City of Hudson, Ohio  
Meeting Minutes - Final  
Architectural & Historic Board of Review  
John Caputo, Chair  
Allyn Marzulla, Vice Chair  
John Workley, Secretary  
Andrew Brown  
Amy Manko  
Françoise Massardier-Kenney  
Jamie Sredinski  
Nicholas Sugar, City Planner  
Lauren Coffman, Associate Planner  
Wednesday, April 22, 2026  
7:30 PM  
Town Hall  
27 East Main Street  
I.  
Call To Order  
Chair Caputo called to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Architectural & Historic  
Board of Review of the City of Hudson at 7:30 p.m., in accordance with the Sunshine Laws of  
the State of Ohio, O.R.C. Section 121.22.  
II.  
Roll Call  
Present: 6 -  
Mr. Caputo, Ms. Kenney, Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Workley, Ms. Sredinski and Mr.  
Brown  
Absent: 1 -  
Ms. Manko  
III.  
IV.  
Public Comment  
Chair Caputo opened the meeting to public comments for anyone wanting to address the  
Board. There were no comments.  
Consent Applications  
A motion was made by Mr. Workley, seconded by Ms. Kenney, to approve the Consent  
Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote:  
Aye:  
6 - Mr. Caputo, Ms. Kenney, Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Workley, Ms. Sredinski and Mr.  
Brown  
Absent:  
1 - Ms. Manko  
AHBR 26-234  
67 Division Street (Historic District)  
Alteration (Roof Replacement)  
Attachments:  
67 Division St - AHBR Packet  
This AHBR agenda item was approved on the Consent Agenda.  
AHBR 26-263  
30 Ravenna Street  
Sign (Ground and Wall Sign)  
Attachments:  
30 Ravenna Street - AHBR Packet  
This AHBR agenda item was approved on the Consent Agenda.  
V.  
Old Business  
AHBR  
88 N Main Street (Historic District)  
2025-1478  
Alterations (Door Replacement)  
Attachments:  
88 N. Main Street - Letter to AHBR  
88 N Main Street - Proposed Door Photos  
88 N Main St - AHBR Packet 3.11.2026  
Ms. Coffman opened the discussion by reviewing the previous meeting comments and  
referencing the applicant’s letter to the Board.  
Mr. Joseph Kernan, counsel for the applicant, explained that during the earlier AHBR review,  
the applicant was asked to add detailing to the door so it would better align with other doors  
along the street. After reviewing the surrounding properties and photographing nearby  
storefronts, Mr. Kernan noted that many of the adjacent businesses, including both  
neighboring properties, use metal-frame doors like the one at 88 N. Main Street. The  
distinguishing feature on those doors is the etched glass displaying the business name. He  
proposed adding a similar etching to the door in question while otherwise keeping it  
unchanged.  
The Board, the applicant, and staff noted the applicant’s proposed wood door replacement has  
been withdrawn after he determined the current door is consistent with several others on the  
block. Mr. Kernan questioned why other businesses on Main Street were permitted metal  
doors. The Board asked staff whether those other doors were formally permitted. Mr. Kernan  
also raised the historical example of The Gap, questioning why its door was allowed at that  
time.  
Board members responded that they did not have information regarding why certain doors  
were approved in the past, but emphasized that the current application could not be approved  
without a formal plan. They also reiterated the importance of preserving the historic character  
of Main Street. Mr. Kernan expressed concern that his client was not being treated in a fair  
and impartial manner that is consistent with neighboring businesses. The Board noted that  
differences in architectural context may play a role and also clarified that enforcement of prior  
approvals is beyond its authority.  
Following an extended discussion about the apparent inconsistencies in past door approvals,  
the Board reiterated that it could not act without a submitted plan.  
Ms. Marzulla moved, and Mr. Workley seconded, to enter executive session. The Board  
approved the motion unanimously.  
The Board returned from executive session at 7:50 p.m.  
After the Board decision, Mr. Kernan thanked the Board for its time and stated his belief that  
the application had not received equal protection under the law, noting that the applicant  
would consider its next steps.  
A motion was made by Mr. Workley, seconded by Ms. Marzulla, stating that because  
the first component of this application included signage, the Board intends to remain  
consistent with it comments from February 11, 2026, regarding approval of the signage.  
With respect to the second part of the application concerning the door, the Board moves  
to DENY the request under Section 2.1, Approval and Discretion of the AHBR, based on  
the applicant not meeting the required criteria for exceptional design. The Board found  
that the proposal does not demonstrate creativity, is not responsive to a unique situation  
involving site difficulty or unusual program requirements, and does not present an  
exceptional or unique condition that would create practical difficulty in complying with  
the standards. These factors are considered as defined in the Land Development Code  
for determining practical difficulty.  
The motion to DENY was approved by the following vote:  
Aye:  
6 - Mr. Caputo, Ms. Kenney, Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Workley, Ms. Sredinski and Mr.  
Brown  
Absent:  
1 - Ms. Manko  
VI.  
New Business  
AHBR 26-197  
6492 Elmcrest Dr  
Alteration (Applied Stone & Siding)  
Attachments:  
6492 Elmcrest Dr - AHBR Packet  
Ms. Coffman introduced the application by displaying photos of the structure and reviewing  
the staff comments and recommendations.  
Mr. Bob Zickenfoose and Mr. Dominic Andrews of Hometown Roofing and Construction  
responded to the staff comments by distributing written responses to the Board and then  
walking through each item. They explained that wrapping the stone around the back of the  
house would add an additional $5,000 to $6,000 in cost for an area that would not be visible.  
They also clarified that vertical siding is proposed for the front elevation. In addition, they  
stated that all existing brick on the front of the house would be replaced with stone, and noted  
that the current brick does not terminate at an inside corner.  
The Board, applicant, and staff discussed several points, including the fact that the chimney is  
gray brick and the stone course would wrap around it. The applicant explained that the  
Infinity Stone material cannot be installed on the three-season room due to weight limitations.  
The Board expressed concern about the stone not wrapping fully around the structure and  
questioned whether it should extend to the sunroom. It was noted that a privacy fence would  
make the sunroom largely not visible from view. The discussion also included clarification  
that the proposed product is a siding material rather than real stone, consideration of placing  
the stone only on the front elevation, and the importance of not creating new non-compliant  
conditions. The Board also explored whether lowering the height of the stone on the side  
elevations could help reduce costs for the homeowner, and acknowledged that unique existing  
conditions affect the project.  
Recognizing that unique existing conditions exist at this house, a motion was made by  
Mr. Workley, seconded by Ms. Kenney, to grant an exception and approve the AHBR  
application as amended, with the following conditions: The brick material on the right  
side will be matched, and the new stone will wrap around the corner to the chimney.  
The motion was approved by the following vote:  
Aye:  
6 - Mr. Caputo, Ms. Kenney, Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Workley, Ms. Sredinski and Mr.  
Brown  
Absent:  
1 - Ms. Manko  
AHBR 26-262  
85 Division Street (Historic District)  
Accessory Structure (Pergola)  
Attachments:  
85 Division Street - AHBR Packet  
Ms. Coffman introduced the application by displaying elevations of the proposed pergola and  
reviewing the staff comments.  
Mr. Perry Demming, the applicant, explained that the structure will be wrapped in Azek  
material designed to resemble wood, and presented photographs illustrating the intended  
appearance of the pergola.  
Mr. Ryan Coffman of Coffman Lawn Company added that both the aluminum components  
and the Azek material are maintenance-free.  
The Board, the applicant, and staff discussed several points, including that Azek has been  
approved in other projects within the Historic District, and that the photographs show the  
aluminum elements of the structure will not be visible once wrapped in Azek. It was noted  
that the top of the pergola is aluminum and that a color more compatible with the surrounding  
neighborhood would be preferred for that exposed portion. Discussion also addressed the fact  
that Azek is not used elsewhere on the house, and that the overall appearance of the pergola is  
more modern than the historic character of the home and nearby outdoor structures. The  
Board acknowledged that the pergola has a slatted roof that will visually blend into the yard.  
It was also noted that Azek offers a post-wrap product suitable for this type of installation,  
and that the garage features a black metal roof.  
A motion was made by Mr. Workley, seconded by Ms. Sredinski, that this AHBR  
Application be approved as amended.with Azek wrap and a black or dark tone  
moveable roof. The motion carried by the following vote:  
Aye:  
6 - Mr. Caputo, Ms. Kenney, Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Workley, Ms. Sredinski and Mr.  
Brown  
Absent:  
1 - Ms. Manko  
AHBR 26-259  
1597 Hines Hill Rd  
Accessory Structure (Carriage House)  
Attachments:  
1597 Hines Hill Rd - AHBR Packet 4.22.2026  
Ms. Coffman introduced the application and reviewed the staff comments and  
recommendations.  
Mr. Leon Sampat, LS Architects, noted that the north elevation will have additional windows,  
the low-hung windows will be casement, and all the materials will match the existing  
materials. Mr. Sampat also noted that the architect who did the previous work is attempting to  
find the spec sheets used before.  
A motion was made by Ms. Kenney, seconded by Ms. Sredinski, that this AHBR  
Application be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:  
Aye:  
6 - Mr. Caputo, Ms. Kenney, Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Workley, Ms. Sredinski and Mr.  
Brown  
Absent:  
1 - Ms. Manko  
AHBR 25-554  
670 Terex Rd  
Addition (Living Room, Kitchen, & Garage)  
Attachments:  
670 Terex Rd - AHBR Packet 4.22.2026  
670 Terex Rd - AHBR Packet 10.8.2025  
Ms. Coffman introduced the application by displaying the elevations, describing the project,  
and noting revised elevations where submitted following the informal review on October 8,  
2025, and reviewed the staff comments.  
Mr. Andrew Heilmeir, and William Heilmeir, applicants, stated that the entire structure will  
receive a new metal roof, and reviewed the rest of the staff comments with their comments.  
The Board, applicant, and staff discussed the column not going to the roof, the door not  
centered under the overhang - which are drawing mistakes, and the siding material.  
Mr. Workley made a motion, seconded by Ms. Kenney, to approve with the following  
conditions: Modify the left elevation where brick is required, the foundation material  
changed to brick to match the existing foundation, and any other modification submitted  
to staff. The motion was approved by the following vote:  
Aye:  
6 - Mr. Caputo, Ms. Kenney, Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Workley, Ms. Sredinski and Mr.  
Brown  
Absent:  
1 - Ms. Manko  
AHBR 26-101  
200 Laurel Lake Dr  
New House (Villas)  
Attachments:  
200 Laurel Lake Dr - Villas - AHBR Packet  
200 Laurel Lake Dr - Villa Staff Comments  
Ms. Coffman stated that Laurel Lake has requested that the application be tabled.  
A motion was made by Ms. Kenney, seconded by Mr. Workley, that this AHBR  
Application be continued. The motion carried by the following vote:  
Aye:  
6 - Mr. Caputo, Ms. Kenney, Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Workley, Ms. Sredinski and Mr.  
Brown  
Absent:  
1 - Ms. Manko  
VII. Other Business  
Architectural and Historic Board of Review Findings of Fact for case #22-730  
for the property located at 5530 Stonecreek Way, Hudson, OH 44236  
AHBR 22-730  
Findings of Fact  
Attachments:  
AHBR Decision - 5530 Stonecreek Way  
A motion was made by Mr. Workley, seconded by Ms. Marzulla, that these Finding of  
Facts be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:  
Aye:  
6 - Mr. Caputo, Ms. Kenney, Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Workley, Ms. Sredinski and Mr.  
Brown  
Absent:  
1 - Ms. Manko  
Minutes of Previous Architectural & Historic Board of Review Meeting: March  
AHBR 3.11.2026  
11, 2026  
Attachments:  
March 11, 2026 AHBR Meeting Minutes - Draft  
A quorum of members who were at this meeting were not present; a vote could not be  
conducted.  
VIII. Staff Update  
A meeting with HHA and potential Landmark Home owners was noted to take place on April  
29, 2026.  
A meeting of AHBR, BZBA, and Planning Commission was noted to take place on April 27,  
2026.  
This matter was discussed  
IX.  
Adjournment  
A motion was made by Ms. Marzulla, seconded by Mr. Workley, that the meeting be  
adjourned at 8:44 p.m.. The motion carried by the following vote:  
Aye:  
6 - Mr. Caputo, Ms. Kenney, Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Workley, Ms. Sredinski and Mr.  
Brown  
Absent:  
1 - Ms. Manko  
___________________________________________  
John Caputo, Chair  
___________________________________________  
John Workley, Secretary  
___________________________________________  
Joe Campbell, Executive Assistant  
Upon approval by the Architectural & Historic Board of Review, this official written  
summary of the meeting minutes shall become a permanent record, and the official minutes  
shall also consist of a permanent audio and video recording, excluding executive sessions, in  
accordance with Codified Ordinances, Section 252.04, Minutes of Architectural and Historic  
Board of Review, Board of Zoning and Building Appeals, and Planning Commission.  
*
*
*