Hudson residents press council to send 'District 11' zoning rewrite back to planning commission; council signals amendments, delays final action

Hudson City Council held an extended public hearing May 5 on a proposed zoning and text amendment to establish Zoning District 11 along the South Darrow Road corridor, drawing sustained opposition from residents who urged the council to return the proposal to the planning commission for fuller review.

The hearing, which the mayor opened as an additional required public hearing for ordinance 25-146, began with a staff orientation from planning staff Mr. Hannon, who said the amendment would set permitted future uses along the corridor, is not itself a development plan, and that the process began with council in February 2025. Hannon said the city held an April 9 open house attended by more than 100 people and received more than 50 written comments.

The bulk of the meeting was public comment. Speakers consistently raised three concerns: (1) the proposal departs from the recently adopted comprehensive plan or conflicts with how the plan designates the corridor; (2) required technical materials — notably a traffic study and infrastructure-impact analyses — were not available for public or planning commission review before the council would act; and (3) the formation process bypassed or short-circuited the planning commission and the charters governance role.

"If you start to dig up the asphalt, you might find some things that are very inappropriate to have in a residential area," said Mike Gipe, citing prior industrial uses and soil contamination at redevelopment sites. Tom Mayer urged council to "eliminate the residential" and large-format retail allowances in the draft and to restore industrial, office and small-footprint retail uses along Darrow Road because, he said, the comprehensive plan does not support residential use in that area.

Susan Newman, speaking for the Hudson Heritage Association, said the proposal "is not a refinement. It is a departure" from the comprehensive plan and warned that large new retail or residential districts could pull activity away from the historic downtown. Cynthia Curtin and Mary Lou Wagner similarly asked council to send District 11 back to the planning commission, calling attention to process, charter requirements and transparency.

Several speakers raised technical and procedural points. Sarah Norman submitted a memo arguing that a planned development in D11 could trigger the city's growth-management allocation for two years and said the planning commission had not yet received traffic and infrastructure data it requested months earlier. Philip Leiter, Bill Klausman and others questioned the speed of the process and whether residents had adequate notice and information.

Council members acknowledged the public comments. Councilor Brezovic thanked residents for speaking and said amendments are planned; Council President Byrd said the proposal has, in his view, become more restrictive through subcommittee and planning commission changes and framed the initiative as intended to encourage economic development to offset lost jobs. Councilor Grama said she appreciated the additional public input and the proposed amendments.

The meeting included discussion of next steps. The mayor and other councilors reiterated that the May 5 hearing was not actionable and that the ordinance would be actionable at the May 19 meeting, giving council more time to consider amendments and outstanding informational requests. Staff had previously attached public-comments packets and materials from "Lets Talk Hudson" to the agenda.

Key procedural and technical items raised at the hearing included requests for: a traffic study and infrastructure-impact analysis to be provided before action; clarification on how the proposed District 11 maps align with the comprehensive plan; an assessment of potential environmental or soil-contamination constraints on residential redevelopment; and a formal planning commission recommendation consistent with charter requirements.

The hearing closed without a final vote on District 11; council scheduled further action for May 19. The public record from the May 5 session will be available with the agenda packet attachments and the written comments collected by staff.