Residents voice opposition to proposed settlement for Ravenna-Stow housing development

by Judy Stringer

Sept. 15 city council meeting

More than a dozen residents testified against a proposed settlement during a three-hour public hearing, voicing concerns over procedural violations, environmental risks and the city’s attempt to bypass local planning authorities. The public hearing, held during Hudson City Council’s regular meeting, addressed a resolution that would resolve ongoing litigation between the city of Hudson and Prestige Builder Group regarding a 94-acre parcel located at Ravenna Street and Stow Road.

Under the terms of the settlement, Prestige would construct “Canterbury Meadows,” a 32-lot open space conservation subdivision replacing the developer’s previous proposal, which was rejected in 2024 and sparked the ongoing lawsuit. In exchange, the developer would dismiss its administrative appeal currently pending in the Ninth District Court of Appeals and waive its administrative hardship claim against the city.

Several speakers at the hearing – including council member Sklyar Sutton, who addressed the legislative body as a resident because of his home’s proximity to the development – questioned council’s legal authority to approve the settlement. Sutton argued that the proposed agreement unlawfully strips the planning commission of its charter-mandated oversight.

“Section 3C of the settlement does not merely establish a process for plan review; it actually predetermines the outcome of that review by requiring the city to grant final subdivision plan approval when the submitted materials are deemed to be in compliance with the settlement terms,” he testified. “How can a settlement agreement transfer or predetermine an approval that the land development code specifically assigns to the planning commission? The answer is it can’t. You cannot contract around the law.”

Sutton added that by granting the city manager final plat approval authority, the settlement violates Hudson City Charter and Ohio Revised Code. He also criticized a provision in the agreement specifying that the settlement terms would supersede the land development code wherever a conflict arises.

“To be blunt, this settlement completely abandons the rule of law,” Sutton said.

Melissa Jones, an adjacent resident on Ravenna Street and a former construction and real estate attorney, objected to the lack of transparency surrounding the developer’s administrative hardship claim. Jones noted that despite submitting an expedited public records request for documents detailing “the multi-million-dollar hardship claim” and expert evaluations, the city failed to provide them prior to the hearing.

“There is a big difference between having zero economic viability, and it’s just not as economic as I want it to be. … There is no hardship in [this] situation,” she said.

Jones characterized the settlement as “an end run around” the Summit County Court of Common Pleas’ decision that affirmed the city’s rejection of the original plan.

Sarah Norman, chair of the Hudson Planning Commission, also raised concerns about skipping fundamental review steps.

“In fact, this particular proposal would never get onto the planning commission’s agenda because it is lacking all of the materials that are needed in order for a good and thorough and complete decision to be made,” Norman testified, asking council whether they were “willing to trade the hardship litigation for due process litigation.”

In addition to legal arguments, residents highlighted ongoing environmental and infrastructure challenges on the 90-plus-acre agricultural site. Nearby horse farm owner Kim Cosma Segedy and resident Christine Thaxton warned that off-site water displacement could flood neighboring properties and impact local wells. Nova Buchanan, whose Stow Road property borders the proposed development, cautioned that adding 32 homes to an already congested area would worsen traffic.

“Stow Road traffic is generally backed up from this intersection beyond my house on any given weekday during rush hour,” she said. “Adding 32 houses … will likely add at least 60 more commuters to this intersection.”

Oct. 6 decision

Before public testimony, outside legal counsel Michael Cicero and planning consultants Sarah Kelly and Delaney Silman from Planning Next presented an evaluation of the settlement. Cicero explained that if the city rejected the settlement and failed to resolve the developer’s administrative hardship claim, unresolved constitutional issues could escalate into federal “takings” litigation, exposing the municipality to substantial financial liability. Silman concluded that the 32-lot conceptual plan outlined in the settlement complies with Hudson’s criteria for open space conservation subdivisions.

Council members closed the public comment period by emphasizing that resident concerns would factor into their deliberations on the settlement. A final vote on the resolution is scheduled for Oct. 6.

Councilor Samantha D’Eramo specifically cited the residents’ testimony about water and drainage, privacy, traffic and well safety, stating that the council has “a lot more work to do and many more answers to provide.”

Council President Mike Bird also addressed ethics concerns raised about campaign contributions from a property owner involved in the lawsuit to D’Eramo and councilors Kyle Brezovec and Amanda Weinstein. He argued that a $100 campaign contribution, even from someone with business before the city, does not by itself create a conflict of interest or require recusal. Bird added that there is no evidence of any “quid pro quo” in this case.

After Bird’s comments, Weinstein said her vote would be based on the merits of the settlement, the city’s land development code and public input. Brezovec likewise said the donation would not affect his approach and that he considers each piece of legislation “on its merits.”

Short-term rentals

Council once again postponed a final vote on an ordinance to stiffen regulations related to short-term rentals. As proposed and amended, the ordinance would establish a 3% bed tax on STRs, increase the annual permit fee from $150 to $500, require operators to install noise detectors and limit the number of STRs based on city zoning districts.

Council member Goetz said more time is needed to evaluate feedback from a recent survey and public forum about the topic. The vote is now scheduled for Nov. 10.