uses of District 8 and provide further development opportunity within the planned development, which requires
a higher level of design and approval from Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Hannan further
described the opportunities that were provided to the public for feedback, with results attached to the agenda .
Mr. Phil Leiter, 134 Aurora St., expressed concern that the proposed ordinance would create a dense housing
scheme that residents do not want and that would threaten downtown viability. He stated that Hudson does not
have the population to support two competing market centers and the scientific survey of the Comprehensive
Plan is the best gauge of residents' desires in the area.
Mr. Tom Mayor, 7153 Valley View Road, raised a governance concern, arguing that the City Charter designates
the Comprehensive Plan as the operative plan to guide the City. He also stated that the subcommittee produced
a proposal, which was sent to Planning Commission, that violates the Comprehensive Plan's direction for the
Darrowville corridor. He further stated that Council should eliminate residential use, 40,000 sq. ft. grocery,
20,000 sq. ft. retail, and restore it to industrial, office, warehouse, and small footprint retail uses. Mr. Mayor
also suggested a review on how so many boards failed to follow the Charter and the Comprehensive Plan .
Ms. Cynthia Curtin, 1102 Cutler Lane, stated that there is an overwhelming opposition to what is being
proposed, with the biggest issue being that it is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and in violation of Codified
Ordinance Section 1204.01. She also questioned what the impact on traffic would be, requested a traffic study,
and urged Council to vote no and send the proposal back to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Mary Lou Wagner, 7871 Valley View Road, expressed that the Planning Commission exists to evaluate
alignment with the Comprehensive Plan, provide technical planning expertise, and conduct structured public
review prior to legislation but that the process, as structured by the Charter, has not been followed with the
proposed District 11. She asked Council to send the legislation back to Planning Commission and allow them to
provide a recommendation consistent with the Charter and Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Sarah Norman, 2212 Edgeview Dr., raised the possibility that a planned development in District 11 could
immediately trigger the City's growth management allocation for two full years, potentially impacting other
significant subdivisions such as Clinton Crossing. She also noted that a traffic study promised by staff would not
allow for Planning Commission or public review and comment, based on the timing of its availability and the
upcoming vote.
Mr. Bill Klausman, 2746 Blue Heron Dr., questioned why Councilmembers did not want to wait an additional
month to allow for Planning Commission review.
Ms. Susan Newman, 2694 Stonebridge Ct., spoke on behalf of the Hudson Heritage Association and urged
Council to consider the preservation of character, process, and the long term plan of Hudson . She further
stated that the proposed legislation is a departure from the Comprehensive Plan, requested well-planned and
thoughtful growth, and to send the legislation back to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Nora Jacobs Snider, 34 Division St., spoke in opposition to the proposed District 11 and asked for it to be
sent back to Planning Commission, due to its enormous impact and long legacy.
Mr. Todd Zedak, 16 Hudson Common, stated that residents were uncoordinated but delivered the same message
to vote no and send it back to Planning Commission. He further stated that the whole proposal should be
dropped.
Mr. Mike Juppe, 5734 Williamsburg Cir., stated his concerns about digging up potentially contaminated soil
under ground that has been used for industrial purposes for many years.
Mr. Brezovec thanked all who attended and spoke, at this meeting and via other avenues, and hopes to find a
solution that will be palatable to most.
Ms. D'Eramo stated that the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee members really helped her understand the
intent of the proposed District 11, that she takes into consideration the expertise of specialists in deciding how to
vote, acknowledged difficulty in understanding residents stating they are for development but against the current
proposal, felt the Planning Commission could have done more due diligence during its 120-day review, and is
prepared to move forward with the proposed amendments.
