By Julie Erickson

Hudson City Council Meeting

May 5, 2026

Jeffrey Anzevino, Mayor

Michael Bird, President of Council (Ward 4)

Kyle Brezovec, Council Member (At large)

Samantha D’Eramo, Council Member (At large)

Patricia Goetz, Council Member (Ward 1)

Skylar Sutton, Council Member (Ward 3)

Amanda Weinstein, Council Member (At large)

Dan White, Council Member (Ward 2)

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call with all seven members of council present.

The meeting minutes for the March 21, 2026, City Council meeting and the March 28 workshop were approved with an amendment to clarify an acronym regarding a park.

Anzevino proclaimed May 15 and 16 2026 Poppy Days in Hudson. On May 15 and 16, poppies will be sold to honor those in the country who served in the military and “made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom,” he said. Members from the Auxiliary Legion accepted the proclamation.

Citizens of Hudson were invited to make comments specific to public hearing ordinance 25-146, an ordinance amending the official district map of the city of Hudson and the land development code to establish zoning district 11. 

Greg Hannan, community development director, first addressed the assembled group, stating that this proposed zoning change would not be a development plan or an initiative led by the developer, nor was it requested by the developer. The proposed development land code, text and map amendment would create zoning District 11 along the south Darrow Road corridor and would establish and determine future uses permitted along this corridor.

Phillip Leiter, a recently retired 30-year employee of Hudson Community Television, stated that the District 11 rezoning proposal may have started with good intentions but, in his opinion, it evolved into another “density housing scheme.” Residents of Hudson have clearly stated they do not support the planned development proposal and that the comprehensive plan is what should guide future land development in Hudson. Leiter closed by saying it is the council’s prerogative to ignore the wishes of the residents of Hudson because this council believes helping IRG to develop their property and make a return on their investment is a problem that this council was elected to solve.

Tom Mayor, a Hudson resident, stated that when he looks at District 11, he sees that in the city of Hudson, there is a governance issue. The city of Hudson has a charter; that charter clearly states that the comprehensive plan is the operative policy document for the city. The plan is intended to have a 10-year duration and if council wants to change the plan, then the council must rewrite a comprehensive plan, not pass a zoning change amendment that violates the plan. The subcommittee of three council members, including selected city staff members, developed the rezoning proposal in private sessions. Once developed, the proposal was then passed off to the planning committee and there, after a 120-day review, they, along with the city council members, failed to test this rezoning proposal for compliance with the city charter and the city comprehensive plan. Mayor stated that action by council now needs to take place to determine why and how so many failed to follow the outlined process to avoid future breakdowns in the governance process.

Cynthia Curtin, Hudson resident and candidate for judge of Ninth District Court of Appeals, stated that the overwhelming majority of the Hudson community is against this proposed rezoning legislation. The main reason for the community opposition is that the zoning proposal is not in compliance with the city comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan mentions nothing regarding residential development in this corridor. Many questions are still unanswered regarding what the impact on traffic and infrastructure in this corridor will be. 

“Where are the studies that have been conducted to determine this?” Curtin asked. “What is the rush to pass this proposal?” 

In her opinion, if this proposal was passed now, it would be in violation of the Hudson comprehensive plan code section 1204.01 that governs procedures and standards for code amendments.

Marylou Wagner spoke to city process and governance and stated that the Hudson city charter and zoning code are very clear in that the city planning commission is the body charged with reviewing, vetting and recommending zoning changes; the process is not optional. The process is by design to provide the commission’s planning expertise and to ensure that a structured public review of proposed legislature takes place prior to legislature being shaped. The process is in place to protect residents and to ensure transparency and consistency in decision making to enable informed decision making. The proposal for District 11 was mainly shaped at the council level with the developer attending some of the subcommittee meetings. This deviation from established process sets a precedence that required process can be ignored when not convenient. 

Wagner stated that the District 11 rezoning issue should go back to the planning commission, allowing them to complete their required review and then provide a formal proposal to council that is aligned with the city charter and comprehensive plan.

Sarah Norman, Planning Commission member, shared that she had sent an email on May 4, 2026, to council members. In that email, she had outlined her concern that a council decision for a planned development in District 11 could immediately trigger the growth management allocation for the next two years and then impact future projects, such as Clinton Crossing and new housing developments. This would be due to how Hudson’s new housing lottery system functions. Norman also stated that six months ago, the Planning Commission had asked council for a traffic study and infrastructure load impact study to be provided for proposed District 11, but now was made aware that information will not be available to the commission or the public prior to the May 19 vote on the proposal, which is not acceptable. Norman said that both the council and Planning Commission are not ready to decide at this time on such a complex rezoning decision and urged the council to vote no at the May 19 meeting.

Bill Klausman, Hudson resident, questioned why there was a rush to decide on this rezoning proposal. He said that residents do not understand the proposal, and it seems residents will not be able to impact the decision the council will make.

Susan Newman, co-president of the Hudson Heritage Association, spoke on behalf of the Heritage Association to vote no on the rezoning proposal. Residents have shared their voices by appearing at council meetings, by appearing in person at public open houses, by serving on the planning commission, through participating in the comprehensive planning process and by appearing in city workshops. Their voices have been overwhelming in their opposition to District 11. The comprehensive plan is the city’s official guide for land use and future development; it reflects what the citizens value and is the result of two years of work, including input from 1,500 Hudson residents. This current rezoning proposal is a departure and not in alignment with the comprehensive plan, and this issue needs to be sent back to the Planning Commission to be fully vetted to ensure alignment to the comprehensive plan. The required process needs to be followed, not circumvented by council.

Another member of the community stated she is opposed to District 11 and that the council needs to represent the best interests of the residents of Hudson, not the interests of an outside developer. The decision made by the council will have a long-term impact on Hudson and this issue needs to be sent back to the Planning Commission for further review.

Todd Zedak, member of the comprehensive plan committee, said he feels the rezoning project is nothing but a “weird vanity project” and questioned why it should be considered by anyone, as it is ridiculous. The comprehensive plan clearly states what District 8 should encompass. If there is a case-by-case reason to modify District 8 zoning, there are processes in place by which that can happen. Council has not stated a factual reason why this rezoning should be acted on and the rezoning should be dropped and not sent back to the Planning Commission.

Mike Juppe, a former chemical engineer, stated that the city of Hudson removed over 350 tons of contaminated soil from the Phase II location, now to be Clinton Crossing, and that removed soil contained known chemicals such as lead, arsenic and benzopyrenes. Phase II is an example of what may be found in the soil when former industrial property is rezoned to use for residential housing. Juppe went on to question what is in the ground at the former Joann Fabrics location. 

Brezovec stated that he appreciated the comments received on the rezoning issue, but at this time, he did not know how council would vote in a week. Anzevino then corrected Brezovec that the vote would be in two weeks on May 19.

D’Eramo said, as a new member to council, she makes decisions relying on the recommendations and expertise of specialists. Those recommendations determine what she bases her votes on and this is why she appreciated the amendments that were made on District 11. The Planning Commission, in their 120 days, could have done more due diligence.

Bird defended the rezoning proposal, stating that he did not feel the current proposal deviates from the original proposal submitted by the subcommittee, and that the current proposal is more restrictive than the original proposal received from the Planning Commission. In addition, he stated that there were many people who were very aware of the comprehensive plan when developing the proposal to make up the revenue lost from the elimination of the 800 jobs from Joann Fabrics. All those individuals were supportive of this proposal.

Resolutions were passed that include a resolution to accept the recommendations of the tax incentive review council, a resolution authorizing the city manager to allow Door 2 Art to install an installation on the city green, a resolution to allow the city manager to accept a donation of a bird sculpture from Door 2 Art and an amended resolution for the city manager to enter into a contract with the Impact Group for marketing services for the fiber-to-home product.

None.

26-64: Passed with a third reading that allows the correction of Scrivener’s errors after discussion to amend.

26-70: Second reading of an ordinance to repeal chapter 226 of the codified ordinances relating to campaign finance limits and regulations.

26-71: Second reading of an amendment rescinding the prior rule requiring the affirmative support of four city council members at a workshop for a resolution or ordinance to proceed to a regular or special city council meeting agenda.

26-72: Second reading of an ordinance amending part two of the codified ordinance of the city of Hudson to create chapter 216 public records.

26-73: Second reading of a resolution authorizing the city manager to adopt and implement a policy of accepting funds from a nonprofit organization for public projects.

26-78: First reading of an ordinance amending chapter 876 on short-term rental operations.

26-79: First Reading of a resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into an agreement with Hudson Community Foundation regarding senior transportation.

At 9 p.m., the meeting was adjourned for an executive session.