Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee pauses vote on South End duplex zoning change after residents request meeting
Summary
The Toledo Zoning and Planning Committee heard a request to rezone two parcels in the South End for a seven-unit townhouse-style development but deferred action to allow a neighborhood meeting and additional review.
The Toledo Zoning and Planning Committee on Feb. 19 heard a request to change zoning from CR (Regional Commercial) to RD6 (Duplex Residential) for properties at 434 South Avenue and 439 Maumee Avenue but took no formal action, asking staff and the applicant to hold a community meeting before the item returns to committee.
The applicant, Michael Baddock, described plans for new construction on the two lots: "modular housing about 7 just over 1,700 square feet, townhouse style with a 6/12 pitch roof," with three bedrooms, two full baths and accessible routes. He said the ground-floor bathroom and master bedroom would be ADA-compliant, and that the units would be sold directly to homeowners.
Committee members and neighborhood representatives said they support redevelopment but want local input before the council considers a recommendation. Delphine Amora, who identified herself as representing the South End, Coburn and Alameda area, said the neighborhood "doesn't oppose it. We just wanna have some input in it," and asked that the developer work with the district councilmember to set a meeting.
Planning staff told the committee the plan commission recommended approval. Chair Martinez said the item would proceed "without recommendation" to the full council for now and that the parties should schedule the requested community meeting so the committee can take it up again at its next session.
The applicant stated affordability intentions for the development but provided inconsistent figures in his remarks; the precise affordability thresholds were not specified in the record. The applicant said one unit would be offered at an income-restricted level and another at a different income level, and that both units would be the same design. The committee asked the applicant and staff to clarify the income-targeting details at the follow-up meeting.
The committee did not vote on the rezoning at the Feb. 19 meeting; the case will be returned to committee after the applicant schedules the community meeting and staff prepares any additional materials.
The clerk recorded the case as Z24-0006 and noted the plan commission had recommended approval.
