Mr. Chris Brown of Prestige Builders Group introduced Garrett Walker, an advisory team member. Mr. Walker
spoke about the concept of compatibility within the Hudson community, referencing the Comprehensive Plan and
posing questions about the future demographics, housing needs, and community identity of Hudson. The
Commissioners acknowledged their familiarity with the Comprehensive Plan and asked Mr. Walker to speak
directly to the application.
Mr. Brown then detailed revisions made to the plan, including a redesigned drainage system that would reduce
runoff to the southwest, modifications to wetlands and streams, He also spoke to staff comments on clustering,
impervious surface coverage (noting it was at 37 percent), smaller parcel sizes, proposed lot dimensions,
increased setbacks, reduced sublot sizes, expanded open space, and the addition of a walking trail . He asserted
that the project complies with applicable standards.
Landscape designer James Arch added the number of lots had been reduced by two, average lot size decreased
by 21 percent, open space increased by 9 percent, land disturbance reduced by 10 percent, and the western
setback expanded by 30 percent.
Mr. Slagter and the Commissioners then discussed procedural concerns and due process. Chair Norman directed
the applicants to present any new information, prompting a formal objection from Mr. Slagter, who emphasized
the applicant’s efforts to address staff feedback.
Mr. Gerald Wise, representing the design firm, reiterated the project’s improvements, including lot reductions,
expanded open space, trail additions, and stormwater enhancements. He noted that all interceptable stormwater
had been addressed, and that the city’s downstream retention facility and culvert would serve both the city and
the development. He also stated that pond sizes had been maximized and all preservable wetlands had been
retained.
Following a brief recess, the Commissioners returned to express concerns that the project’s density did not align
with the Comprehensive Plan, which prioritizes open space preservation and limits new housing. They also
questioned the role of Mr. Walker as an advisor to the property owner.
Mr. Brown reviewed the previous application from a year earlier and outlined the changes made since then.
However, a Commissioner remarked that the new plan did not appear materially different. The discussion
covered ingress and egress points, appreciation for increased open space, unchanged street orientation, and
modifications to lot sizes, trails, setbacks, and stormwater access. They also discussed the reconfiguration of a
natural pond, rerouting of a stream caused by a broken tile, the 5.07 acres of wetlands, and the disturbance of
wetlands, which is typically plowed for crops. The Commissioners emphasized that the LDC prohibits wetland
and stream disturbance.
Mr. Brown described the wetlands as low-lying areas and noted that a new traffic study would be conducted due
to the reduced number of lots. He confirmed that soil borings and a tree study had been completed, but a wildlife
study had not. He stated that the proposed density of 2.96 units per acre matched the surrounding neighborhood,
though the Commissioners questioned whether the development could be considered innovative.
Further discussion explored the possibility of submitting two separate applications for the north and south
parcels. Mr. Brown stated that the average home would be about 3,600 square feet and priced around $1 million,
with land improvement costs estimated at $80,000 to $95,000 per lot. Commissioners voiced concern over the
lack of substantial changes from the previous application. Mr. Wise acknowledged that no cut-and-fill estimates
were available but said they would be provided.
The Commissioners questioned the absence of clustered housing. Mr. Brown responded that 62 percent of the
land was now designated as open space and that he considered those areas to represent agricultural preservation .
