• cfoster@cfoster.com

Planning Commission meeting March 8th, 2021


Three items on the agenda.


PC 2021-17 A Conditional Use request of a boarding kennel at 2461 Barlow Road (Parcel #3001097), located in Zoning District 2 (Rural Residential Conservation).

Staff report link http://hudson.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=353200b6-d01f-4929-9419-ca3f0e34a22a.pdf

Applicant responses to various questions http://hudson.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=b5feae8e-a79f-465e-954e-3b91436886f3.pdf

This application was for conditional use as a boarding kennel. Some history – the property was used as a boarding kennel for many years by the previous owner. Since use has ceased for 2 years and owners changed hands, a new application needed to be filed.

Boarding kennels are a listed conditional use in District 2. Planning commission had a number of good questions as it relates to sound concerns, solid waste disposal, and capacity. Many of those same concerns were echoed by neighbors who opposed this conditional use permit. In the end the planning commissions concerns were alleviated by the applicants preparatory work. Solid waste will be properly disposed of, the use of outdoor space will be much more limited by the new owners than the previous operation. The total capacity of the boarding facility is being reduced by about a third.


PC 2020-914 Preliminary Subdivision request of an 11-lot, single family subdivision including multiple parcels along Norton Road, located in Zoning District 1 (Suburban Residential Neighborhood).

Staff Report link http://hudson.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=1b91cf1a-1c85-42df-8e7b-bfc10b2439b9.pdf

Applicant site photos http://hudson.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=0771f634-bfda-4a11-b0ec-f31461b91f25.pdf


LDA Builders has applied for Preliminary Subdivision Review (Hudson Reserve) for a proposed single family residential subdivision on a nearly 13 acre project area off Norton Road on the southeast side of Hudson.

This preliminary subdivision application was approved by the commission without any additional stipulations beyond the staff recommendations already contained within the application document (Page 6 of the above staff report link).


PC 2021-106 A text amendment request to Section 1205.10(a), 1205.10(d)(1), and 1206.01 of the Land Development Code to allow residential planned developments as a permitted use in the District 7 Office Overlay Zone

Staff Report Link

http://hudson.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=7e5a9ffe-f8c5-43dd-b05e-fd15e5ee1a1b.pdf


This will take a bit more explanation. District 7 is “Outer Village Commercial Center”. Basically, Rt 91 between Stoney Hill and the car wash north of Terex Rd. It is the smallest district within Hudson and designed for small commercial business use (drug store, ace hardware, car wash). This district does not allow multi-family housing at all. Also, the property within this district is immediately adjacent to Route 91. It is 1 lot deep on either side. That being said, there is a 12 acre parcel of land on the west side of 91, just south of the veterinary center of Hudson, that is very deep. This parcel is zoned District 7 near the road – but deeper in, it is zoned District 3, outer village. District 3 does allow multi-family housing. If you look at the staff link you will see the exact lot I am discussion on page 1 and how it is partly in District 3 and 7.


The applicant intends on building multi-family housing (48 living units to be called Ellsworth Place) in this area. Based on photos provided (page 11) it appears to be 6 units per building, 8 buildings total. Because this land spans 2 zoning districts, the item brough before the planning commission is a text amendment allowing multi-tenant housing in an overlay (partial section) of District 7.


The staff report did not recommend accepting the language of this text amendment as is. There were some concerns to how it was worded and the unintended consequences of the wording specifically. But they seemed to be in favor of “the purpose” of the amendment, just my own personal observation. Because the development was not the issue at hand, rather just the text amendment which would make the development permissible (to be reviewed at a later planning meeting), only the text amendment was under consideration.


The planning commission continued this item to the April 12th meeting so the applicant could work with Staff to tighten up the wording, make it more complaint, and provide notice to all property owners of the text amendment changes (all overs within 300 feet of the district 7 overlay).


Questions or concerns, please let me know. -Chris


10 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All