Hudson Council Delays Canterbury Meadows Vote, Postpones Short Term Rental Rules, Weighs $52 Million In Borrowing

Hudson City Council spent nearly three hours Tuesday night hearing from residents, lawyers and its own outside experts on a proposed settlement that would end a years long legal fight over a rural subdivision, and would hand final approval power to the city manager instead of the Planning Commission. No vote was taken. The settlement resolution had only its second of three required readings, with a possible vote set for October 6. A Long Running Fight Over a Soybean Field The dispute centers on a roughly 100 acre property at the corner of Ravenna Street and Stow Road, where Prestige Builder Group, Kuchar LLC and property owner George Vizmeg want to build the Canterbury Meadows subdivision. The Planning Commission denied the developer's preliminary plat application in 2024. Council upheld that denial, and the developer appealed to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. A judge affirmed the city's decision in October 2025. The developer then appealed again, to the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals, where the case remains pending. Separately, the developer filed what is known as a hardship claim under a rarely used 1958 section of the city's land development code, arguing the denial deprived it of any economically viable use of the property. City officials said that claim is a required step before a developer can bring a federal takings lawsuit, which argues a government took private property without paying for it. Why The City Went Outside For Advice Because a federal claim could expose Hudson to significant financial liability, the city's law director notified NORMA, the multi city insurance pool Hudson belongs to. NORMA's attorney, Michael Cicero, told council he recommended the city hire Planning NEXT, a Columbus based planning firm, to independently review whether a proposed settlement plan would actually comply with Hudson's code. Planning NEXT principal Sarah Kelly and a senior planner from her firm walked council through their findings. They said the revised plan meets the city's requirements for an open space conservation subdivision, fits within a national spectrum of similar ordinances and would compel better design than what current zoning allows by right. Asked directly whether they saw any zoning based reason to deny the plan, the senior planner said no. What The Settlement Would Actually Do According to city documents referenced at the hearing, the settlement would reduce the project from 34 to 32 lots, preserve about 62 percent of the property, or roughly 58 acres, as open space, protect 87 percent of the site's wetlands and increase perimeter setbacks to an average of more than 200 feet. The most contested piece has nothing to do with lot count. Under the agreement, the city manager, not the Planning Commission, would grant final subdivision plat approval and could approve future modifications to the plan without another public hearing. A Council Member Broke With His Own Council Council Member Skylar Sutton, who represents Ward 3 and lives on Ravenna Street near the proposed development, addressed council as a private citizen rather than in his official role. He argued the settlement conflicts with Hudson's charter and codified ordinances, which he said reserve final subdivision approval for the Planning Commission alone. He said he was prepared to pursue legal action if council approves the agreement as written. An adjacent property owner, represented by an attorney, raised nearly identical objections, arguing the city cannot contract around its own charter and that the hardship claim itself never followed the procedural steps written into the code. A second adjacent property owner said she had submitted a public records request for the underlying legal analysis a week before the hearing and had received no documents in time to prepare full testimony. The Planning Commission Formally Objected The Planning Commission itself voted five to one on September 14 to formally object to the settlement, according to city and news accounts. The commission's resolution argues that Prestige is a sophisticated developer that has complied with Hudson's rules elsewhere, and that there is no compelling reason to exempt this project. A former Planning Commission member who now owns property next to the site told council she had properly recused herself from the matter while serving on the commission, and had since obtained written confirmation from the Ohio Ethics Commission that she is free to participate as a private citizen. She said no one had raised a concern about her conduct until the developer's attorney did so that night. Traffic, Flooding And Wells Beyond the legal questions, residents who live near the property raised practical concerns. Several described the Stow Road and Ravenna Street intersection as already dangerous and backed up during rush hour, and asked for a traffic study before any approval. Others raised concerns about stormwater runoff crossing onto neighboring properties and the