City of Hudson, Ohio  
CD Meeting Agenda - 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, February 25, 2026  
7:30 PM  
Town Hall  
27 East Main Street  
Call To Order  
Roll Call  
I.  
II.  
III.  
Public Comment  
Consent Applications  
IV.  
A.  
50 W Streetsboro Street  
Sign (Wall Sign)  
Submitted by Dr. Shweta Arora  
a) Staff recommends approval as submitted.  
Attachments:  
Old Business  
V.  
A.  
88 N Main Street (Historic District)  
Alterations (Door Replacement)  
Submitted by Joseph Kernan  
a) Staff notes this application was continued from the February 11, 2026,  
AHBR meeting.  
b) The AHBR requested the applicant add additional detail to the proposed  
front entry door to better align with the surrounding Historic District.  
c) Staff notes the applicant has requested the AHBR table the request to the  
March 11, 2026, meeting to give them additional time to address the  
Boards comments in their design.  
Attachments:  
New Business  
VI.  
A.  
201 N. Main Street (Historic District)  
Demolition, Alteration and Re-build  
Submitted by Elizabeth Swearingen, Peninsula Architects  
a) Staff notes this project received AHBR approval at the October 25, 2023,  
AHBR meeting.  
b) The AHBR approved the project with the following conditions, staff notes  
these have been updated in the most recent set of drawings:  
a.  
Recommendations two through six of the historical  
consultant’s report  
b. That the PVC shutters be changed to wood  
c. That Pella Traditional Reserve series windows with simulated  
divided lite be used  
c) Staff notes the previous approval has expired and the applicant is seeking  
re-approval for the proposed project.  
Attachments:  
B.  
41 E Main Street (Historic District)  
Commercial Addition (Office and Storage Space)  
Submitted by Elizabeth Swearingen, Peninsula Architects  
a) Staff notes this proposal received informal AHBR comments at the April 9,  
2025, meeting and Planning Commission approval on January 12, 2026.  
b) Section IV-4(f)(3) of the Architectural Design Standards state “Details in  
the wings should be the same or subordinate to those in the main body. For  
example, a wing should not have an elaborate cornice if the main body has  
a simple one.” Suggest removing the gable brackets to the north and south  
and gable ends to the east and west.  
c) Staff notes horizontal siding is proposed for the wing addition, while the  
main mass has brick. However, Section IV-4 (d)(2) states “The wings may  
have a different material for the wall than the main body, but no more than  
two materials for the walls may be used on the structure.” Question if  
siding color would match.  
d) Section IV-4 (h)(3) of the Architectural Design Standards state that  
additions should be designed to be compatible with the main structure by  
incorporating materials and a foundation to match. Staff notes a brick  
foundation is proposed.  
e) Remove references to “or approved equal” where materials are  
documented on the elevations.  
f) Verify the proposed exterior door materials for the overhead and man  
door.  
Attachments:  
Other Business  
VII.  
A.  
1957 Norton Rd (Informal)  
New House (Single Family Dwelling)  
Submitted by Matthew Neff  
a) Section I-2(b) of the Architectural Design Standards state that new  
buildings and alterations shall respect the existing context and framework.  
Staff notes the overall design is not compatible with the existing  
architectural framework of this area. Suggest incorporating gable roofs, a  
more prominent and central front entryway, and window and door trim to  
be more compatible.  
b) Question if the house design could be rotated to provide a greater setback  
to the western property line and reduce impacts to wetlands and wetland  
setbacks.  
c) The Land Development Code requires the front setback to be within the  
average of the two adjacent properties and not differ by more than ten  
percent from the front yard setbacks of the two properties immediately  
adjacent to the subject property, unless approved by the AHBR. Staff  
notes the proposed house would have a front setback of 180 ft. The  
property to the west has a front yard setback of approximately 300 ft. The  
property to the east has a front yard setback of 840 ft; however, this is a  
flag lot with only 60 ft of frontage. The next home to the east has a setback  
of 35 ft.  
d) Section IV-4(b)(2) of the Architectural Design Standards state “The front  
face of the main body must sit forward at least 18” from the front face of  
the wings. Staff notes the proposed wing is in line with the main mass.  
Revise the massing to meet this requirement.  
e) Section III-1(g)(8) of the Architectural Design Standards state “large  
expanses of blank wall are to be avoided”. Fenestration placement should  
be at a minimum of approximately every 12 ft.” Incorporate additional  
fenestration placement to meet this requirement.  
f) Section IV-4(c) of the Architectural Design Standards state “all roofs in all  
the wings must be of the same shape as the main body”. Staff notes that a  
flat roof is proposed for the garage wing while the main house has a shed  
roof.  
g) Section IV-4(b)(2) of the Architectural Design Standards state “the  
building shall have a typical window used for most windows. Revise the  
overall window designs to meet this requirement.  
h) Verify exposed foundation material.  
Attachments:  
B.  
11 S Main Street (Gazebo Green - Historic District)  
Alterations (Downtown Gazebo)  
Submitted by City of Hudson  
a) The proposal for the Gazebo renovations have been updated in response to  
both the AHBR comments made at the February 11, 2026 meeting and to  
community- wide feedback.  
b) The revised scope of work would include the following; in-kind repair of  
the existing structure, landscaping, drainage improvements, concrete plaza  
(with alternate permeable concrete), and an ADA accessible lift at the  
southeast corner of the structure.  
c) City Council has requested AHBR feedback on the revised proposal.  
d) Staff notes the proposed ADA lift would require AHBR approval. At this  
time, Council is only requesting feedback from the AHBR. Staff anticipates  
a formal AHBR review of the ADA lift would follow, which would include  
to-scale elevations.  
e) Staff has provided three lift products for AHBR comment; Liftup Flexstep,  
Liftup EasyLift, and the Hercules Vertical Platform.  
Attachments:  
Architectural and Historic Board of Review Findings of Fact for case #25-361,  
for the property located at 33 E. Streetsboro Street, Hudson, OH 44236  
C.  
Attachments:  
Minutes of Previous Architectural & Historic Board of Review Meeting:  
January 28, 2026.  
D.  
E.  
Attachments:  
Minutes of Previous Architectural & Historic Board of Review Meeting:  
February 11, 2026.  
Attachments:  
Adjournment  
IX.  
*
*
*