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, May 13, 2026  
7:30 PM  
Town Hall  
27 East Main Street  
Call To Order  
Roll Call  
I.  
II.  
III.  
IV.  
Public Comment  
Consent Applications  
5951 Stow Rd  
Commercial Sign (Ground Sign)  
Submitted by Mike Ruth, Fast Signs  
a) Staff recommends approval as submitted.  
Attachments:  
39 Church Street (Historic District)  
Fence (Wood Privacy)  
Submitted by Jamie Troche, Acme Fence  
a) Staff recommends approval as submitted.  
Attachments:  
40 Roslyn Ave (Historic District)  
Alteration (Window Replacements)  
Submitted by David Thomas  
a) Staff recommends approval as submitted.  
Attachments:  
39 Roslyn Ave (Historic District)  
Alteration (Roof Replacement)  
Submitted by Simon Semonin  
a) Staff recommends approval as submitted.  
Attachments:  
257 N Main Street (Historic District)  
Alteration (Roof Replacement)  
Submitted by Mike Farist  
a) Staff recommends approval as submitted.  
Attachments:  
53 S Hayden Pkwy  
Addition (Covered Patio)  
Submitted by Elijah Kaiser  
a) Staff recommends approval as submitted.  
Attachments:  
6812 Evergreen Rd  
Accessory Structure (Detached Garage)  
Submitted by Dan Telehany  
a) Staff recommends approval as submitted.  
Attachments:  
5107 Darrow Rd  
Addition (Covered Deck)  
Submitted by Michael Molchan  
a) Staff notes previous approval at December 14, 2022 AHBR meeting  
Attachments:  
Old Business  
V.  
New Business  
VI.  
2115 E. Streetsboro St  
Demolition (Detached Accessory Structure)  
Submitted by Nate Bailey, Hara Architects  
a) Staff notes the proposed scope of work is to demolish an existing detached  
garage constructed in the 1920’s  
b) The existing house on the property is designated as a Historic Landmark,  
but the designation does not apply to the existing garage on the property.  
c) Staff notes the applicant states that the existing accessory structure is in a  
state of significant disrepair, including structural racking, deteriorated  
siding, and a failing foundation.  
d) As the structure is outside the historic district and is not an individual  
historic landmark, the AHBR may only make the following  
recommendation upon review: The Architectural and Historic Board of  
Review finds the structure at 2115 E Streetsboro St [(does)(does not)] have  
historic or architectural significance. Further, the Board finds that the  
application for a permit to demolish these structures will not voluntarily  
consent to the retention of these buildings.  
Attachments:  
258 N Main Street (Historic District)  
Addition (2-Car Garage, Office)  
Submitted by Nate Bailey, Hara Architects  
a) Staff notes that this proposal received informal AHBR review at the March  
13, 2026 and April 8, 2026 meetings.  
b) Question the proposed carriage house window type and how the proposed  
windows relate to the main mass.  
c) Staff notes the design follows the guidance of Preservation Brief #14 by  
being subordinate to the existing building. The design is lower in height  
and separated by a hyphen (link).  
Attachments:  
6591 Walnut Ct  
Addition (Covered Patio)  
Submitted by Trace Baum, Tab Property Enhancement LLC  
a) Verify if proposed 6x6 wood posts would be wrapped in additional  
material.  
b) Verify proposed shingles would match existing house.  
c) Submit product spec sheet of proposed applied stone material.  
Attachments:  
31 Church Street (Historic District)  
Alteration (Window & Door replacement)  
Submitted by Pavlo Puts  
a) Staff notes the Board reviewed this application at the September 24, 2025,  
AHBR meeting.  
b) A site visit took place on October 7, 2025.  
c) Staff notes the applicant has submitted revised plans depicting the  
installation of double hung Marvin Ultimate series windows, as well as  
wood entry doors for the Boards consideration.  
d) Verify simulated divided lite muntins are being proposed for the exterior  
entry doors.  
Attachments:  
126 N Main Street (Historic District)  
Alteration (Window Replacement)  
Submitted by Heather Davies  
a) The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation state that  
deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.  
Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive  
feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and  
other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of  
missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or  
pictorial evidence.  
b) Staff notes that the Board may request a site visit to verify the condition of  
the existing windows.  
c) Question the appropriateness of the proposed window material. Staff notes  
6 vinyl windows are proposed. Vinyl has not been an approved material  
within the Historic District. Revise proposed vinyl windows to wood or  
aluminum-clad wood windows to be more compatible within the historic  
district.  
d) The Secretary of Interior Standards state “the historic character of a  
property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic  
materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property  
shall be avoided.” Question how the window header will be constructed  
for proposed window replacements 7,8, and 9.  
Attachments:  
204 Sunset Drive  
Alteration (Front Porch, Siding and Stone Application, Windows, Roof)  
Submitted by Brandon Gembus  
a) Section III-1(g)(3) of the Architectural Design Standards states exposed  
foundations and tie courses shall be of a consistent material on all  
elevations. Question the proposed stone foundational material proposed  
around the garage wing and how it relates to the main mass.  
b) Question how proposed stone material will be applied to the existing  
chimney.  
c) Section IV-4 (g)(1) of the Architectural Design Standards states that roofs  
on projections should match the roof material of the building (unless both  
roofs are flat) and to the extent possible, shall be same kind of roof.  
Natural finish metals such as copper, terne coated steel, or lead may be  
substituted for any roofing material. Staff notes that a shed roof is  
proposed.  
Attachments:  
150 Aurora Street (Historic District)  
Addition (Office Space & Dormers)  
Submitted by Eric Kuczek, Sojourn Architects  
a) The National Park Service Preservation Brief #14 for additions states new  
additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not  
destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work  
shall be differentiated from the old. Question impact of proposed 2nd story  
addition on the historic mass and the removal of historic materials.  
Additionally, question the removal of a portion of the rear roofline to  
accommodate the proposed addition.  
b) The National Park Service Preservation Brief #14 for additions states “a  
new addition should be smaller than the historic building - it should be  
subordinate in both size and design to the historic building. A new addition  
should be simple and unobtrusive in design, and should be distinguished  
from the historic building.” Staff notes the proposed rear gable and  
dormer addition should be lower in height than the main mass. Revise rear  
elevation to better meet this requirement.  
c) The Secretary of Interior Standards state “Distinctive features, finishes,  
and construction techniques or examples of craftmanship that characterize  
a property shall be preserved”. Question the removal of the first story  
window on the left side elevation.  
d) Question appropriateness of proposed circular special window on rear  
elevation.  
Attachments:  
39 Laurel Lake Dr  
Addition (Bedroom, Great Room & Mud Room)  
Submitted by Donna Anderson  
a) Section IV-4(g)(4) of the Architectural Design Standards state projections  
on the ground floor should be carried through the foundation. Question if  
full foundation is needed under proposed front elevation bay window.  
b) Section IV-4(e)(4) of the Architectural Design Standards state that the  
building shall have a typical window used for most windows. Question the  
proposed casement windows proposed on the left side elevation.  
Attachments:  
11 S. Main Street  
Alteration (ADA Lift)  
Submitted by Jarlath Caldwell  
a) Staff notes this proposal was previously presented to the Board as a  
discussion item at the February 25, 2026, AHBR meeting, at which time  
staff informed the Board that a formal application would be submitted at a  
later date.  
b) Staff notes the city has since coordinated with GPD Group regarding the  
attached drawings and with Lift Up, the manufacture of the proposed lift  
system.  
c) Staff notes the following:  
a. The proposed lift style was chosen to be less impactful and  
replicate stairs when not operational.  
b. The lift would be painted white. The proposed color was field  
color-matched to the existing structure to match. The  
manufacturer further recommended that the treads remain  
unpainted with a wood finish, while the railings were also color  
matched to the existing gazebo.  
c. Note interior railing details  
d. The proposed lift location off the existing southeast corner of  
the gazebo was chosen to be less obtrusive when compared to  
other elevations.  
e. Desire of the city to incorporate ADA accessibility into the  
public gazebo.  
Attachments:  
159 Hudson Street  
New House (Single-Family Dwelling, Detached Garage, Accessory Structure,  
& Retaining Wall)  
Submitted by Brendan Boatwright  
a) Section IV-4 (g)(2) of the Architectural Design Standards state that  
projections which extend out from the mass to which they are attached  
more than five feet will be treated as wings, except for open porches, and  
single story additions off the rear of multi-story dwellings. If the roof line  
of the addition intersects the roof line of the existing dwelling, then the  
addition shall be classified as a wing. This guideline should not be  
construed to mean a masonry pier or continuous wall foundation is  
required upon the enclosure of an existing deck or porch. Staff notes that  
the proposed front elevation projection would extend in front of the main  
body by approximately 7 ft. Revise elevations to meet this requirement.  
b) Section III-1(g)(3) of the Architectural Design Standards states exposed  
foundations and tie courses shall be of a consistent material on all  
elevations. Revise elevations to depict a more consistently applied exposed  
foundation on all elevations.  
c) Section IV-4(c) of the Architectural Design Standards state that all roofs in  
all the wings must be of the same shape as the main body, but they may  
have a different pitch or orientation. Roofs shall not intersect a wall so as  
to cause a valley. Question the proposed flat roof, as the main mass has a  
gable roof.  
d) Submit spec sheets for all proposed exterior materials.  
Attachments:  
Other Business  
VII.  
Architectural and Historic Board of Review Findings of Fact for case #25-1478  
for the property located at 88 N Main Street, Hudson, OH 44236  
Attachments:  
Minutes of Previous Architectural & Historic Board of Review Meeting: March  
11, 2026  
Attachments:  
Legislative History  
4/8/26 Architectural & Historic Board postponed to a date certain to the Architectural  
of Review & Historic Board of Review  
Minutes of Previous Architectural & Historic Board of Review Meeting: April  
8, 2026.  
Attachments:  
Minutes of Previous Architectural & Historic Board of Review Meeting: April  
22, 2026.  
Attachments:  
Staff Update  
Adjournment  
VIII.  
IX.  
*
*
*