wellhead, which means
[1:51:33] once we hit a storm event, and those storm water ponds cannot take in that storm water,
[1:51:38] the water will directly head towards the head of that well. Now, as you've seen lately,
[1:51:44] horizontal drilling has issues. This is an older well, but that doesn't mean wells don't fail.
[1:51:49] I've seen a lot of wells fail and so of you in the city with natural gas leaks and potential
[1:51:55] soil contamination, sub-soyle, instability, this is a problem in the area, which means
[1:52:01] now the city is going to have to upgrade, update all their swarm water because of this
[1:52:06] development. We're going to have to take into account all the nutrient loading from those
[1:52:11] lines in that HOA are going to be putting poisons on their yards to develop into our groundwater.
[1:52:18] This is a concern for us who are on wells and we are on wells now. The city sewer and electric
[1:52:24] and water go to Hayden, assuming the developer is going to take it to the development.
[1:52:29] What does that do to the city residents sitting here that have been living on that land?
[1:52:34] Are they going to be able to tap into the utilities for free since they've been paying taxes all this time?
[1:52:39] On Reventistry, Pasto Road, we don't get any of that.
[1:52:43] I don't have a sidewalk, I don't have sewer, I don't have water, I don't have natural gas, and truthfully I don't want it.
[1:52:49] So all I can say is the people that are going to be in that neighborhood should have access to it.
[1:52:53] It seems pretty unfair and a taxpayer situation.
[1:53:00] Three of these people on council have obviously had press that they had campaign donations made from one of the developer's teams.
[1:53:09] It's all over the papers. It's all over the newspaper. It's all over the social media.
[1:53:13] It's just to be bad optics. Do I believe that you knew that money went to your accounts from these guys? Probably not.
[1:53:20] It was a campaign fund, but it looks bad.
[1:53:22] It looks bad when we don't follow our own land development codes.
[1:53:26] It looks bad when we don't listen to any of our commissions.
[1:53:31] It looks bad when we're sitting here doing all the right things until this point.
[1:53:37] To me, the optics are horrible.
[1:53:39] And I don't understand.
[1:53:41] I am completely confused.
[1:53:43] And you can see now that this public is educated.
[1:53:46] We have a lot of legal going here today.
[1:53:48] And this is just a 15 minute talk.
[1:53:50] So I feel like you guys better watch.
[1:53:53] I mean, I'm not happy with this proposal.
[1:53:56] I am not anti-development.
[1:53:58] I think it would be great.
[1:53:59] Maybe somewhere else?
[1:54:00] Well, we got potential well-site here.
[1:54:03] We got groundwater issues.
[1:54:04] We've got soil issues.
[1:54:06] I think it's just not the right property for this type of development.
[1:54:12] Maybe the developers didn't realize how complicated this property really is.
[1:54:17] And I think we need to keep that in mind.
[1:54:19] My time's up 30 seconds in that I just want to go back to say and this is a charming community and these people expect clean water clean
[1:54:28] Slayl a beautiful downtown clean air and they're not stupid and I feel like this
[1:54:35] Really is an insult to all of us
[1:54:38] Thank you.
[1:54:49] Thank you, ma'am
[1:54:51] Additional Mr. Lighter
[1:55:01] I'd be at the tough act of fall of filightor, 134, Aurora Street.
[1:55:08] One of my favorite songs is The Who's Won't Take
[1:55:10] For Again. It is autobiography, Pete Thompson, who wrote the song, said that its lyrics were partly in response to something that happened during their performance at Woodstock.
[1:55:21] Abby Hoffman, one of the leaders of the anti-establish movement in America, jumped up on stage and grabbed the microphone during their set, with the intention of making some kind of political comment.
[1:55:31] Townsend already irritated because Hoffman spiked their tea with LSD before the concert.
[1:55:37] Shove them off the stage and continued with the show.
[1:55:40] His point in recounting this and the message behind this song is that revolutionaries
[1:55:45] come and go.
[1:55:46] Europe has had its fair share of them over the centuries, but the new leaders eventually fell
[1:55:51] into the same patterns of corruption and ignoring the masses.
[1:55:55] Hence the closing line, Methanuboss, and Seymour Zilboss.
[1:55:59] I think residents in Hudson feel the same way.
[1:56:02] It seems that every few years we are fighting off another set of developers who want to
[1:56:06] make a profit on their speculative investments in real estate.
[1:56:11] They wind about how difficult it is to do business in Hudson.
[1:56:14] It wasn't all that long ago when Hudsonites were actually proud of that fact.
[1:56:20] So here we are again.
[1:56:22] The property owners who tried to shoehorn a dance housing development on the soybean field
[1:56:27] of the corner of Ravanan, so rejected by the first planning commission, second by city council,
[1:56:32] and then by the BZBA. Finally, they took their case to the Sama County Court and lost
[1:56:38] again.
[1:56:39] Now their lawyers have seen have figured out a way around all these procedures that are in place
[1:56:43] to protect sounding neighbors and Hudson residents at large. They are a petitioning city council
[1:56:49] under the guise of economic hardship to enter into a settlement agreement that would bypass
[1:56:55] planning commission and give the power to approve a
[1:56:58] development to one person, the city manager.
[1:57:01] If this is approved by city council, every developer with a
[1:57:05] project in Hudson will know that they can simply ignore our
[1:57:08] boards and commissions and just threaten to sue to get their
[1:57:11] own way.
[1:57:12] Not only this is a dangerous precedent, but it goes against the
[1:57:16] most recent comprehensive plan, which seeks less density
[1:57:19] in zoning district described as rural residential.
[1:57:22] I suppose this is why the settlement refers to the 2015 comprehensive plan, which the document
[1:57:28] mistakenly refers to in his 2014 comprehensive plan, rather than the current one which is
[1:57:33] supported by a scientifically sound public survey. After reading the Act on Beacon Journal
[1:57:38] article this morning, the only thing I will add to my comments is that I don't think this is about
[1:57:43] bribes to city council, but I do think sadly politics may play a role. The focus should be on what
[1:57:49] best for the city and citizens of Hudson, and supporting our citizen-led boards and commissions,
[1:57:56] not getting even with political rivals. By the way, the acronym NIMBY was coined by the 1970s
[1:58:02] by nuclear power plants to throw shade on citizens expressing concerns over safety. It's not
[1:58:08] the insult something it is. Here's hoping that our city council will not be fooled again.
[1:58:14] Stay strong and support our citizen-led boards and commissions and reject the so-called settlement
[1:58:19] Thank you, fruit.
[1:58:26] Thank you, Mr. Lighter. Sir in the black shirt.
[1:58:36] My name is Greg Hall. I live at 2.545 Ravetta Street. I have a bachelor's of science
[1:58:40] degree in construction engineering and I was the secretary for the 2,000 25 charter review
[1:58:46] council.
[1:58:49] I'm asking council to reject resolution 26-118 and not a proof that proposed
[1:58:56] can a very meta settlement. I want to be clear that I understand the city faces litigation
[1:59:01] But I want to remind you that the threat of a hardship suit is not a hardship suit.
[1:59:09] I believe that those damages and the methodology used in establishing them weren't independent scrutiny,
[1:59:16] and I'm asking for that independent scrutiny.
[1:59:19] Particularly to the extent that the valuation of the settlement relies on assumptions,
[1:59:25] regarding future development and potential changes in applicable regulations not the actual land
[1:59:31] value itself. It's an assumption that the land value can be developed and that's why the value has
[1:59:37] gone up. Those issues are not what we're here to talk about. They are contextual to the larger
[1:59:43] question before Council tonight. The city's own resolution states that the settlement would
[1:59:48] established 22-lot subdivision on approximately 95 acres and resolve the pending litigation
[1:59:55] and hardship claim leaving final subdivision approval primarily to.
[2:00:00] Technical and Engineering Review by City staff. Therefore, tonight is not simply about settling the lawsuit. It is effectively about determining whether Hudson will accept this development under the terms of the settlement.
[2:00:13] That decision should not be, should be measured against Hudson's own adopted planning objectives as many tonight have stated.
[2:00:19] The 2024 Comprehensive Plan Superseeds that stated 2014 comprehensive plan referenced in this
[2:00:26] element, and it identifies this property as rural residential, as we've discussed.
[2:00:31] The city, cities can't do very planning documents describe that designation as low-density
[2:00:36] single-family development intended to preserve the rural culture and sensitive environmental
[2:00:41] areas.
[2:00:42] District 2's zoning purpose is even more explicit.
[2:00:45] It states that district 2 is intended to protect and preserve the city's most rural areas where agriculture, woodlands, wetland, and sensitive environmental areas in low-density development are predominant.
[2:00:59] I believe that the proposal proposed development would materially alter the existing rural and environmental characteristics of this portion of town, and I have not seen a sufficient analysis demonstrating that this particular kid's settlement is consistent with those preservation objectives.
[2:01:14] While I do respect the findings of the consultants that were here earlier, which, by the way, I'm not sure if I'm not wrong, they're not even here right now and you've paid for them.
[2:01:28] I do think that they've missed the contextual reasoning for the district to designations and the rural residential designations.
[2:01:35] We are a town that has diverse landscape and we were intended to preserve that, so while they may have found that it meets the legal definitions of the low density areas, they missed the fact that that is not the purpose of why we established that in the first place.
[2:01:55] Again, they're not even here to hear me and I live right down the road from that 750 yards by the way.
[2:02:03] I also want to point out that there is not a clear understanding of the environmental area
[2:02:08] in that part of town, as evidenced by the almost immediate erosion of the subgrade
[2:02:13] under our brand new sidewalk.
[2:02:15] As an engineer, I can tell you that that is basic engineering.
[2:02:19] We don't even understand how to keep a sidewalk from washing out.
[2:02:22] So we clearly don't understand how to build a development.
[2:02:25] We can talk about water all day long.
[2:02:27] This is not new to you.
[2:02:30] What specific liabilities does the $3 million protect in the provision that's stated in the settlement?
[2:02:37] And under what circumstances and for how long it would be irresponsible to vote until you know that answer?
[2:02:44] Why would Hudson surrender its remaining negotiation legal leverage when the city has not demonstrated that the specific settlement is preferable over continued negotiations, development, design, reviews, and litigation?
[2:02:57] I'm not asking City Council to disregard the city's litigation exposure, I'm asking Council
[2:03:02] to demonstrate that the permanent land use consequence of this settlement are justified
[2:03:07] by the public benefits, Hudson receives an exchange for resolving that exposure.
[2:03:12] As a Hudson taxpayer, I would like to also understand how much the city has spent defending
[2:03:16] this matter to date, and what litigation is expected to cost should this pursue, and how
[2:03:22] these figures were considered and determined against the settlement and the city's financial
[2:03:26] best interest in settling it.
[2:03:28] Mr. Hall, you have about 25 seconds.
[2:03:30] No problem.
[2:03:31] I want to address the public confidence in the tonight's decision.
[2:03:33] It's under my understanding of three council members who were seen campaign donations from
[2:03:39] the Canterbury Development Individuals.
[2:03:42] I'm not alleging those campaigns were improper, nor am I suggesting that city council members
[2:03:45] have acted improperly.
[2:03:47] How have you given the magnitude of the decision?
[2:03:49] I'm respectfully asking those council members to disclose whether they have sought an ethics
[2:03:52] opinion regarding their participation in tonight's deliberation and if they've not
[2:03:56] have asked that they publicly explain why they feel that an ethics review is
[2:04:01] unnecessary before a vote is taken. I respectfully ask that this council votes
[2:04:06] know for this resolution and continues to work towards a better outcome. Thank you.
[2:04:11] Thank you, Mr. Hall.
[2:04:19] Additional residents who were sworn in?
[2:04:21] Man, were you sworn in earlier?
[2:04:26] No, did I swear you in earlier? I don't recall.
[2:04:28] just wanted to make sure. Okay,
[2:04:37] that's okay. We have time.
[2:04:55] I'll try to make this quick.
[2:04:58] I have Leon or Casma.
[2:05:00] Hi, on the property that House's Hudson, the question and Senate on Revenge Street.
[2:05:07] And I have two questions that I have not been able to adequately get answered. One, what is going
[2:05:15] to happen to the flood waters of the head waters of Remedyware and Creek that comes
[2:05:21] down on this property across for me.
[2:05:28] Two, how is the evidence for you going to handle all the traffic?
[2:05:32] It can barely handle the traffic now.
[2:05:37] So can anyone answer that or is this just a comment?
[2:05:40] This is just a comment tonight, man.
[2:05:42] But we will put your question on record.
[2:05:47] Where would I get an answer?
[2:05:50] Councilor staff can answer your questions in their comment section or we can follow up with you directly after this hearing.
[2:06:01] Your name and address and questions are on record.
[2:06:07] Thank you, ma'am.
[2:06:22] Additional members, who were sworn in?
[2:06:25] Mr. Zedak.
[2:06:32] Todd Zedak.
[2:06:34] 16 Hudson Common.
[2:06:36] Find
[2:06:40] it shocking that the developers somehow has the last right of speaking to this body.
[2:06:49] I further find it interesting that all of the people speaking here have zero vested interest
[2:06:58] financially in the building of this property, what they have an interest in is protecting
[2:07:05] their community and their homes and their town and a place that they perhaps love.
[2:07:16] I love this town.
[2:07:17] That's why I'm involved in everything that I'm involved with.
[2:07:22] The builders involved in this property for one reason.
[2:07:28] It's not the love of the town, it's not the needs of the community.
[2:07:33] It has zero to do with our community values.
[2:07:39] It has to do with their bottom line.
[2:07:46] And I would hope that this body would value the needs once wishes of their community more
[2:07:58] Then the checkbook status of a developer, whether they be Joe and Fabrics, whether they be
[2:08:07] the buyer of the Joe and Fabric property,
[2:08:14] whether they be whoever is going to perhaps
[2:08:16] build district, build out Clinton crossing, whatever the names are,
[2:08:24] your voters, your community
[2:08:25] is speaking to you here, person after person,
[2:08:36] listen to them,
[2:08:41] thank you,
[2:08:49] Mr. Zedak, additional
[2:08:52] members who have been sworn in from the municipality. This is Norman.
[2:09:06] Sir, Norman, 2212 Edgeview Drive, I came not intending to speak tonight and I thought I would
[2:09:13] get up first and congratulate the expert who had come for having done a pretty good job
[2:09:20] of giving city council a very high-level view about open space conservation subdivisions.
[2:09:27] What I would have said if they were here to take the questions was to let them know that there
[2:09:33] were a number of things that they had missed in the process and that stands to reason.
[2:09:38] They are experts who are looking to give you a big broad picture, their job is not to dig into the weeds as the planning commission does.
[2:09:47] And there would have been a lot of particular questions.
[2:09:49] We would have asked them if we had the opportunity to do so.
[2:09:54] For one instance, we would have asked them how they justified bypassing the process.
[2:10:00] By suggesting that you all should adopt this settlement agreement. Another thing we might have asked, there were some of the details from the land development code about how they saw a small rural village feel in this development that's been proposed. Well, of course, we can't because we don't have all the drawings yet.
[2:10:17] In fact, this particular proposal would never get onto the Planning Commission's agenda because it is lacking all of the materials that are needed in order for a good and thorough and complete
[2:10:29] decision to be made. Another thing they would have missed and apparently they did in their
[2:10:35] presentation is that in fact open spaces required of every single development in the city.
[2:10:41] So there are a lot of things that they did. They really didn't clarify for you how we got better
[2:10:46] design out of this. They did not say that they claimed that's what was happening but they didn't
[2:10:50] articulate it. More importantly, those experts did not review the sworn testimony of nearly half a
[2:10:59] residents who came by with photographs to the planning commission hearings of the stormwater flooding that
[2:11:06] happens right now on a regular basis. They didn't mention the fact that the original plan put all
[2:11:12] of that stormwater going on to a neighbor's property. They didn't address the fact that now it's
[2:11:17] being diverted across the road. There are so many details that they overlooked and I'm sorry that
[2:11:23] they felt like they needed to leave so early. One of the things I also want to talk about
[2:11:29] the hardship history. I was very curious about this law. It happens that there are many times
[2:11:34] we don't get to read certain parts of the land development code, and 1210 is one of those. Initially,
[2:11:41] it looked like from the face of it, it got passed in 2019. So I did some digging. This is about
[2:11:46] the time that I started to get really interested in our land development code. And I looked very carefully
[2:11:52] through the legislation to see what parts got changed because in every title it says 1207-1208,
[2:11:58] 1210, 1210 is getting amended with this legislation, but there were no changes in 2019.
[2:12:05] I had to go back and look and discover that this law dates from June of 1958, and it
[2:12:12] never got used, and Hudson got caught with his pants down.
[2:12:17] When this developer found that chapter and decided to bring a claim, we had no form for them
[2:12:25] fill out, we had no way to process it, we didn't even know what to do and Council didn't move forward
[2:12:30] with it. The way it was supposed to be done because nobody had ever done it before. That's not
[2:12:35] on you. This is a huge learning curve. Most of you not being lawyers. Most of you not having been
[2:12:41] Council members before for very long. This is not part of the parlance of everything that you do.
[2:12:47] But I want to say there were many things that didn't get talked about and this public hearing
[2:12:52] probably should not end tonight.
[2:12:55] Formally, I really want to object to some of the irregularities that have happened.
[2:12:58] I happen to know from personal knowledge that you have an objection that came from the
[2:13:03] planning commission in depth.
[2:13:05] The real question in front of you is are you willing to trade the hardship litigation for
[2:13:11] due process litigation?
[2:13:13] I also would like to remind you that under the hearing rules that have been established
[2:13:17] by ordinance. The applicant city has already used because they're on the same side as the applicant
[2:13:23] has already used 25 minutes and 45 seconds of their time. There's a 30 minute limit with the 15
[2:13:29] minute closing that leaves 20 minutes for the developer to continue his commentary.
[2:13:35] 30 seconds. So at the end of the day, my real message to you is that I am not here to fight you.
[2:13:42] I am really here to be a guide, to be a resource, to be a helpful hand, and I'm doing
[2:13:48] my best to impart that message to you, I cannot make the horse drink the water, I have
[2:13:54] led it to.
[2:13:55] Thank you.
[2:14:04] Thank you, Mrs. Norman.
[2:14:06] Other individuals who have been sworn in,
[2:14:11] Mr. Revita,
[2:14:19] and Mr. Revita just to clarify.
[2:14:21] Yeah, I know.
[2:14:22] These go.
[2:14:22] Yeah.
[2:14:23] Come on.
[2:14:23] Anthony Revita, 1746.
[2:14:25] A good drive.
[2:14:26] I guess more than anything else.
[2:14:28] I got 45 years of experiencing construction.
[2:14:32] And this stinks, I had mentioned last week that Mr. Shared and moves the rules,
[2:14:43] code enforcement, zoning.
[2:14:47] This all is going to apply.
[2:14:50] Again, this is for educational purposes, but I'll tell you what, a builder and
[2:14:55] investor,
[2:14:59] they seek out the...
[2:15:00] The highest ranking person that will give them the most for their buck.
[2:15:06] And I can't tell you that this guy is the best guy for the job.
[2:15:12] With Mr. Pitchford, as his backup, as they're saying that they're going around the end of this.
[2:15:21] This is exactly what I've gone through for the number of years. They go around what the law is.
[2:15:27] They go around what the zoning is, they make their own rules.
[2:15:32] And at the end of the day, we all lose.
[2:15:35] You mentioned something about getting information.
[2:15:40] Every information I get, I have to go through Mr. Pitchford.
[2:15:43] Mr. Pitchford does play games with the information,
[2:15:49] and there was no accident that you didn't get your information in time.
[2:15:54] This is a consul president that rubber stamps everything that Mr. Sheridan does, and I have
[2:16:02] to question that every time that I'm around it.
[2:16:06] Thank you very much.
[2:16:14] Thank you, Mr. Rivera.
[2:16:15] Additional members who were sworn in would like the opportunity to speak.
[2:16:20] Was there somebody else that I missed?
[2:16:24] If there's anybody else who was not sworn in, you can still be sworn in and speak if you'd
[2:16:28] to this evening.
[2:16:33] Seeing no additional members from the public, we will move on to council questions
[2:16:38] or comments for any of the testimony that you've heard here tonight. Councillor Breusevic,
[2:16:42] was that your hand? Please, sir. Thank you. Similar to the last round, I don't intend to address
[2:16:50] items specifically around this. I do want to just say thank you to everyone who came here today.
[2:16:56] You know, during this process, we've largely relied on our legal advice from the city solicitor and their opinions and their legal opinions.
[2:17:06] This is kind of the first public opportunity for us to hear people from the other side, people who listen and who live in the area and want to give a differing legal opinion for us to hold this up against.
[2:17:20] And I appreciate that. I appreciate the research that everyone has done and the time everyone has taken. So thank you.
[2:17:27] Thank you, Councilor Brezwick. Any additional final questions from Council Councilor Jeremy?
[2:17:32] Yeah, just a comment. I also want to say I appreciate the residents who took the time to come before Council.
[2:17:38] And to hear their concerns, I apologize if I'm not addressing everyone by name this evening.
[2:17:43] But I understand that one of developing is proposed, especially near your home, there can be real concerns.
[2:17:48] Can I hear you about the water and drainage concerns? And Mrs. Beacon and your privacy and traffic concerns, as well as the concerns brought up regarding the wells in the area?
[2:17:56] Mr. Jones, I've appreciated your dialect of both public comments.
[2:17:59] I take your request very seriously, and you made a lot of valid points that we really need
[2:18:04] to obtain clarity on.
[2:18:07] We have a lot more work to do and many more answers to provide, and I appreciate everything
[2:18:11] that everyone came to present to us tonight.
[2:18:15] Thank you, Councillor Duramo, additional questions for any of the applicants or comments
[2:18:20] from Council.
[2:18:23] I'll present birth.
[2:18:25] I'd also like to thank everybody for being here tonight, hearing different perspectives,
[2:18:34] different sort of awareness of concerns is very helpful for us to continue to kind of
[2:18:42] evaluate it, get more information, make decisions.
[2:18:45] One thing I do want to just really kind of maybe try to guess to move past is discussion about some of the council members getting campaign donations from one of the developers or owners.
[2:19:08] So, just a couple prepared comments here.
[2:19:15] There's been this narrative out there that these council members, Reservic Dremo and Weinstein
[2:19:22] should be disqualified from discussing or acting upon a resolution because of a $100 campaign
[2:19:29] donation from one of the landowners.
[2:19:32] It is important to note that Ohio Ethics Commission's interpretation, a conflict of interest
[2:19:39] generally exist.
[2:19:42] When a public official ability to act objectively could be impaired by the official's personal
[2:19:49] interests or by interest of a family member or outside business associate, the Commission
[2:19:55] identifies three principal sources of conflicting interests.
[2:20:00] The officials own interests, the interest of family members, and the interest of outside business associates.
[2:20:07] A lawful, ordinary campaign contribution, even from someone who has business before the city, does not by itself constitute a prohibited conflict of interest under the Ohio ethics law.
[2:20:20] Therefore, these circumstances generally do not standing alone establish an ethics law
[2:20:29] conflict and require refusal.
[2:20:32] The examples they give are a resident contributed to a council member and later speaks
[2:20:37] about legislation, a business owner contributed and subsequently has a matter before council.
[2:20:43] A developer, attorney, labor organization, political committee or other interested party made a properly reported contribution.
[2:20:53] And finally, the official votes on a matter affecting a contributor.
[2:20:59] A quit pro quo or explicit request, like quote,
[2:21:03] I will give you your campaign, $100, if you vote yes, an ordinance ex,
[2:21:09] unquote, would create a conflict of interest, be a bribe, and be a legal.
[2:21:14] There is absolutely no evidence of that in this situation.
[2:21:20] Thank you.
[2:21:21] Thank you, Councillor President Bird.
[2:21:23] Just reminder for the public, we will allow comment from the developer here in a moment,
[2:21:29] And then there will be an opportunity for Council to have any final discussions as they see fit.
[2:21:36] Is there any additional comment at this point from Council? Councilor Weinstein?
[2:21:41] Yeah, I'll just read it earlier.
[2:21:44] The President heard said, I'll just be clear that there's no donation that has any bearing on how I vote.
[2:21:52] On this matter any other matter, I will base my vote on the merits of this settlement.
[2:21:57] what our land development code outlines, and what I've heard residents like you all say tonight.
[2:22:05] I also appreciate you coming here. I appreciate you hearing your perspectives, hearing your concerns.
[2:22:11] I think that we have worked really hard to prove that we value what residents say and are listening to residents.
[2:22:19] And we will absolutely take your concerns in a consideration as we weigh what's before us.
[2:22:28] Thank you.
[2:22:31] Thank you, Councilor Weinstein.
[2:22:33] Additional comment from any council member who has not asked questions from any comment.
[2:22:40] If none, Councilor Brosevic, would you like to speak against her?
[2:22:43] Thank you.
[2:22:45] in light of President Burd's statement, you know, I would just mirror what councilwoman
[2:22:53] once he said. This is in no way affecting my approach to this, I think I've done my best to
[2:23:04] prove that I take every piece of legislation before this council at its merits. Yes, I suck, I
[2:23:15] excuse me, I should prepare these things.
[2:23:19] I did seek a legal opinion that more than gave me
[2:23:27] every confidence that this was no conflict of interest.
[2:23:33] And therefore I do not intend to revoke those
[2:23:37] residents who voted for me of their voice here on council
[2:23:40] and recuse myself from this matter.
[2:23:42] I will not be. So thank you.
[2:23:45] Thank you, Councillor Brisbane. Additional questions or comments from council members.
[2:23:52] Seeing none, we will move on to the next section of our hearing, which is to give the developer up to 15 minutes maximum.
[2:24:00] For there right to provide any final comments via testimony here tonight,
[2:24:04] is my understanding that Attorney John Slater will be speaking on behalf of his client.
[2:24:09] Mr. Slater, the floor is yours.
[2:24:12] Yes, good evening. My name is John Slater and I serve as legal counsel for the developer and owner of this property.
[2:24:21] Actually, the prior owners also. I want to thank you for your consideration this evening and also the public for the comments that were received.
[2:24:29] I'm here in attendance with the representative of my client and those representatives have significant experience developing in this community.
[2:24:40] They were part of the original prestige homes that did significant development and knows this community well.
[2:24:48] In fact, you know, they believe part of the value of the housing stock in this community as a result of the quality of the developments that they do.
[2:24:57] The prestige builders, the new...
[2:25:01] Development and Builder that will be involved in this project, there's no difference there.
[2:25:07] They build a quality product, the rate proud of the project that they put on the table.
[2:25:13] When this originally was brought to the community, there was a road that was proposed in the, a lot, right, we're 21 as I think.
[2:25:22] It's a property under here who owns a lot there, and there was pushback by the community
[2:25:27] that they didn't want access out there.
[2:25:30] We immediately went back, reworked the plan and removed it.
[2:25:33] That's how they do business, that's how they typically work.
[2:25:36] We spent significant time trying to work through objections and issues that were raised
[2:25:41] about this project.
[2:25:43] But my client who has significant experience developing here could not understand the pushback
[2:25:49] that they were receiving on the project.
[2:25:52] And ultimately, it appears a planning commission once,
[2:25:55] very small lots, kind of stuck in a corner,
[2:25:59] more towards Stowe Road.
[2:26:01] When we kind of came through our second time with his plan,
[2:26:04] that's what was talked about.
[2:26:06] And the fact that even though that may be inconsistent
[2:26:10] with the surrounding homes, it was quoted to us
[2:26:13] by a member of the Planning Commission
[2:26:15] that that doesn't matter.
[2:26:16] The problem with your code is there's significant inconsistencies in it.
[2:26:24] I've heard time and time again by planning commission members and otherwise that the code has significant inconsistencies in or otherwise.
[2:26:33] What's the problem with that?
[2:26:34] The problem with that is it creates then the ability of administrative bodies to act as legislative.
[2:26:43] if they start to rather than falling the rules on some level make it up.
[2:26:48] We believe that's one of the big concerns in issues here.
[2:26:51] So what has happened so far?
[2:26:53] All that has happened is we had filed, we went through the,
[2:26:57] with our preliminary plan, got denied.
[2:27:00] File and administrative appeal under revised code 20506.
[2:27:04] That's a procedure.
[2:27:06] We went to court on it and we were denied.
[2:27:08] Now we're in a court of appeals.
[2:27:09] We have not filed what typically we would file next, which is a federal lawsuit as your attorney
[2:27:17] Mr. Cicero said. Challenging your zoning as applied to this property, under a substitute
[2:27:24] due process, your zoning overall, the fact that there is too much discretion provided to the
[2:27:30] plan and commission, too much inconsistency, and also file under 42 US Code 1983, a taking
[2:27:37] claims. Hudson, by the way, is one of the only communities that has this hardship application
[2:27:43] process. I know it because I know you're a code and we're, I guess, maybe the second
[2:27:48] developer that ever did it. We have not, we filed it, timely, we had to do it because we
[2:27:53] only have ten days. What would happen if we didn't? We would have lost our rights potentially
[2:27:59] for a taking's claim. But we filed it, and that's been held in advance while we have been
[2:28:06] trying to work through and coming up with an alternate development, addressing some of the issues
[2:28:10] and concerns are there.
[2:28:12] My client believes that all they have tried to do is work in good faith with this entity.
[2:28:16] We had to file these actions because we had to if we didn't lose our rights.
[2:28:23] We haven't filed the federal lawsuit or otherwise, but we clearly have the right to.
[2:28:27] This is what I do for a living.
[2:28:29] I represented cities, townships, villages, developers, property owners, fighting these things.
[2:28:34] And I've done it for 35 years.
[2:28:38] As your council has said, it is a precursor to that.
[2:28:41] Does my client want to do it?
[2:28:43] No.
[2:28:44] They want to put forth a development that will work in this community,
[2:28:47] something we can all be proud of, that addresses
[2:28:50] a stormwater issues.
[2:28:52] We're not throwing engineering out.
[2:28:54] By the way, we already did a traffic study.
[2:28:57] There's not traffic improvements required
[2:29:00] by having these 32 some homes.
[2:29:02] So, again, we here, we're here not to threaten the lawsuit, but the fact of the matter is that my client does have constantly protected rights.
[2:29:13] We believe those rights have been violated, and we'll be violated if we're not allowed to move forward with a reasonable development of this property, and we believe we've provided that for you.
[2:29:24] Thank you for your consideration, and by the way, don't listen to us, don't listen to
[2:29:30] people at live right next door, or otherwise, listen to your separate independent consultants
[2:29:35] that you hired, we've never worked with them, I don't know them, but the fact of matter
[2:29:41] is my client and I agree with what they've said in their analysis, and when you go through
[2:29:45] your code, the fact of the matter is that we're talking about 32 homes on a hundred acres
[2:29:53] and 62% of open space preserved, and it's in on some way.
[2:30:00] In any other community, you probably could develop five to ten times at density, and this thing would have been approved three to five years ago.
[2:30:08] That's the delay that's a concern we're worried about.
[2:30:11] Obviously, the fact that you have a councilman who lives right next door in a former planning commission that lives next door raises other issues that we haven't even brought yet.
[2:30:20] So the fact of the matter is we want to work with you, but this is a real issue, and it's not just about money.
[2:30:26] There's nothing inappropriate with developing property.
[2:30:30] The Ohio Constitution protects as a fundamental right property rights.
[2:30:36] We talked about the Constitution of the reason why it's so important earlier.
[2:30:42] And that's about the United States, it's a unique to our country where you get to own
[2:30:46] develop property and we're all living homes.
[2:30:49] It's not a bad thing and what we're proposing here we believe is good.
[2:30:53] Again, thank you for your consideration.
[2:30:56] I hope we can work through this.
[2:30:58] If there are modifications that are necessary,
[2:31:02] we will work in good faith and reasonably with you.
[2:31:05] We make that commitment to you.
[2:31:06] We'll work with your staff.
[2:31:08] We'll work with your you, your community or otherwise.
[2:31:12] But we, as much as this Jones indicated,
[2:31:15] would like to get this done, move forward.
[2:31:18] And make sure that what is done here
[2:31:19] is something that can benefit the community.
[2:31:21] Thank you for your consideration this evening.
[2:31:26] Thank you, Mr. Slater.
[2:31:31] Does Council have any questions from Mr. Slater?
[2:31:38] Councillor Weinstein, Mr. Slater, if you please come back up.
[2:31:43] I'm making you get some steps in.
[2:31:46] Yes.
[2:31:47] So I'm just wondering if you could answer or talk a little bit too.
[2:31:52] You mentioned that our code has significant inconsistencies,
[2:31:56] and there's too much discretion in consistency with the planning commission.
[2:32:00] Can you mention some specifics about that if you can, and so why are you asking for the process that you are, rather than why does your client not want to go back to the planning commission?
[2:32:17] Well, real short, I can answer a second question easily.
[2:32:20] We've already been there, they've already reviewed this plan.
[2:32:25] And they've denied it.
[2:32:27] And we went to the D.J. went to you.
[2:32:29] We also went back with this revised plan,
[2:32:31] and they same thing we heard the objections to it or otherwise.
[2:32:36] And they've indicated their same concerns about it.
[2:32:39] And I know they just gave you a resolution that they passed,
[2:32:42] I think yesterday.
[2:32:43] Again, having an issue with it.
[2:32:46] So I think their minds been made up.
[2:32:48] They've made a decision on it.
[2:32:49] That doesn't mean you can't consult with them
[2:32:51] if you want to or otherwise, as a process goes along.
[2:32:54] But the decision making is of concern, practically.
[2:32:58] And because of relationships or otherwise,
[2:33:02] of some of those members, we have concerns about it,
[2:33:04] practically from our perspective.
[2:33:07] I'm not going to get into those issues.
[2:33:09] I don't think it's necessary, but that's a reason why.
[2:33:10] we have legitimate concerns about why this really was denied.
[2:33:15] Second of all, as it relates to where the inconsistencies,
[2:33:18] even the decision-making, I think it was even cited
[2:33:22] in the Akron Journal about how the development was denied
[2:33:27] by the Planning Commission because it was inconsistent
[2:33:29] with the spirit and intent of your code.
[2:33:33] A lot of the decisions were kind of tied
[2:33:35] to the purpose clause in your zoning code.
[2:33:38] Your purpose clause has within it, and again, this is, I haven't, this is my recollection
[2:33:44] from looking at it, probably six months ago.
[2:33:47] It talks about preserving the rural area, but then, in other words, the farms or otherwise,
[2:33:54] but then it talks about the kind of protecting against disruption of soils or otherwise.
[2:34:01] And again, I'm speaking from my review some time ago, but I know that in going through it,
[2:34:07] I've seen multiple areas where there's just inconsistencies, and their ability, or the
[2:34:15] plan of commission's ability, to kind of rely on a general purpose clause to support
[2:34:20] the denial of our development.
[2:34:22] They denied our development because, for example, it was going to cause maximum disturbance
[2:34:30] to the soil, okay?
[2:34:32] it. This is a farm. It gets plowed. It exceeds planted. We're actually pre-protecting more
[2:34:42] of the land by this development than we're disturbing. That's one thing. So there's maximum
[2:34:49] disturbance. That's the reason they cited. They also talks about there has to be consistency
[2:34:55] with adjacent properties. It's got to be consistent, right? But then...
[2:35:00] Again, when we brought in the second development, they showed us a plan where they were moving all, they said what you really need to do is have all the homes over here on small lots about a quarter acre each.
[2:35:13] Okay? By the way, that's not consistent with anything that's around this property, and your code requires a, quote, compatibility analysis to make sure it's consistent with what's around it.
[2:35:26] And I hear from the plan commission that at least when a member is telling me, well, it doesn't
[2:35:32] have to be consistent.
[2:35:35] So within it, those are just some examples.
[2:35:37] And if you want more specifics, I'll give them to you in writing.
[2:35:42] And again, what does that mean?
[2:35:45] At the end of the day, there's a case law that says that the regulations, when it administrative
[2:35:51] body is making a decision, it has to be clear and concise.
[2:35:55] If not, those appointed individuals that are not legislators start to step into legislative
[2:36:04] roles, where they're now making law, because in their minds this is compatible.
[2:36:09] But over here, in someone else's mind, the new experts that you hired, it may not be correct.
[2:36:16] That becomes a legal issue because, again, property rights are protected.
[2:36:20] So those are just some examples of what we saw in real life examples in this case, that we
[2:36:27] think unfortunately your code has some inconsistencies in it and it's not the first person
[2:36:33] to have said it because I've heard planning commission members say it and I know I think you've
[2:36:38] gone through some attempts to modify your code because of that.
[2:36:43] Thank you, Mr. Slider. Thank you, Councillor Weinstein. Additional Mr. Slider if you could
[2:36:48] Please stay, just in case the other council members have questions for you, sir.
[2:36:53] Additional questions for Mr. Slider from Council, Council and Reservic?
[2:36:59] I'm thinking about how to award this as plainly as possible.
[2:37:04] You mentioned in your presentation, taking taking has been brought up here a number of time
[2:37:12] by residents.
[2:37:14] I believe the general point being made was taking needs to be 100%.
[2:37:20] What did you take on that?
[2:37:22] Yeah, that's not true.
[2:37:24] The U.S. Constitution provides that your, you know, that the governmental entity and this
[2:37:32] would now be through the fifth amendment and now applied through states for the 14th amendment.
[2:37:37] And it basically says, nor shall private property taken without payment and just compensation.
[2:37:45] The taking, there's two different types of taking.
[2:37:47] There's a categorical full-taking, which, where it's denied all economically beneficial use of the property.
[2:37:54] That's a categorical taking.
[2:37:57] There, it's mandatory that payment be made.
[2:38:00] There's also what are known as partial takings.
[2:38:03] There can also be unconstitutional conditions,
[2:38:07] or otherwise, there's a whole multiple areas of potential liability
[2:38:12] that communities can have in cases of full takings, partial takings, partial is a pencentral case.
[2:38:22] There's also, as I said, on constitutional conditions and other things that go within that.
[2:38:27] So, it's not true that that's the only category. That's one, but it's not all of them.
[2:38:33] And even if your code says, well, we only will award if it's a full takings, that doesn't mean that under the U.S. Constitution
[2:38:40] that I'm not entitled to, or my client's on titled compensation in those other areas, if there's a partial taking or otherwise.
[2:38:48] There can also be unreasonable delay, and there can also be claims in attorney fees paid if there is action that's taken by a governmental entity that is found to be done for an appropriate person's reasons or otherwise.
[2:39:08] So there's a whole multitude of potential claims that are out there.
[2:39:12] Thank you.
[2:39:13] I just have one other statement.
[2:39:15] I don't feel you meant maybe necessarily this way when you were saying,
[2:39:19] you know, don't listen to X, don't listen to Y, listen to who you.
[2:39:22] We were elected by the residents and we absolutely will listen to the residents.
[2:39:28] That's my, I know you did not.
[2:39:31] I want to make that clear, right?
[2:39:32] That is my job.
[2:39:34] All I meant to say by that is that I was explaining how, as it relates to, if you give too much authority to administrative body or otherwise, if they're not acting in the legislative capacity, they don't have that authority.
[2:39:50] They're supposed to be carrying out and applying the laws, not creating it.
[2:39:55] And that's, and I meant by pointing out the two different sides that a lot of times people have different opinions.
[2:40:00] The opinions of what is correct or not. And that's why the reason why you need clarity in your code or otherwise, and especially your standards when you're reviewing things like a conditional use or otherwise.
[2:40:12] So again, I was here, I listened to the comments of the residents and I can tell you, my client from the original development to where we're at now listen to comments of the residents.
[2:40:25] And, comments to the planning commission, we're not trying to side step, but there comes a point where we felt it became unreasonable.
[2:40:34] And so the fact of the matter is that we think we have listened to them.
[2:40:38] And again, I offered that if there's reasonable modifications that are there, I'm sure my client who's done a lot of business here would probably listen and want to work with you in good faith.
[2:40:53] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Slater. Thank you. Council and President, if you still stay there just in case there's other questions.
[2:40:59] Additional questions from Mr. Slater from Council members. Council President Mercer, you mentioned you could get as a list or explanation in writing of additional discrepancies.
[2:41:13] In the code? Yeah, that would be helpful.
[2:41:14] As it relates to this particular section, I can do that.
[2:41:24] Any other questions from council members who have been spoken for Mr. Slider?
[2:41:32] Open it up to all council members around too.
[2:41:35] Councilor Weinstein?
[2:41:38] I'm wondering if in asking for this or working through the settlement.
[2:41:47] Did you review our processes and the authority of council to actually make the settlement?
[2:41:55] Yes.
[2:41:56] And what did you determine?
[2:41:57] that you had the authority.
[2:42:03] Please, audience, please.
[2:42:06] Can you elaborate on?
[2:42:09] Well, you know, first of all, you know, specifically looked into the authority of a council,
[2:42:17] governmental entity to settle a lawsuit.
[2:42:18] And that's what we're talking about here.
[2:42:20] We're talking about the ability to settle a lawsuit.
[2:42:24] So, that's one, and you do clearly have the authority based on case-little how a lot to do that.
[2:42:30] And that's really when we boil it down what's happening here.
[2:42:34] Through that, we have a development being approved or otherwise there's not a payment of money.
[2:42:39] Sometimes settlements come with payments of money and approvals of development.
[2:42:43] That's one thing that we've done.
[2:42:46] And I've been involved in my, again, 30 plus years of practicing in this area of law
[2:42:53] in a multitude of settlements just like this.
[2:42:57] Second issue is, as it relates to comments about charter,
[2:43:01] or otherwise, we looked at that, we looked at the fact that
[2:43:04] what's required is the review and report.
[2:43:09] Again, we've already had this plan.
[2:43:13] And this development has been submitted and gone through the process.
[2:43:17] Again, this is not the first time.
[2:43:19] They've already made their decision on it.
[2:43:21] And so, as it relates to where the steps followed, you know, in our opinion, yes, they were.
[2:43:29] So, you know, from those perspectives, again, we believe that you do have the authority to do it.
[2:43:38] Thank you, Mr. Slider, and Councillor Weinstein has that answer your question.
[2:43:42] Any additional questions from Mr. Slider, from Council members who have not spoken in round two?
[2:43:51] Seeing no additional questions. Thank you, Mr. Slider.
[2:43:53] Thank you.
[2:43:57] I will address that as I have heard that the question answer is no. This
[2:44:03] is a public hearing to take testimony and we do have section seven in our agenda for public
[2:44:10] comments in general since this is considered business of the city you can go on record with
[2:44:16] your question but your question will not be answered unless council chooses to answer something
[2:44:22] in a gender section eight under correspondents and council comments, but your question if you have a follow up for the question you can put that on the record in the next agenda section item seven.
[2:44:36] Therefore, before we end this hearing, is there any other comment or discussion from council members on any of the testimony heard here this evening?
[2:44:47] Councillor Drema?
[2:44:49] Yes, I just wanted to make a statement.
[2:44:52] Maybe some didn't realize this, but the point of the planning next was to provide independent review as a third party to focus.
[2:45:00] This is on a more granular level our code and the newly proposed plan and remove any emotional bias.
[2:45:07] So that was kind of the exact intent of that. I just wanted to kind of clarify that.
[2:45:15] Thank you, Councillor Duramo, and the additional discussion or comments from Council as we move to include this hearing this evening.
[2:45:27] No other seeing no other comment or discussion from council, we will close section six on our agenda from public legislative hearing.
[2:45:39] I would like to take a five-minute recess, since it has almost been three hours since we have been here this evening, so council will take a five-minute recess.
[2:52:37] We're back from recess. We will continue our meeting with agenda item 7, which is public comments. Council, myself, valiant, respect comments from the public, aligned with the city of Hudson, codified ordinance, 2, 2, 2, 0, 0, 0, 3, title rules, item G sub, title decorum. I'm kindly asking everyone and attendance remain respectful of the process and display courtesy professionalism in order at all times. Also, for ordinance, 2, 2, 2, 0, 0, 0, 3, and sub, item G public comments are to be kept within five minutes.
[2:53:07] As a continued reminder, there is a device on the lectern that will turn orange at one minute remaining.
[2:53:13] It will flash red when you're five minute time has been expired.
[2:53:19] Therefore, per the city of Hudson Charter Article 3 section 3.02, if there is any resident of the
[2:53:25] municipality here tonight who would like to speak to Council regarding any topic.
[2:53:29] That's relevant to the city of Hudson, kindly raise your hand, gain my attention.
[2:53:32] And as you are verbally called upon, please approach the lectern,
[2:53:35] State your name and address and council will hear your remarks. Is there anyone here tonight who would like to speak to council? Caitlin?
[2:53:52] Not a public speaker. So I will try. My name is Caitlin Hannibal and I live at 2763 Middleton Road.
[2:54:00] I have been one of the residents that is experienced the sewage back up for the last three weeks.
[2:54:06] And I am here not necessarily talk about the sewage itself because I know that that is not a city ordinance and it is with my county, but I am here to discuss how my city has failed me.
[2:54:19] It is my understanding that as a citizen of the of Hudson, that the constituent services should be that you should be helpful.
[2:54:28] I should be able to reach out to you in a time of need and respectfully get a response back.
[2:54:37] Unfortunately, that is not what I have received from my city.
[2:54:42] Last night I did put, I did send out our claim for our county.
[2:54:48] The disruption in my house was over $102,000 from the three times that we've had sewage backup.
[2:54:55] Members of this Council have received that itemized.
[2:55:00] We've list along with photos and our description of everything that has happened in the last three weeks.
[2:55:08] Unfortunately, I've only received two emails in response to that.
[2:55:13] It is also very unfortunate that both of those emails have been filled with lies and deceit.
[2:55:20] And I have proof.
[2:55:23] So I would like to start with my email that I received from Mr.
[2:55:26] Bird who is my ward, Councilman.
[2:55:30] He first started with I apologize for undercommunicating.
[2:55:34] To be clear with you, undercommunicating would mean an insinuate that you
[2:55:38] have communicated at some point before.
[2:55:41] You never once communicated with me.
[2:55:45] You told me that you had been in contact with David Lakate.
[2:55:48] I believe that's how you say as name my apologies at Summit County.
[2:55:53] I reached out to him because I have been speaking with him since August 18th, which is the first date.
[2:55:59] You didn't reach out until September 8th.
[2:56:02] Amanda Weinstein has spoken with him and she has actually made an appointment to have a meeting with him,
[2:56:08] which you have not responded to as of this morning at 11.52.
[2:56:12] I
[2:56:16] don't understand how you can sit back and allow your constituents to be in an unsafe
[2:56:22] home and feel displaced. This is at my basement. I live in a buy level. This is my
[2:56:29] livelihood. This is the first home I have ever owned and we chose Hudson for the
[2:56:34] schools and I am disappointed.
[2:56:39] I received an email from Mr. Sheridan and I will be
[2:56:42] short in my responses with him as it was a long email, but there too was many lies and deceit.
[2:56:49] He clearly doesn't understand that there were three incidences, not just two.
[2:56:55] He also states that he was in communication with the emergency contractor. Unfortunately,
[2:57:01] that was after I had already spoke with him and we had already made plans to put in a new pipeline.
[2:57:08] I had contacted our mayor on three separate occasions.
[2:57:12] I got one response and that was on September 8th.
[2:57:15] He made many responses to other neighbors of mine,
[2:57:19] because I was not the only one that had this issue.
[2:57:23] Unfortunately, I was not one that he communicated with.
[2:57:26] And upon, from those communications, I asked him,
[2:57:30] come and see my home, come sit inside my basement,
[2:57:33] experience what we have been experiencing for three weeks.
[2:57:36] His response was, I don't need to do that.
[2:57:41] That is very unfortunate because that is my life, that is what I have been living.
[2:57:46] That is what two other people have been living near me, and the response is, no.
[2:57:53] But when he found out that a new pipeline was going in because I told him that it was going
[2:57:59] in, I'll be there in 15 minutes.
[2:58:02] So, the response was, you rip up my roads, you're doing something to that structure.
[2:58:10] I will jump in my car and I will be right there.
[2:58:13] But when I have three residents within my town who are living in sewage for three weeks,
[2:58:22] straight, where we had my husband, who's a contractor, had to do a makeshift pump to make sure
[2:58:29] it was not in our home anymore because it was constantly coming up.
[2:58:34] That wasn't something that made the council or the mayor say I need to go see what's going
[2:58:39] on.
[2:58:43] If it were not for myself and my neighbors, none of this pipeline would be getting fixed.
[2:58:49] I invite the mayor, I'm sorry, I already said that,
[2:58:55] asking that this council step up.
[2:58:57] Establish a clear and direct communication with those who have been affected in this community.
[2:59:02] Ensure that the main is fixed is complete and functioning properly.
[2:59:08] Show more compassion for your residents.
[2:59:11] When your residents need you, show up.
[2:59:14] Reach out that tiny little bit can go so far.
[2:59:19] Thank you.
[2:59:21] Thank you, Caitlin.
[2:59:25] The additional public comment tonight.
[2:59:29] Ms. Jones.
[2:59:29] Good
[2:59:40] evening again, Melissa Jones, 2, 2, 3, 3, we're about a street, I just want to briefly address a comment or several comments made by Mr. Slater regarding my involvement as a former planning commission member.
[2:59:56] Yes, I served as a member of planning commission from the Spring of 2020 through August.
[3:00:00] 224. I served with pride, and dedication, and have the utmost respect for the skills, experience, and qualifications of the members with whom I have served and the current members. I have the same respect for all of the members of all the boards from which people in our community volunteer their time, expertise and abilities.
[3:00:22] to suggest that anyone I'm planning commission is acting in an unsavory way is
[3:00:27] frankly offensive. As it relates to me, a review of the planning commission meeting
[3:00:32] minutes, specifically the minutes from the August 14th, August 28th, October
[3:00:37] 9th, 2023 minutes, provide the accurate history of events. As my properties adjacent to
[3:00:43] the proposed subdivision, prestige requests that I recuse myself from the
[3:00:47] meetings. I immediately, and I mean immediately, the day of took action by contacting Ohio Ethics
[3:00:54] Commission, which is the proper course of action for me. I then obtained very quickly a letter
[3:01:01] from the Ohio Ethics Commission, advising me of my recusal and expressly permitting by law,
[3:01:08] my involvement in any discussion as a public citizen, or the private citizen, sorry. This letter
[3:01:14] important and I had to get that letter because the OEC by law that letter provides me from immunity
[3:01:20] from conflict claims against me, which Mr. Slater has threatened before and is clearly threatening
[3:01:26] again tonight.
[3:01:29] I properly be accused myself from all the cannibary discussions when I was
[3:01:32] on planning commission and I have since then and since have participated in the process at all
[3:01:38] times as a private citizen as is my legal and constitutional right. I had a lot to say in endeavor
[3:01:45] to always be respectful in my comments and opinions, no one at any time ever suggested I acted
[3:01:50] otherwise. In fact, no one in the past three years has ever be shout to me or my husband
[3:01:56] in effort to try to discuss this, to try to get through this. It's just been fight after fight
[3:02:01] after fight and threats, threats, threats from prestige. Perhaps if we had some sort of conversations
[3:02:06] we wouldn't be here today, but here we are and I felt the need to say this because I heard it
[3:02:11] tonight for Mr. Slater. Thank you.
[3:02:15] Thank you, Mrs. Jones.
[3:02:19] Is there additional public comments tonight?
[3:02:22] Mr. Zedak.
[3:02:29] Todd Zedak, 16 Hudson Common.
[3:02:33] Skylar, I want to thank you for clearly articulating the real laws and the rules by which these bodies governed and the land development.
[3:02:48] Development, commission should be governed. It was clear, it's precise, and I'm not shocked that the body at large
[3:03:00] Upon hearing your comments, which I'm sure this is not the first time they've heard them
[3:03:04] Didn't hit the brakes and say what in the world are we doing?
[3:03:12] I didn't take a count of
[3:03:15] the number of people who came up here and
[3:03:18] Said
[3:03:19] This seems like a really bad idea
[3:03:23] But I have a really precise count of the one paid individual who came up here who's not a resident of the community and said Jesus is a great idea.
[3:03:33] How come you guys already haven't done this?
[3:03:35] We had a plan.
[3:03:37] We had it rejected multiple times by multiple bodies and we've given it back to you again.
[3:03:42] It's the same plan.
[3:03:44] And now we want penalty stroke money.
[3:03:49] It's ludicrous that this is taking three hours.
[3:03:52] It should never have come up
[3:03:58] and not for the life of me, I do not understand it.
[3:04:03] And the accusations of campaign finance money being quit broke, well, it's nonsense.
[3:04:12] I know none of you who accepted a couple hundred bucks from a person have changed any activity.
[3:04:19] I don't think it for a second, I'm sorry that everyone came up,
[3:04:26] but I do not understand
[3:04:28] and why you don't listen to your people and instead seem to be constantly being let around the
[3:04:35] nose by corporations, by companies, they're not people, despite what the Supreme Court says.
[3:04:46] Please, do your duty, listen to the people, follow the rules.
[3:04:51] The Land Development Coatist is a mismatch, everybody says it, assign the people to redo.
[3:05:00] They want to redo it. They need time and resources. Give it to them. Let them make it better.
[3:05:08] But I did a citizen of this community for 60 years. And I really don't want it to change much.
[3:05:17] If you all want it to change in the community wants it to change, it becomes streetsboro or
[3:05:23] stall or so-and-or wherever else, God bless them, please do it, go at it.
[3:05:30] I will then move.
[3:05:32] I want this town to remain the cute, quaint, pleasant place, it's been for years.
[3:05:41] Please help me, help you do that.
[3:05:48] Thank you.
[3:05:50] Thank you, Mr. Zedak.
[3:05:55] Is there any additional public comment tonight?
[3:05:59] Mr. Rivita.
[3:06:10] Anthony Rivita, 1746 Edgar Drive.
[3:06:13] I want to bring up what I was talking about two weeks ago
[3:06:16] was the corruption of Mr. Sheridan.
[3:06:21] There has been, I can say nothing but great things
[3:06:24] about the staff at City Hall.
[3:06:27] What I can't say is that the way that Mr. Sheridan
[3:06:31] has strong-armed most of the staff into whatever his narrative is, it becomes a toxic
[3:06:39] environment.
[3:06:43] I brought up last week at 318 Mr. Foster that his driveway, without a permit,
[3:06:57] I want you
[3:06:57] to understand this guy with a million dollar project.
[3:07:01] Correction in a statement that was made tonight, the driveway in front of Mr. Foster's property on Walter's road was due to a single within the right of the way the city does not hold permits for our own work.
[3:07:16] So there's a period of not going to find a permit for that. It's our own work in our right way. We do not hold permits for any of that work that's the city people working on it or our contractors. It was not Mr. Foster.
[3:07:28] So, that was conducted through the engineering department and I believe we had an inspector
[3:07:33] out there the entire time.
[3:07:35] So, that's all.
[3:07:35] So, when you have an engineering department and an inspector out there all time, which is
[3:07:42] both lies, none of that happened, it was eight lies that he told everybody.
[3:07:48] You guys, the city, and at the end of the day, if the engineer was told that he had to be
[3:07:55] Mr. Foster's House, Mr. Sheridan was strong, I'm going to say, you're out there, pass it.
[3:08:02] Because it's done.
[3:08:03] It's in the paperwork.
[3:08:05] The paperwork says that Mr. Foster's driveway passed, passed everything, and it's
[3:08:15] completed.
[3:08:16] One of the guys said that Tony Calabro work was completed without a permit.
[3:08:26] Then afterwards he goes through all the things that weren't done, which is everything.
[3:08:34] And then comes the timeline, everything is completed.
[3:08:38] So Tony Calabro wasn't able to do the engineering review because the driveway was already
[3:08:46] done. So, at the end of the day, Tony Clebrou, I don't have anything because of the driveway
[3:08:52] was done already. Mr. Sheridan says, hey, put it in, complete it. I'm telling you this because
[3:08:59] this is going to happen on every job that he does. That's the reason why these people are going
[3:09:04] to him for his answers. His answer is always whatever's best for Mr. Sheridan. And what's happened
[3:09:11] for Mr. what's best for Mr. Pitchford.
[3:09:14] Mr. Pitchford made $600,000 last year.
[3:09:17] That's amazing for a mediocre petty fogger.
[3:09:21] I don't understand how a guy $600,000
[3:09:24] can he make off of a city that's trying
[3:09:27] their best to do the best for their citizens
[3:09:30] when these guys are running their own business.
[3:09:36] At the end of the day, I can only tell you this.
[3:09:39] this is not a, this is not by accident.
[3:09:44] These things keep coming up, they will still keep coming up.
[3:09:47] He's making a decision on a multi-million-dollar project
[3:09:50] that to me is laughable.
[3:09:53] He made $8,939 on a $5,800 driveway.
[3:10:00] And he's lied probably 10 times on my project, which is $12,000, and I wish Mr. Bird, which is my council person, would stand up instead of, rubber stamping, everything that's done by Mr. Sheridan, because he's leading you in the wrong direction. Thank you very much.
[3:10:20] Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Is there any additional public comment tonight?
[3:10:30] Seeing no further comment, we will close section 7, and move on to section 8,
[3:10:35] which is correspondence in council comments.
[3:10:38] If any council member has correspondence,
[3:10:39] it has not already been generally distributed
[3:10:41] and or council comments.
[3:10:42] We will hear those now.
[3:10:44] Please gain my attention and allow me to verbally recognize you
[3:10:47] and assign you the floor.
[3:10:48] Are there any council comments tonight?
[3:10:51] Council or Gets?
[3:10:52] This is a very different subject.
[3:10:55] There was an incident at Acme,
[3:10:58] where an elderly person fell, and the EMS came very quickly,
[3:11:04] And a resident called me and said, it was amazing how well they handled this situation, their empathy, and I wanted to make that public announcement about what a wonderful EMS team we have.
[3:11:23] Thank you, Councillor Gats. Additional comment from council members. Councillor Brisbane.
[3:11:27] Thank you. Two comments.
[3:11:30] So one, the other day I had the opportunity to tour the renovations that I've undergone.
[3:11:35] So far, at the fire department, it is looking fantastic.
[3:11:38] The fire department has kind of been able to move into their new section.
[3:11:42] The MS is now in the kind of holding area that the fire department was in as their area is now torn up.
[3:11:49] But things are coming along nicely.
[3:11:51] I'm very excited for everyone to get the new space.
[3:11:53] Especially excited.
[3:11:54] One item of note was that we will have now two locker rooms full size men's about most importantly
[3:12:01] full size women's locker room. The EMS has been pretty close to 50-50, but to this point
[3:12:06] the women had basically been using a bathroom while the men had a locker room. That's just the way the space was designed.
[3:12:12] So very happy to see that coming along.
[3:12:15] The other item, excuse me, is getting a little late and getting a little foggy.
[3:12:22] The velocity broadband, there had been some notifications going out this week about some of the projects, which were restarting,
[3:12:31] some projects, which weren't going to be seeing construction this year.
[3:12:35] I know the staff is working on now that the legislation has been passed, and we are going back up a bit on these projects,
[3:12:42] a new updated timeline to be clear the general order of the project,
[3:12:48] is a role in remain intact, but the timeline
[3:12:51] years associated with the current documentation we have
[3:12:55] out there are obviously a bit incorrect now due to the
[3:12:58] policy.
[3:13:00] So look forward to further, excuse me, to clarification on
[3:13:06] that timeline and those projects when they will be done,
[3:13:08] should be coming within the week.
[3:13:10] Thank you.
[3:13:12] Thank you, Councillor Brezvick.
[3:13:13] Additional comment from any council member?
[3:13:16] Councillor Weinstein?
[3:13:19] I was at the degrees on the green today.
[3:13:21] I got to see a lot of residents out there today.
[3:13:23] It was very nice to have that meet up.
[3:13:25] And I heard from a couple of residents that they really enjoyed it.
[3:13:28] And would like to see it continue.
[3:13:31] Just a reminder, the hired in Hudson is tomorrow.
[3:13:34] 9 to 3 at City Hall on Terrix.
[3:13:37] A great way to connect with local Hudson businesses.
[3:13:41] I was also at Planning Commission meeting last night.
[3:13:44] Last night, they discussed interest in collaborating with the Environmental Awareness Committee
[3:13:49] on the work regarding ecologically valuable land.
[3:13:52] I thought that would be a good match up between the two where they have some similar interests
[3:13:57] in looking at ecologically valuable land.
[3:14:03] They opened up a discussion where the chair and I have discussed over email, some strategies
[3:14:12] to improving the planning commission kind of procedures and processes and they also discussed
[3:14:20] the settlement that we had a public hearing about today and passed along the memo that you all
[3:14:26] have seen. Mainly the discussion was focused around, I would say some assumptions about our
[3:14:38] with discussing the settlement and the settlement in general.
[3:14:44] And I would, in some of it, I would consider,
[3:14:49] most discussion around kind of personal attacks and politics
[3:14:53] rather than land development code.
[3:14:57] They'd also like a six-month moratorium on,
[3:15:00] All planned developments, while they considered changing the land development code. There was some concern that that's not what we had discussed when we had our joint committee meeting.
[3:15:12] They also approved proposal for town homes on morse road between Clinton and Owen Brown. They approved a daycare proposal on 303 intersex, and they are also considering an extension to allow the standard job company to resume construction on tariffs and Hudson Drive.
[3:15:28] I'm invoked to delay that decisions so they can consider it further, I think that is it.
[3:15:34] Thank you, Councillor Weinstein, additional comment from council members who have not spoken yet.
[3:15:39] Council President Bert.
[3:15:40] This seems like a while ago, but it was just Friday when we had the 9-11 commiroration and the planning
[3:15:53] job of scheduling a service with some very powerful speakers, and then we did a
[3:16:04] stair climb up and down the football stadium, some folks that we saw, some
[3:16:12] firemen we saw in full, full gear, climbing all those steps in the heat, it was
[3:16:19] very powerful to participate in that. And then Saturday was the the Trake and Bike
[3:16:27] Celebration Bike extravaganza in in hasn't park estates where they raised I think close to
[3:16:36] $30,000 for pediatric cancer. So that was that was really a great event to shout out to
[3:16:44] the whole team that made that happen.
[3:16:51] Thank you, Council President Burden.
[3:16:54] Additional comments from any council member
[3:16:55] have this spoken yet?
[3:17:01] Councilor Getson, Jeff?
[3:17:03] Yes, for a second round.
[3:17:04] Yes, for a second round, please.
[3:17:06] I just want to say I was at the architectural historic review board
[3:17:12] last Wednesday, and they did not pass the plan
[3:17:16] that planning commission just passed.
[3:17:21] They did not agree with what planning commission had put together.
[3:17:27] So the developer is in difficulties because he's getting two different opinions on what
[3:17:34] that plan should look like.
[3:17:37] So it is something that we may have to look at in the future, how we can get those boards
[3:17:42] to come together in some way to help the developer put together a plan that works.
[3:17:51] Thank you, Councillor Gibbs. Any additional comments from council members?
[3:17:58] Seeing none, I will forgo my community updates, but I do want to address Mrs. Hannibal,
[3:18:07] her comments, the resident on Middleton Road.
[3:18:12] The city does care,
[3:18:18] and her situation in her lower living floor, no resident should ever have to deal with raw sewage in their living space, their basement or their home.
[3:18:30] So I do care, I do sympathize with her situation as well as the other residents in the nearby area.
[3:18:38] But I will further address some of her comments because she said that the city was presenting her with lies to seat and what I interpret to be questionable motive.
[3:18:51] And again, she had stated, I believe here tonight and at least to me in other correspondence because I've had multiple correspondence with her, where she said the city does not care.
[3:19:01] stepping back, and all of this was explained and discussed with Mrs. Honorable several times.
[3:19:11] The sanitary sewers in the municipality of Hudson that carry your raw sewage.
[3:19:18] The city does not own those. They do not have the rights to work on those.
[3:19:24] And who does is Summit County, Summit County owns the sanitary sewers.
[3:19:33] So every time that I got a message or phone call, I immediately contacted Mr. Sheridan
[3:19:40] and records requests can show this with voice mail's text messages and emails.
[3:19:46] So I do care. I did care. I still care.
[3:19:50] Mr. Sheridan got all of this information, and again, because the city does not own or cannot maintain
[3:19:57] some accountants, sanitary sewers within our municipality.
[3:20:00] We have to then go to Summit County. Mr. Sheridan being in water engineer has all of those contacts. More contacts than I have. I know he contacted all those people and informed them of the situation. Mrs. Hannibal did state that it happened several times in a short period of time, probably I think three or four weeks. That is unacceptable.
[3:20:26] I told her that on this third instance, and that's why I went out there because I told her on the phone.
[3:20:33] This is unacceptable that a root cause has not been identified.
[3:20:38] I didn't get in my car because they were tearing up, stow road.
[3:20:42] I could care less about stow road in traffic and tearing up the pavement.
[3:20:46] I went out there to make sure that the county, who again is responsible, was out there
[3:20:51] And they were doing their due diligence because the set happened multiple times in four weeks, which was unacceptable.
[3:20:59] I told her all of this on the phone.
[3:21:00] I understand she's passionate about her situation, but the city does care.
[3:21:08] Earlier that morning, because the county owns the sanitary sewers,
[3:21:13] I got a hold of the chief of staff for Executive Eileen Shapiro's office, Mr. Brian Nelson,
[3:21:18] Talk to him on the phone, told him exactly what was going on and said,
[3:21:22] Brian, you have to help us.
[3:21:24] You can't get any higher in some at county than the chief of staff unless you go directly to executive
[3:21:29] violin chupero.
[3:21:31] So, I believe I did show that I cared and I was doing everything possible on something that the city of Hudson
[3:21:39] cannot maintain or own because some at county owns the sanitary source.
[3:21:45] Again, I sympathize with what these residents are going through.
[3:21:49] I went out there to talk to those residents.
[3:21:51] I spent an hour on site.
[3:21:56] I'd like to understand what was going on and ensuring that the emergency crew, that the
[3:22:00] Summit County Department of Sanitary Sewer Services, hired because, again, they owned
[3:22:05] the lines and the maintenance.
[3:22:08] I went out there to make sure they were doing their job and that we can understand that
[3:22:13] they weren't going to walk away without finding the root cause.
[3:22:18] So, to not belabor the issue any further, yes, there was blockage the first or second time.
[3:22:24] The county came out and they jetted those lines, the sanitary sewer lines and cleared
[3:22:28] that blockage.
[3:22:29] Flow was re-established.
[3:22:31] At that point, I thought the problem was solved and inverted.
[3:22:35] So, that information I believe was given to the residents because the residents were all
[3:22:40] standing out there watching what sanitary sewer services were doing.
[3:22:44] So I didn't feel I needed to follow up additionally.
[3:22:48] This third time the camera scopes in the sanitary sewers did detect a breakage of the pipe
[3:22:56] and it had collapsed. It had collapsed and that's what caused the third issue.
[3:23:02] So the first issue was blockage was cleared. Flow was established.
[3:23:06] This most recent issue, the pipe collapsed. Nobody would have known that until they got out
[3:23:12] with their camera scopes and found the blockage,
[3:23:15] and that's when they determined the pipe has crushed.
[3:23:19] The pipe has fallen in.
[3:23:20] We have to replace the pipe.
[3:23:23] So that decision was pretty clear that something
[3:23:26] needed to be excavated, tore up, and replaced.
[3:23:30] And I've had this discussion with Mr. Sharon,
[3:23:32] and this would be my last comment.
[3:23:35] You could sit there and say, OK, this pipe in this section
[3:23:38] caved in failed let's excavate that those ten feet and replace just that
[3:23:45] section of pipe that's not what was going to happen we had discussion I had
[3:23:52] discussion with the foreman out there that day and we the consensus was we're
[3:23:57] going to replace that entire length of pipe from this manhole all the way up at
[3:24:02] Middleton and Stow Road all the way down Stow Road to where the grade then
[3:24:05] starts to flow down south.
[3:24:08] I don't know what that section of pipe is.
[3:24:11] It's 3,400 feet, Mr. Sharon, and something like that.
[3:24:13] It's several hundred feet.
[3:24:16] That decision was made because the pipe was brittle.
[3:24:19] The pipe collapsed in one place.
[3:24:22] And the decision was then made.
[3:24:24] Let's replace that whole section from manhole to manhole.
[3:24:28] So I believe the city did their due diligence.
[3:24:30] I believe the city took all the contacts
[3:24:33] and brought all the people necessary in to get this resolved as quickly as possible, but again,
[3:24:39] I understand that no resident should be dealing with raw sewage in their home or their basement,
[3:24:44] but my final point is the city does care, and records a request could show the multiple
[3:24:51] conversations, emails, and text messages about this specific situation. Those are all the comments I have. Thank you.
[3:25:00] Additional comments from council members before we move on.
[3:25:05] Seeing none, we will close section eight on correspondence and council comments and move on to section nine report of the city manager.
[3:25:12] I would like to say it is almost 10.55 per rules 2 to 0.03 item C number 15. Council can vote to approve to go past 11 PM for this meeting, but I believe that is a two thirds vote to continue this meeting past 11 PM.
[3:25:31] I believe we do need to be done by noon if we do that do that so I'm sorry midnight it's late
[3:25:41] So Mr. Sheridan, I'd like to turn the floor over to you to provide any updates the council if you have them
[3:25:46] real quick on the the alarms. I've had the alarms set to 1 a.m. just so council now
[3:25:54] Just a couple of comments real quick this senior driveway program
[3:25:59] snow-plying program, applications are being accepted currently, they started, they open that up on September
[3:26:05] 14th yesterday, and it goes all the way through October 14th, it's a first come-first serve,
[3:26:11] and we have 150 spots available again, that's the senior residential driveway snow-plying program,
[3:26:18] and that is also available for people with disabilities. Check out our website, they can go to public
[3:26:23] works and get more information on that.
[3:26:26] Splashpad came up early this evening.
[3:26:29] I just saw everybody knows the Splashpad.
[3:26:30] We'll be closing in the end of September.
[3:26:33] And last but not least, I did want to go back
[3:26:35] to one of the items that Council brought up tonight,
[3:26:39] which was the changes in the fiber construction.
[3:26:45] And today, met with Mr. Noblock and our VVV team,
[3:26:50] we're going to put out a map.
[3:26:52] And that's going to be able to show on the map the different color codes of when we're going to be in people's neighborhoods.
[3:26:58] And then, you know, what's the dates of bidding and what's the dates of construction, which I think pictures worth a thousand words.
[3:27:04] So we'll get that out on the website and we'll even talk about getting that out to everybody.
[3:27:09] So that's all I had mayor. I didn't want to take on any more time, but those two programs are coming to an end.
[3:27:15] Are starting and coming to an end this month and I wanted to say that.
[3:27:19] Happy to answer any questions.
[3:27:20] Thank you, Mr. Sheridan.
[3:27:22] It is 10.57.
[3:27:24] We can move on to section 10 for appointments.
[3:27:26] Council President Bird.
[3:27:27] Do we have any appointments tonight?
[3:27:29] I can do one.
[3:27:30] Motion first.
[3:27:32] If you feel like you need more than two minutes to speak.
[3:27:38] As we approach 11 PM, we would need a motion from a council member to continue on past 11 PM tonight.
[3:27:45] With this meeting, it will require two thirds vote approval.
[3:27:48] So as we still have agenda items to review this council wish to enter a motion to consider
[3:27:56] Continuing our meeting past 11 p.m. I moved to go past 2300, but no longer the necessary
[3:28:05] Thank you, council president, bird do we have a second second? I'll take that as councilor brezzovic
[3:28:10] Is there any comments on that motion?
[3:28:12] If not, Mrs. Wheeler, please roll call a vote on the motion to allow council to continue our meeting past 11 p.m. this evening.
[3:28:21] Mr. President? Yes. Mr. Reno? Yes. Dr. Gates? Yes. Mr. Sutton? Yes. Dr. Weinstein? Yes. Mr. White? Yes. Dr. Bird? Yes.
[3:28:31] Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. That motion to allow council to continue this evening past 11 p.m. does pass unanimously by vote of seven favorite to zero against.
[3:28:39] We'll then reconvene with Section 10 on our agenda for appointments.
[3:28:44] Council President Bird, do we have any other appointments tonight?
[3:28:46] We have no appointments today.
[3:28:49] Tonight, but the deadline for applications has been extended to Friday, September 25th,
[3:28:55] 2026 for the Cemetery Board, Environmental Awareness Committee, Planning Commission,
[3:29:00] Board of Zoning and Building Appeals, and the HCTV Advisory Committee.
[3:29:05] Thank you, Council President Bird.
[3:29:07] We will close section 10 on appointments and move to section 11 for the consent agenda.
[3:29:12] Council members, if there are any items on the consent agenda that you wish to have considered separately,
[3:29:16] please allow me to read the item gain my attention and state your wishes.
[3:29:20] Item A is number 26-0079, a motion to acknowledge the timely receipt of the August 206 monthly financial report.
[3:29:32] Item B on consent is number 26-1200, a resolution authorizing the city manager to advertise for bids,
[3:29:38] enter into a contract and approve the pre-purchase of retaining wall blocks from Mac Industries
[3:29:44] for the Ellsworth Meadows Golf Course, Hole 17, Retaining Wall Installation Phase 2 Project
[3:29:50] and declaring an emergency.
[3:29:56] Item C on consent is number 26-121.
[3:30:00] Resolution authorizing the city manager to advertise for bids and to enter into a contract for the L'sworth Meadows Golf Course Stormwater Management Project.
[3:30:13] Item D on consent is number 26-122, a resolution authorizing the city manager to advertise for bids and to enter into a contract for the North Main Strait Stormwater Improvement Project and declaring an emergency.
[3:30:26] The
[3:30:30] last item on consent is item e, number 2, 6, dash 1, 2, 3.
[3:30:36] This is a resolution to forward the Clinton crossing preferred site plan to planning
[3:30:41] commission for concept site plan review.
[3:30:48] That concludes our consent agenda items.
[3:30:51] Therefore, do we have a motion from council to suspend the three reading rule to consider
[3:30:55] passage of the items on the consent agenda on this evening's first reading?
[3:31:00] I move to suspend the rules.
[3:31:03] Thank you, Councilor Brasovic.
[3:31:05] Do we have a second?
[3:31:06] Thank you, Councilor President Bird.
[3:31:09] Mrs. Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the motion
[3:31:11] to suspend the rules on the consent agenda?
[3:31:14] Is there a memo?
[3:31:15] Yes.
[3:31:15] Dr. Gets.
[3:31:17] Mr. Sutton?
[3:31:18] Yes.
[3:31:18] Dr. Weinstein?
[3:31:19] Yes.
[3:31:20] Mr. White?
[3:31:20] Yes.
[3:31:21] Dr. Bird?
[3:31:22] Yes.
[3:31:22] Mr. Brasovic?
[3:31:25] Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler.
[3:31:25] The rules are so suspended by a vote of seven
[3:31:27] favor to zero against, do we have a motion from Council to approve the consent agenda?
[3:31:33] We'll do approve the consent agenda.
[3:31:35] Thank you, Council President Burd.
[3:31:36] Do we have a second?
[3:31:38] Thank you.
[3:31:39] Was that Council in Brisbane?
[3:31:40] Thank you.
[3:31:41] Are there any comments or discussion?
[3:31:46] Seeing none, Mrs. Wheeler.
[3:31:47] Will you please roll call a vote on the motion to approve the consent agenda?
[3:31:51] Dr. Gitz?
[3:31:52] Yes.
[3:31:53] Mr. Sutton?
[3:31:54] Dr. Weinstein?
[3:31:55] Yes.
[3:31:55] Dr. Burd?
[3:31:57] Yes.
[3:31:58] Mr. President, Mr.
[3:31:59] Yes.
[3:32:00] Yes.
[3:32:00] Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler.
[3:32:02] The consent agenda has been approved by a vote of seven in favor to zero against.
[3:32:08] We'll close section 11 and move on to section 12 for the legislative agenda.
[3:32:14] Item A is number 26-78.
[3:32:16] This is an ordinance amending chapter 876 short-term rental operations.
[3:32:22] This ordinance has already had three readings and is actionable tonight.
[3:32:27] This Council will wish to enter a motion on legislation 26-78 Council.
[3:32:32] I move this to a date certain of November 10th.
[3:32:38] Members, just to clarify your motion, your motioning to postpone legislation 26-78
[3:32:43] to a date certain of November 10th, 2026.
[3:32:47] Thank you, Councillor Gats.
[3:32:49] Do we have a second to that motion?
[3:32:53] Second. Thank you, Councilor Weinstein. Is there any discussion on the motion to postpone
[3:32:58] to six steps of need to a date certain of November 10th?
[3:33:05] Councillor Brousswick?
[3:33:06] My understanding is the postponement is to give staff and if time to consolidate the
[3:33:12] feedback. I just like to push back a little bit. We've already, this was already a postponement
[3:33:17] day. Is it possible we could consolidate that information in time for, I believe, the 27th,
[3:33:23] October 27th would be a regular council meeting.
[3:33:26] That's a workshop of apologies.
[3:33:29] The 20th be one.
[3:33:30] Do you have a schedule?
[3:33:31] I believe the second council meeting in October is the 20th.
[3:33:35] The 20th.
[3:33:36] October 20th.
[3:33:38] I mean, that's still over among the way.
[3:33:41] So your request is to have councilor Gats reconsider her motion to change the date certain date.
[3:33:50] Council on the guests would you like to respond?
[3:33:54] The clerk felt that this was the best date.
[3:33:59] It's the November 10th.
[3:34:04] Is that,
[3:34:09] I'm sorry, Mr. Sheridan, did you have a comment?
[3:34:11] Just real quick, I believe November 10th was picked because the other dates were full agendas,
[3:34:18] but we could have the information available if Council would like in October.
[3:34:25] Councillor Getz, that question then lies with you if you would like to revise your motion.
[3:34:32] Otherwise, your motion stands and has been seconded.
[3:34:35] I do not want to revise it.
[3:34:37] That's fine.
[3:34:37] Your motion has been made and seconded by Councillor Weinstein.
[3:34:42] Is there any additional comment on the motion on the floor by Councillor members?
[3:34:47] Seeing none, Mrs. Wheeler, please roll call the vote.
[3:34:49] on the motion to postpone legislation 26-7-8 to a date certain of November 10th, 2020-6.
[3:34:57] Is there a sentence?
[3:34:58] Dr. Weinstein?
[3:34:59] Yes.
[3:35:00] Mr. White? Yes. Dr. Bird? Yes. Mr. President? Yes. Mr. Duramo? Yes. Dr. Gets? Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. The motion to postpone legislation 26-78 to a date certain of November 10th, 2026 does pass by vote of five in favour to two against. We'll move on to item B on the legislative agenda. This is item number 26-118.
[3:35:29] This is a second reading tonight.
[3:35:32] This is a resolution authorizing
[3:35:34] a settlement of the Prestige Builder Group LLC versus City of Hudson lawsuit and related claims surrounding the Canterbury Meadows development.
[3:35:43] And, as Council knows, this was the subject of our hearing this evening.
[3:35:46] Again, this is a second of three readings tonight, which the third reading on this legislative item will be on October 6th.
[3:35:53] If I have that date correct.
[3:35:56] Yes?
[3:35:58] Moving on to item C on the legislative agenda is 26-124.
[3:36:04] This is a first reading tonight.
[3:36:06] This is an ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of $740,000 of taxable economic
[3:36:11] development, non-tax revenue bond and anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance
[3:36:16] of bonds for the purpose of paying costs of acquiring approximately 4.0 acres of real property,
[3:36:22] located near the southwest corner of Owen Brown Street and Morris Road.
[3:36:27] Again, this is the first of three readings this evening.
[3:36:32] Moving on to item D on legislative agenda, number 26-125.
[3:36:36] This is an ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of $925,000 of taxable economic development,
[3:36:42] non-tax revenue bond and anticipation notes.
[3:36:46] In anticipation of the issuance of bonds for the purpose of paying cost of acquiring approximately 1.0 acre
[3:36:52] of real property located at, excuse me, located at 94 Owen Brown Street.
[3:36:58] This is also a first of three readings this evening.
[3:37:02] Moving on to item E, number 26-126.
[3:37:06] This is an ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of not to exceed 6,825,000 dollars
[3:37:12] of notes and anticipation of the issuance of bonds for the purpose of paying cost of
[3:37:17] proving city owned a property located at 5810 Hudson Drive by constructing furnishing a
[3:37:24] equipping and otherwise improving item i a new salt storage facility and item i i a new
[3:37:31] bus maintenance and storage facility and clearing improving and equipping the site again
[3:37:37] this is a first reading this evening. Moving on to item f number 26-127 this is also a
[3:37:45] meeting and ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of bonds in the maximum principal
[3:37:50] amount of 21 million dollars for the purpose of paying costs of constructing, furnishing,
[3:37:56] and equipping a facility housing functions of the city's department of public works and clearing
[3:38:01] equipping and improving the site thereof. Again, this is a first reading this evening.
[3:38:09] Moving on to item G, number 26-128. This is an ordinance providing for the
[3:38:14] The sale of not to exceed 15 million dollars of notes in anticipation of the issuance of bonds for the purpose of paying costs of improving and expanding the city's velocity broadband fiber optic system by acquiring and installing infrastructure and equipment to enable provision of residential internet service.
[3:38:36] Again, this is a first reading this evening.
[3:38:40] Moving on to item H number 26-129.
[3:38:44] This is an ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of not to exceed five million dollars
[3:38:48] of notes in anticipation of the issuance of bonds for the purpose of paying costs of remodeling,
[3:38:55] renovating, enlarging, furnishing, equipping, and otherwise improving the city's fire and
[3:39:01] EMS facility, including constructing a new detached garage building on and clearing, improving,
[3:39:08] and equipping the site. This is a first reading this evening. Moving on to the last item on
[3:39:17] our legislative agenda is item I. Number 26-130. This is also a first reading. This is an
[3:39:25] ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of not to exceed $3 million of notes in anticipation
[3:39:31] of the issuance of bonds for the purpose of paying costs of installing and advanced metering
[3:39:37] infrastructure, AMI, project for the city's water resources and public power utilities.
[3:39:45] Again, this is a first reading this evening that does conclude our legislative agenda.
[3:39:52] Therefore, we will close section 12 and move on to section 13 for an executive session.
[3:39:58] We do have an executive session this evening.
[3:40:00] Good evening to discuss pending litigation and the purchase of sale, of public property. Therefore, do we have a motion from council to enter into executive session?
[3:40:11] Yes, I moved to enter into executive session, pursuant to Hudson codified ordinance 2-2-0.05-B-3-5 to discuss pending court action and matters that are required to be kept confidential by law.
[3:40:23] and invited to this executive session,
[3:40:26] our Dr. Bird, Mr. Brusevek, Mrs. Duremau,
[3:40:30] Dr. Gats, Dr. Weinstein, Mr. White,
[3:40:32] the mayor, the city solicitor, Attorney Mike Cicero,
[3:40:36] the Community Development Director,
[3:40:39] the Assistant City Manager, and the City Manager.
[3:40:43] Thank you, Council President Bird.
[3:40:44] Do we have a second to that motion?
[3:40:48] Thank you, Councillor Gats, is there any discussion or comment?
[3:40:52] Seeing none, Mrs. Wheeler, we please roll call a vote on the motion to enter into executive
[3:40:57] session.
[3:40:58] Dr. Weinstein.
[3:41:00] Mr. White.
[3:41:01] Dr. Burt.
[3:41:02] Yes.
[3:41:03] Mr. President.
[3:41:04] Yes.
[3:41:04] Mr. Raymo.
[3:41:05] Dr. Gates.
[3:41:07] Mr. Sutton.
[3:41:08] Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler.
[3:41:12] We will now enter into a private, closed or executive session by a vote of six in favor
[3:41:17] with one abstention.
[3:41:19] Please note that at the conclusion of our executive session, we do not anticipate
[3:41:22] paid any further public business other than to officially adjourn our meeting.
[3:41:26] Thank you.