Toledo City Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. This is a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Toledo Planning Commission. Ms. Cottrell, will you please call the roll?

Rachel Momine. Here. Emery Whittington. Here. Brandon Rakoff.

Here.

Eric Grossweiler. Here. Mr. Chair, you have a quorum. A notice of this meeting was posted in the office of the Toledo-Lewis County Planning Commission. In the Clerk of Council's office, in the lobby of one government center, a copy of that notice is available for inspection in our files if anyone would care to do so. Thank you.

We have a procedure here at the Plan Commission that if you plan on speaking today, we must swear you in, we must get your name and address, and you have to sign in at the lectern here whenever you come up to give your testimony. We'll begin today by calling the cases in order. I will first ask for the applicant for each case to step forward. The applicant will have roughly five minutes to present their case. then after the applicant presents their case commissioners will have time to ask questions and then members of the audience will have time to make public comment and finally the applicant will have a few minutes to close their case do we have any minutes to approve this control we do not do we have a director's report i have a minor item for the end of the agenda we'll let the record reflect we will do our director's report at the end of the agenda do we have any final plants today we do not I understand that there are multiple requests for postponement or withdrawal or advancement. Can we cover those one at a time?

Sure. Item number one is case Z260015, zone change from RS6 single family and RM36 multifamily residential at 2517 Fulton Street. The applicant is requesting a 60-day deferral to the November agenda.

Thank you, Ms. Cottrell. I'll accept a motion on the 60-day deferral request.

Mamadi will make a motion to defer.

We have a first and a second to accept the request for deferral for 60 days. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. If you are here today for the case at 2517 Fulton Street, we will not be hearing that case today. We will hear it on our November agenda. Ms. Cottrell, the next case, please.

Item number three is case V32526, vacation of an east-west alley and a portion of a north-south alley located north of Western Avenue and east of Linden Place. The applicant has withdrawn this case.

We'll let the record reflect that the case was withdrawn. It won't be heard on today's agenda. If you are here about the vacation request on the property near Western Avenue and Linden Place, we will not hear that case today. Ms. Cottrell, the next case, please.

Item number four is case SUP 260019, special use permit for a daycare center at 622 Phillips Avenue. This case will be postponed for 30 days.

So the applicant is requesting a deferral for 30 days? Okay. I'll accept a motion on the deferral request for case number four.

Grocer will make the motion for a 30-day deferral.

Mamadi will second.

We have a first and a second to approve the request. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That case will be heard on our October agenda. So if you were here today for the daycare center at 622 Phillips Avenue, that case will not be heard today. Ms. Cottrell, any other requests for postponement, withdrawal, or advancement?

that's the end of the request okay so at this time we're going to move forward with our first case our first case is now case number two miss cattrall will you read that into the record please item number two is case z260016 zone change from limited industrial and general industrial to institutional campus at zero broadway zero waterworks drive and 866 bartley place staff recommends approval for the following three reasons The proposed zone change is consistent with the Florida Toledo Plan and the State of Purpose of the Zoning Code. The proposed zone change is compatible with existing land uses within the general vicinity of the site. And the proposed zone change is compatible with the zoning classifications of properties within the general vicinity of the site. Thank you. Is the applicant present today?

Hi, sir. Name and address, please.

Yep. Just on here or you need me to say it?

I need you to also say it out loud for the record.

Yep, it's Nathan Decker and address, we give it the zoo's address for that.

The zoo's address or your business address, either one.

Yep, we'll do 2700 Broadway, Toledo, Ohio.

Thank you. And when you're done signing it, I'm going to ask that you please raise your right hand and we'll swear you in.

Right hand.

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is true and accurate? If so, say I do.

I do.

Sir, thank you for joining us this afternoon. Tell us about your project.

Yeah, so we're submitting for a zoning change for the property that makes up the new parking lot across the street from the existing one on the Anthony Trail. This is to finish our... finish out our major site plan approval from the original submission. So that was one of the conditions was that once the property became property of the zoo, we would change it to IC so it could be included into our institutional campus plan.

Thank you. And this is the parking lot that the zoo has newly developed? That's correct. And at this time, you're just asking us to bring it into your master plan? Correct. Okay. Commissioners, I don't have any further questions for the applicant. Questions, commissioners? Hearing none, I will ask, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this case? I don't see any. Alex, is this your case? Yes. Did we get any calls, emails, or other correspondence in advance of today's hearing?

We did get one call from a neighbor on Bartley Place. He had general questions and then had no objection. We also had a neighborhood meeting. There were about four neighbors in attendance, and they indicated no objection to the zone change.

Thank you. Sir, is there anything else you'd like to add? No. Commissioners, any final questions?

If not, I'll accept a motion on this case, Z26-0013. Grosswater makes a motion for approval.

Mamadi will second.

We have a first and a second to approve the application. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. And, sir, you will be in front of city council planning and zoning on, I believe, October 21st. Okay. In these chambers at 4 o'clock.

Awesome. Thank you.

Thank you. Good luck to you.

Thank you.

Ms. Cottrell, I believe our next case is case number five. Will you read that into the record, please?

Item number five is case M526, a text amendment to add a new threshold for site plan reviews for existing industrial development. Staff recommends approval for the following reason. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the Ford Toledo plan and the stated purpose of the zoning code. And we do have a letter of support from our economic development department in your packets.

Thank you, Ms. Cottrell. So this case is a little different. The plan commission itself is the applicant. So I'm going to ask Ms. Karcher at this time, would you please present this case for us?

Yes, thank you. Staff is proposing the text amendment to the site plan review section. to allow for existing industrial developments to be expanded without a site plan review if they will result in less than 2500 square feet of disturbed earth currently we require a site plan review for all industrial developments we find that industrial developments typically are much larger and they are expanded more incrementally than other types of developments So regardless of the size, it would require site plan review currently. So what we're proposing to do is to expedite that process by adding this text amendment. So currently development doesn't have to comply with our stormwater requirements if it disturbs earth less than 2,500 square feet. So we're gonna use that exact same threshold and apply it for industrial developments. and instead require a certificate of zoning compliance which essentially would review it still for compliance with intention the intensity and dimensional standards so we know it still meets our zoning code but it doesn't have to be sent out and reviewed by all other city divisions and take the 45 day as the standard timeline for a minor site plan review so if you look in your packet or on the screen is the actual text amendment for exhibit b this is the section that talks about minor site plan review applicability essentially we're proposing to remove number four which talks about the design toledo design center because that's addressed elsewhere and we're going to replace that with the language that's highlighted that basically states all building expansions and developments within industrially zone districts which result in earth disturbance of more than 2500 square feet in area so that means anything under the 2500 square feet would be exempt from the minor site plan review then we did add in number five at the end of that sentence or as determined by the planning director that's in case or to cover if we would come across a development that is less than $2,500 but might need or be appropriate to have a minor site plan review to allow the planning director to require that site plan review. So it's really a way to expedite the process for what we see are minor additions to industrial facilities that don't have impact on the site. And I'd be open for any questions if anybody has any specific questions on the proposal.

Thank you. I do have a question. Go ahead. So that, I guess, fifth statement there, that would sort of help with sites maybe that are in like the uptown area or like Missoula or something that maybe have more of a limited site and would need, we would say that those would need to be reviewed still.

yes and and all the other requirements will still be in place so if it's less than 2500 but the parking might expand more than what's required here we would still be reviewing those for those type of things but it would give the planning director the ability to make that decision if it needs a site plan review thanks

Thank you. I had one question as well. Just with the text itself, obviously it says all building expansions, that I understand what that means, and developments. So what are your thoughts as to what developments would consist of?

I guess we look at sometimes we'll see accessory buildings or other buildings on the site sometimes so when I said building expansions I'm thinking of adding on to an existing building but we see typical a lot of times industrial developments will have multiple buildings accessory buildings so when the developments is in there it's kind of to cover adding anything to the site.

What about something like a drop yard? for outdoor storage that that could be approved with a certificate of compliance instead of a minor site plan review yeah okay i don't have any additional questions commissioners any further questions hearing none i will ask is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this case And Lisa, I'll come back to you. Did you get any calls, emails, or other correspondence about this case?

We have not received any, no.

Just the letter from the economic development team? That's correct. All right, at this time, if there are no further questions from the commissioners, I will accept a motion on this case, M5-26. nominee will make a motion for approval and winning to no second we have a first and a second to approve the text amendment all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that carries unanimously and that goes to council on october 21st correct yeah thank you uh miss cutrell will you read case number six into the record please

Item number six is case M1526, requesting a local landmark designation for the Viking Lodge building, located at 1623 to 1627 Broadway. Staff recommends approval.

Thank you. Would the applicant please step forward? So I think you've already signed in, so name and address, please.

Julie Abt, 8 North St. Clair.

And will you please raise your right hand?

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be true and accurate? If so, say I do. I do.

So go ahead and tell us about your request.

Okay, thank you for having me. We're seeking local designation for the Viking Lodge located at 1623 to 1627 Broadway Street. It is located in the Toledo Broadway Corridor. That has gone and gotten approval from OSHABAB and has been moved forward to National Park Services for National Registry of Historic Places and we are seeking tax credits for this project and this is listed as resource 31 in that district but we're not going to get the district in time for the tax credits so we feel the building is significant enough to stand on its own and come before you and ask you it had three owners this building was Built in 1916, the land was acquired in 1915 by the International Order of Odd Fellows. It's an organization that came to the United States from England. and they seek to promote brotherhood through peace, love, and friendship. Oh, I'm sorry, friendship, love, and truth. And they were actually started to create a organization that you could lean on during times of hardship. And they still remain active to this day. Toledo at this time period had every secret organization out there. And so that's kind of a little fun Toledo history and that's part of it. This Viking Lodge was Lodge number 893 and it remained so until 1991. which is pretty significant. It's a 75-year history. The building is a three-story commercial-style brick building that has three tenant spaces on the first floor that house various tenants over the years, and then the second and third floor were used for the lodge spaces including meeting rooms and a large auditorium. The large auditorium is mainly, it's intact today and we plan to keep it intact. Of course it was painted a little bit of teal and fuchsia and purple in the 90s when it was bought by the La Garza family and turned into Garza Ballroom for the 90s. It had a little disreputable history during that time until it was finally closed down due to liquor license issues. In 2013, Mosaic Ministries bought the building and they seek to put a early childhood education center there, servicing K to three. Their goal is to teach children before that No Child Left Behind threshold in Ohio, and their first floor is going to serve also as their food pantry. They serve the community in that area for meals, and they also do take-home bags for groceries as well.

And they still own the property currently? They do, yeah. And this request was referred to us by application from the owner, correct? Yes. The owner is asking for this change?

Yeah, I'm here on behalf of them.

Yeah, okay.

And it was, so it's Mosaic Ministries, and then it was like Western Baptists, and they changed all that over.

So do you have anything else you'd like to add before I take the next steps?

No.

Okay. So commissioners, as you may remember, this section is rather new, this local designation section. And we're starting to see a large number of these cases that will be coming before us. and so i've tried to develop some procedure here as to how we'd analyze these for the benefit of the commissioners this case is to be treated like a zone change the the code actually references we're supposed to use the same procedures and and analysis as we would for a zone change on the property And so, but there are a couple prerequisites. So at this time, I'm going to ask Ms. Cottrell just to make sure we have those in the file. These cases come through a referral from city council. And so in this case, we have the council's referral, correct?

That's correct. We have a resolution that council voted on and passed on to us.

Thank you. And it also requires an architectural study to be provided, and we've received that architectural study.

We have, and it's in the file.

Thank you. Okay, and so there are, in your staff reports, commissioners, you will see an analysis that Mr. Harbert put together, and there are specific criteria we're supposed to look at when deciding whether to designate these buildings as local historic buildings. And so I'm going to go through some of those criteria, and I'm going to ask the applicant just to give us some response to some of these questions. Is this building currently on or proposed to be designated on the National Register of Historic Places?

Yes, it's proposed to be in the Toledo Broadway Corridor Historic District, and it's resource number 31.

Thank you. And can you talk about any specific significant architectural elements of this building?

Yes, it's a commercial style. It does have brick building. That was a very prominent style during the 1920s, well, early 1910s to the 1924 era. And it does have the medallion coining underneath the windows. And then the windows are indicative of the structural base. So you have that minor and major structural base and the windows indicate that.

And you said the current use of this building is there's a, you said a K through three? That's what they're proposing to put in there.

Right now they just, I think they have somebody that just is a caretaker that stays there and makes sure the building stays buttoned up. And they have a group that like uses it to store furniture temporarily so that they can give it to the community when they have like a fire or move to another home.

But is it going to convert into some kind of educational use or is it going to remain a commercial use?

It will be an educational use.

Okay. And the plan for that is to seek historic tax credits? Yes, sir. And to redevelop the property in a manner that's consistent with the historical character of the building, correct?

That's correct. We've submitted the part one and part two on August 31st to the State Historic Preservation Office.

Thank you very much. Those are my questions, commissioners. I'm going to open it up. Do either of you have questions? Hearing none, I'm going to ask, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak with respect to this case? We have one hand up, so what I'm going to ask, ma'am, if you could just sit down for a second. Sir, feel free to please step forward. Good afternoon. Can I get your name and address, please?

John Doty, 1926 Harlan Road, Toledo, Ohio, 43615.

Thank you. Can you please raise your right hand?

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be true and accurate? If so, say I do.

Yes.

Sir, go ahead.

here on a compulsion to support the designations of the three properties as on the National Register, because I think my wife would want that to happen. So since she can't be here, I thought I'd speak on that, and I would appreciate the commission designating the three properties even on the agenda as on the national register. So that's why I'm here. Thank you.

And so you're in support of, specifically in this case, you're in support of the designation.

Yes, I am.

Yes, I am.

In her memory, so to speak.

Is there anything else you'd like to add? I beg your pardon?

Is there anything else you'd like to add?

I'm sorry, I still didn't hear you.

Is there anything else? No, sir. Okay. No, sir. Feel free to sit back down. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on this matter? I'll ask that the applicant step back up to the lectern. Bill, did we get any calls, emails, or other correspondence on this case?

This case specifically, I did not receive any correspondence in favor or against.

Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any final questions for the applicant? Hearing none, I will accept a motion then on this case for historic designation. This is case M15-26. Motion to approve.

Mamouni will second.

We have a first and a second to approve the application. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimous. That will go to City Council Planning and Zoning on October 21st in these chambers at 4 o'clock. And good luck to you.

Thank you very much for your time.

Ms. Cottrell, case number seven please.

Item number seven is case M1626, requesting local landmark designation for Sacred Heart Catholic Church. Located at 509 Oswald Street, staff recommends approval.

Thank you, Ms. Cottrell. The applicant on this case is the city of Toledo itself. City council. City council. Is there anyone in the audience here on behalf of city council that would like to present this case? Seeing none, I will then turn it over to you, Bill. As the staff member who's got this case, I'm going to ask you to present the request, and then we'll get into questions.

Yeah, great, thank you. So I've worked closely with city council in drafting these upcoming local landmark designations, but I've also done multiple studies on publicly owned as well as privately owned structures throughout the city of Toledo, not just churches, but other structures as well that you'll see in upcoming months. So I just wanted to begin by telling you why historic preservation is important. Historic preservation is important because the places a community saves tells the story of who it is, where it came from, and what it values. From a city planning perspective, preservation is much more than telling you about old buildings. It could be a tool for economic development. neighborhood stability and creating distinctive places. So why does historic preservation matter? It preserves community identity, and that's what's the most important with this project specifically. It tells history in a tangible way. It supports economic development. It strengthens neighborhoods. It encourages adaptive reuse. It's environmentally responsible. It creates distinctive places. It provides educational values that can help schools, residents, visitors, and future generations to understand our local history. That's why historic preservation is important. Historic preservation is ultimately about choosing what Toledo wants to carry forward into the future. We cannot preserve anything, but we should not allow places to define Toledo to disappear simply because we failed to recognize their value or failed to provide a path for reinvestment. Churches have shown that they can be repurposed if allowed to do so. This includes churches and Catholic churches in the state of Ohio, and the city of Toledo. Preservation's not about living in the past, it's about using Toledo's past to build a strong, more distinctive, and economically vibrant future. So that's why, historic preservation and local landmark designation of these properties specific is important to the city of Toledo. Now, this case specifically, I want to let you know that city council does have the purview in order to initiate these types of applications that is initiated through section 1111.06 of the Toledo Municipal Code. The city council has the ability to do that. if they feel that these properties need to be preserved for architectural, cultural, historical significance. That's what we looked at as part of our studies from 2022 and 2024. Now, this case specifically notice was provided on August 24th, 2026 to surrounding areas. The property was also posted by myself specifically. And I'm happy to answer any sort of questions that I may have. I have not been able to get access to the interior of the properties. I did tour the exterior though. So happy to answer any questions that you guys may have concerning that and the criteria that you identified earlier for each individual case.

Thank you, Bill. I'm going to start with just the prerequisite questions that I've developed here. So we do have the referral from city council to hear this case and make our recommendation, correct?

That's correct.

And an architectural study was provided with respect to this property, correct?

That's correct. It should be in your packet.

And just for the record, who prepared that architectural study?

So by referral of city council, a consultant was hired, Thomas Porter Architects, in order to do 20 local landmark referrals. Two city council. This is the first round of those. This includes three, so we will be seeing these in upcoming cases. So Thomas Porter Architects was the person who compiled all the information to city council, which was referred to us.

Thank you. And in this instance, this case was not brought by the owner of the property. Have there been communications with the owner of the property?

I believe the owner of the property is present.

And in a moment, I'm going to give them an opportunity to present because of the uniqueness of this case. But there has been communication and discussions with the owner regarding this process, correct?

Not specifically by me, but did- The owner got noticed.

They got notification, correct. Okay, all right, so at this time, I believe I see Mr. Antonini in the crowd. Do you want to speak on behalf of the diocese at this time?

Just one other thing, Mr. Chair. We did receive 18 letters of support for the project, three letters in opposition, as well as a 14-page petition that was signed, so approximately 100 signatures on there.

And we're going to get into a lot of questions and all those materials we received. But just because of the uniqueness of this case, I want to give the owner a chance to make some remarks before we go to public testimony and questions. So Mr. Antodini, if you'd like to. Give us your name and address, please.

Thank you, Tom Antonini, 1 Seagate, Suite 2300, Toledo, Ohio. And you're a member of the bar, correct?

Correct. So you don't need to be sworn in. The Diocese of Toledo is the owner of this property. Do you want to tell us a little bit about the property and your opinion on this request?

Yes, and just as a preview, my plan is to read a short statement. It would be the same one for the Good Shepherd Project. I'm happy to handle it however you want. You can just incorporate that by reference if you like when we come to that, or I'll certainly stick around.

We're happy to take that statement into consideration on both cases.

Thank you. Thank you for having me today. I serve as General Counsel for the Diocese of Toledo, and I've been asked to read the following statement on behalf of the Diocese. The Diocese was surprised last week to discover signs posted at Sacred Heart and Good Shepherd announcing today's meeting regarding their designation as landmarks. As the owner of these buildings, the diocese was not consulted or informed of this action, and it neither requested nor desires that designation. Long before this designation effort began, the diocese undertook a lengthy and comprehensive process to determine the future of these two sacred spaces. That process included multiple town hall meetings, sustained engagement with parishioners, parish leadership, and other stakeholders, as well as independent engineering studies. Canon law, that is church law, obligates the diocese to safeguard the sacred nature of its churches. This obligation continues even after a church is deconsecrated. Notably, the diocese has never contemplated raising the former Good Shepherd Church. The decision regarding the future of Sacred Heart is reserved to the diocese. It may be that demolishing a former church building best ensures that it will never be used for purposes inconsistent with its once sacred dedication. Canon law entrusts that decision to the church. And the First Amendment prohibits government officials at any level from interfering with that determination or attempting to substitute their judgment in matters involving religious faith and teachings. The diocese maintains that the city's renewed involvement in decisions regarding our own private property, governed by the law of the church, is a mistake and falls outside the city's purview and authority. Should the city proceed with this designation process, the diocese will pursue all available legal remedies to protect its First Amendment religious freedom rights. which almost certainly would cost the city considerable taxpayer funds and legal fees. The diocese hopes that reason will prevail and that the city plan commission will decline to proceed with an action that interferes with the private disposition of church property. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Antonini, are you open to any questions or would you just like to hold with your statement?

I'm happy to entertain any questions.

Okay. The question I had with respect to both of these buildings, and you can address them in either order, what is the current physical condition of these buildings?

Good Shepherd is in good shape. I can't speak to the details of it. other possible uses of it that conform with church teachings. Sacred Heart is not in good shape. And Bill, you're welcome to have access to that building any time you want. You just have to ask. But if you go into the basement, be careful because it looks like it's ready to collapse. I can't speak to the specifics beyond that.

That was the question I had. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the property owner? Hearing none, I will let you sit back down, sir. Thank you. Thank you. So Bill, I want to go through some of the items we're supposed to consider in this designation process. Is this building currently proposed to be on or is it on the National Register of Historic Places?

It is not.

Okay. And can you speak to any distinct architectural elements or items to consider as to the historical nature of this building?

Yeah, sure. So as part of the packet that was submitted by Thomas Porter Architects, the architecture is influenced by Gothic churches in Europe and was designed to showcase German craftsmanship. The building is actually considered German Gothic Romanesque in style. The walls of the entire building are Sandusky architecture. limestone and the stone arches, pillars, cornices, and statues, the tabernacle, those are all limestone made. The stone detailing includes Romanesque roses inset within stone arches over the main entrance. The cornice separating the arches from the entrance is supported by and decorative stone banding. The central tower is flanked by twin towers over either side, and each featured arch window, stone detailing, and domed copper roof over the single oculus is, you know, are copper domes that, you know, are unique to this style of architecture.

Thank you. The next thing I want to talk about is, I know you were not able to get inside, but from what you understand, your general assessment of the physical condition of this building.

Yeah, so I did an exterior tour of the building. There was no immediate signs of severe deterioration that I was able to note from the exterior. I do as my current job as a historic for the city of Toledo, I do see a lot of buildings that are historic in nature in and around this time period that have seen a lot more deterioration than what this is. So I do feel that in the event that it's able to be granted another life with some sort of different perspective other than religious assembly, it could be a good candidate for historic preservation.

And so this process will, if approved, will designate this building as a historic building locally. But that doesn't necessarily mean it will be redeveloped or any future improvements will be made, correct?

Correct. The only thing that local historic landmark designation does, it does require that any exterior improvements or environmental changes to a property in the future would require an open public forum hearing at the city plan commission level

So that, in theory, helps preserve the historic character but also could be an impediment to redevelopment in the future.

It could. However, my analysis of these properties specifically is that the building envelopes are pretty tight and therefore additional development on property. Seems unlikely. With these being stone structures, a lot of times what you're going to end up seeing is you're going to see sign projects, maybe gutter projects, roof projects, restoration of the stonework, those types of things. That would be something that would be purviewed to review by the City of Toledo's Historic District Commission.

Thank you. And if this is designated, what resources or other help is being provided in the maintenance and potential redevelopment of these buildings?

yeah so we um as part of my studies from 2022 and 2024 and even in 2026 we did one as well the we looked at some additional incentives now local landmark designation opens the door for grant fundings into the future However, from a local standpoint, we do have facade grant improvement programs that may be available for things of this nature. But we're also looking at some sort of other programs like roofing programs and things like that in order to keep water intrusion from entering into these buildings. Although those programs are not currently in place, we are optimistic that we may be able to kind of initiate some of those types of programs to assist with water intrusion into these historic structures.

So I want to be clear on this point because I think it is important that this designation does add obligations to the property owner. But there are no current programs that will help support that property owner with respect to the preservation efforts.

It just looks at environmental changes to the property. So in the event that something new was being constructed, it would require an open public forum review at the City Historic District Commission.

And it also would, if the building, if the owner wanted to demolish the structure because they felt it was unsafe, it would also have to go through plan commission and city council review to determine whether the demolition would be appropriate, correct?

That's not true. That purview would be with the city historic district commission. We're not saying that this designation would prohibit anything like that. It would just add a level of review.

Who would be the ultimate decision maker with regards to that determination?

City Historic District Commission.

Okay, thank you.

And just so you know, the appellate body would then be the Plant Commission.

The challenge with a case like this is that it's balancing the public and private concerns. Obviously, the private landowner has legitimate concerns with what's done with its property. And this doesn't apply to churches, it could be a school, it could be a restaurant, it could be a numerous amount of things that we might consider over the next few months. And so we have to look at the balance between what does the property owner want with respect to their property and what rights or what's the best word for it? the communal benefit that is obtained by the city and by the residents in preserving a historic structure. And I think everyone can understand that these buildings are important, but we also have to look at whether the obligations we're placing on a property owner are in the best interest of the property, which is why I think we have 13 to 14 criteria to look at in making these determinations. What I'm going to do at this time is open this up to questions from my fellow commissioners, and then I'm going to take testimony from the audience.

I do have a question, and it's regarding the diocese eligibility to benefit from the historic tax credits. If this were granted this local designation, would it help them in their efforts to maybe rehabilitate Would it be helpful to them in some way?

Historic district tax credit programs are very competitive processes and they're scored very competitively. So most applications that we do see go to the state and federal levels for these types of grant fundings. do have local landmark designations to assist with boosting the overall value and that therefore yes this would be a benefit to them seeking additional revenue revenue streams

I don't know the answer to this question, but the thing I was thinking is, as a religious organization, are they eligible for those tax credits?

That's my question, and I don't know if that's to the diocese or whoever, but I guess that would just be something to balance.

I had the same thought.

But again, I don't know if that's our place to say.

Any other questions? Yes. Mr. Whittington, go ahead.

So, I'm trying to think here. It's kind of interesting to me that the diocese was never part of the communication. So I guess my question would be, what was the reason that the city is asking for the local designation?

Yeah, and I appreciate that. It's unique because there's a lot of different reasons why this historic preservation is important to the city of Toledo. It stabilizes these neighborhoods. It provides that identity to these neighborhoods. Once it's gone, it's gone, okay? This is where people got married. This is where people held funerals. This is where they gathered. So it's that identity to these specific neighborhoods. When we remove these, it's not conducive to planning. You now have an open lot that is essentially like a missing tooth out of that community. Other things that we look at as well is in the event that the site wants to be repurposed, this is, all of these materials are going to go to the landfill. They don't get built this way anymore as well. We do have the ability to reuse these. We've had people who have expressed interest in wanting to use these buildings. So city council has an obligation to, look at it from a perspective that what benefits all residents of the city of Toledo and preservation of a structure that has the ability as well in the willingness to want to be repurposed, we feel is important to all residents of the city of Toledo. So that's why it's strongly important that we preserve these types of structures.

But So we have another one, so they're both on the east side of Toledo. I just don't understand how, that makes sense, and we have lots of support, but to not include the owners. I don't understand how we move forward and get this far and they're not part of the, how do we even know that they weren't going to do something else with the building? There's been comments- How do we know that they don't have the money? They may not need these grants that's available. And is there something going on with the buildings that's causing us to say, we need to do this without them participating in the process? I'm having an issue with that.

So let me just step in and give a quick back story of how this came to be. About a year and a half ago, council requested us to do a study on how to preserve certain community assets, certain buildings in Toledo. We did that study and recommended either overlays or local landmark designations as the best way to preserve They chose local landmark designations. They then funded a grant out of the general fund for I think 150,000. Might be 125. 125. Okay. To find a consultant to, we identified the properties that we thought were best candidates. And then we went through the RFP process for this. We chose a consultant, and the consultant has started doing the background information. But it came out of a council initiative, a study that came through us. We picked the properties, and then they went through the RFP process. So it's been about a year and a half. uh study that was referred to us from council and then like i said that the grant from the consultant for the consultant was wrapped up about six months ago and that's how we got to this point

Can I add something to your thought? Sure. I guess my concern in sitting here is that if we have limited resources and we're looking at hundreds of properties around the city, why start with the ones where the owner's not in favor? Why not start with the properties where the owner is looking for the opportunity to do that redevelopment and to look at properties that would be immediately pursuing redevelopment, like the case we just heard. They're out there chasing those historic tax credits to redevelop that property. And it seems at odds that we would, this body especially, has been very respectful of property owners. When we have zone change requests where the property owner is not In favor of the zone change, we, we often allow them an opportunity to exempt themselves from mass zone change and so. It is a different consideration when we're forcing a decision upon a property owner versus they're asking for it.

And so the zoning code does allow city council to take an action and refer an action without a property owner's approval. They can as a legislative body. They can do that. We've had a few examples over time in my past 30 years, the most notable being the Indian Hills neighborhood by UT that city council chose to down zone. Property owners disagreed. That litigated, and the city won that. Council does have the ability to initiate them. In this case, the 20 properties were decided upon, and the RFP went through from a council initiative.

Thank you. Mr. Grossler, do you have something?

Yeah, I hope I can remember my questions. But I mean, I guess this designation really affects, if I understand it correctly, if there's to be any changes to the exterior of it, to the building that would alter the looks or the character of it or the architectural in any way. wouldn't affect the interior at all that's not looked upon by the city as they're driving by. Would that be correct? It's the any exterior physical changes or a demolition those require the citywide historic district review and it doesn't say that now it can be used in manners that are opposed to the owners beliefs and or rights or anything like that nor does it have to be that and we're not asking the owners to give up ownership of it and

So land use is strictly classified by your zoning district. We would just look at what use is allowed in the zoning is what's allowed in the interior. We would not refer something like that to the historic district.

Correct, because all we're looking at is the building itself as appeared upon on the exterior.

Correct, the exterior changes.

So we're not really, I don't think we're really infringing upon their First Amendment rights, or are we? Would be a pretty tough question to ask, also.

I'm not going to weigh in on that in terms of the very delicate fact pattern we've, at this point in time. But that is a concern that has to go into your decision, is that there are potential consequences in relation to the uses of the property.

Right, and this designation wouldn't put any uses upon it. nor are we saying that it can't be used or it has to be used or anything like that. All we're looking at is the exterior of the building as far as, and the building itself as it stands as a historic landmark, I guess is what I'm thinking about.

Right, land use is dictated completely by the zoning district that the parcel's in.

The big change for the property owner is that now it's subject to historic committee review process for any changes.

Correct, and if they do any changes, they got to bring it to the historic commission just to show what they're doing and show that they're trying to preserve in some manner the historic makeup and characteristics of the building. And they're not going to say you can't add on to it. But if you do add on to it, try to do so in a manner that's consistent with the historic character of that building and stuff, and not to do any changes or anything like that. The biggest thing may be in the demolition, they can't just demo it.

Right, it would just require that public hearing, citywide historic district to review it, and eventually they could demolish it, it just adds that level of a public hearing.

Right. And then the public can be aware of it and know what's going on. And the Historic Commission has granted demolitions in the past, even very recently. Yes. I believe.

That is correct. Both of them have, depending on certain criteria you'd have to meet that's dictated from the code, whether you'd approve a demolition or not. Certainly economics, economic return is one of those criteria that would be considered.

And we ourselves have granted demolitions in the last six months. We just approved the demolition of the health building on Erie and there's the building that's currently under demolition on 10th Street that sits next to the domestic relations court. That came to us and we approved the demolition of that as well.

so um you're correct just because it's part of a historic district committee district doesn't mean that it can't still be approved for demolition or that we're going to get involved with the land uses other than that meets the current zoning restrictions and all it's really doing is adding upon the the owner the the burden of having to come to another entity to say that they're going to do something with it and try to get approval from them which generally goes very smoothly in most cases too unless they're really something way off or anything like that i mean we just had one on another church somewhere historic within the last year maybe 18 months where they had an addition that they were proposing to put on it they were able to do that within the property itself and actually One of the things, by being a historic landmark, I believe, was when they did it, they had to try to carry on the characteristics but also make it modern so it didn't confuse that this was part of the original structure or anything like that. So even then, there's a lot of leniency in how they do it. They don't have to exactly mirror it or anything like that. It's just when they're working on the exact exterior of it. So I guess when I look at this, I understand the concern of the owner to some degree, but also some of the concerns he brought up, I'm trying to put in my mind because I don't see those concerns there. All I'm seeing is we got a building here that has a unique characteristic going historically back and it carries it on and that we're asking that, hey, We would like the owner to keep with that characteristic if they do any modifications of that. And if they choose to demolish it, to come to us and explain why they're demolishing it. And that here's the burdens and the purposes for that, and it may or may not be approved.

I think that's all, well said. Okay. Commissioners, any additional questions at this time?

I have more.

Go ahead.

So with this local landmark, it could be additional cost. I think you talked about that. For the owners, what did we say, it was 20, 25? When we did the study, you said that we- We did two studies.

One completed at the beginning of 2026, and I think the other one was 2024 maybe. How many properties was it? So we looked at thousands of properties throughout the city of Toledo. We narrowed the overall projection down to about 100 overall properties that would be quality candidates for local landmark preservation. Okay.

Okay. If I may? Yeah. Us doing this is not also saying that now the owner has to be more vigilant on that property and has to upkeep it. any manner that they haven't been doing but it is probably beneficial for them to do that in some way and any additional cost the cost is going to be there because when you got a building like that you're going to try to mirror what's in there already you're not unless you're totally demolishing it and rebuilding you're going to have a cost that's there in order to keep that structure looking the way it is and you're not just going to go on the cheap on that regardless i would imagine

I understand that as well, but if I have a property that I'm already maintaining and I'm already doing all the right things to the property, with the additional landmark, now I just have to go to another entity and get them to approve what I was already doing. It's kind of a waiver on both sides.

We've got various districts within the city that already have to do that. Homeowners that have to do that. well as other business owners because they live within a historic district and stuff this is this this is no different than creating a district it's just solely on the landmark is what it is and and again the costs may or may not be but you have you do have somebody looking at you now saying hey why are you doing that when you can when you should do this why are you altering the looks in a manner or anything like that. I mean, like I said, you've got a beautiful building like that right there. I wouldn't see the owner trying to honor it in any way. They wouldn't keep it. All they have to do is, if they're doing it right right now and maintaining the building in its current state, yeah, they might have to take it to the historic commission and say, here's what we're doing, and explain it to somebody. But at least now they've got another... Another avenue of saying, yeah, that's that's appropriate. That's good with everything else and. Yeah, you gotta use certain materials, but the material this is pretty broad. And again, you got a structure that you're not going to replace sandstone columns and exterior facia with. Just siding or anything like that. You're going to. You're going to keep the character of the building. You got in there if you're going to do it, unless you're demolishing it. So the real burden may be on them in the sake if they're going to demolish it. I could be wrong, but that's just my opinion.

So and just to add to that if I, I apologize Mr. Chair. Go ahead. It doesn't necessarily, it may not necessarily add cost to it. It's case by case. We've looked at the Paint by Numbers building on Westwood. We've got the Dura building. We're going to look for similar materials, but obviously we know that there are new materials that are more economical. The Old West End Historic Districts have recently developed a guide for other materials that can be used. It may not necessarily add to cost. What it adds is the additional review.

What I was going to add to that is the additional cost may incur when you take advantage of the historic tax credits when you are bound by the certain criterias of the state or federal level to abide by more specific historic requirements to keep with the current

yeah so um the historic both of our historic district commissions are influenced by the national parks standards for department of interior standards for rehabilitation so those tax credit Projects they present those to the state historic. Department for their review and they look at him in line with all of those preservation techniques. So yes, a tax credit project would take into account how all aspects of that. Would take into consideration the Department of Interior standards.

I have one follow up question and then I'm going to let the audience speak. In the event of a casualty, let's say the foundation has an issue and gives or there's a storm that comes through and damages the stained glass windows, they're broken out. If it's in the historic district, is the owner required to restore to historic standards or are they allowed to just board it up?

Well, in the event that you have damage, it would be subject to any nuisance sort of conditions that may exist on the property. So that would be one way to look at it. Now, when it comes to fixing the damage, that would be at the purview of the Historic District Commission.

Right, so they don't have a choice as to whether or not they could be required to restore historical standards.

One thing that they would really look closely at is if you removed a stained glass window and wanted to put in a vinyl window in its replacement. That would be something that they looked at and say, hey, this doesn't really seem to meet the dimensionality that was the intent of the architect for this historic property as well as providing those materials.

Thank you. All right. So at this time, we're going to turn it to the audience. So I'd like, if you plan to speak on this case, you can feel free to line up in the middle aisle up to the lectern, and we'll take people one by one, whoever would like to speak. And if you have the same comments on this case and the next case, because they're very similar, You may feel free to give comment on both cases if you'd like to. But anyone who'd like to speak at this time on this case, feel free to come to the lectern and we'll hear your testimony. Give me a second. Take your time. When you're ready, I'll ask, go ahead and pull down the microphone so we can hear you. First of all, I'm speaking. Before you start, I'm going to need your name and address.

Sherry Ellen Scott, 639 Oswald.

And will you please raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be true and accurate? If so, say I do.

I do.

Ma'am, go ahead.

I live a half a block away from the church. I grew up in the shadow. I live right next door to the house I grew up in. It will be a big loss if it's torn down. I get that. But first of all, it's not ours. The library that used to be on the east side, they've rebuilt it. It's sitting there deteriorating, not being anything done with it. The other building that the city owns at 6th and Main is atrocious. So I can't believe that this church is going to sit there with nothing done to it and not fall apart in front of my eyes. Now, my husband's family went to this church all their life. They even bought one of the stained glass windows, which are gone now. And I do have a question. Is the home next to it included in this property?

Bill, do you know the answer to that?

So the legal description included the entire property.

Which includes the home that sits on the site?

Yeah, there's a rectory building, I believe, on both sides. Okay, so it does include it.

All right, because that would be a nice place to save, but again, it's not ours. If you could guarantee me that it's not going to become a soup kitchen or a place where the homeless are going to hang out, I'm all for trying to save it. But I don't believe that it can be saved. here's one idea though if it if it is demolished maybe we could save the steeple and the bell and make a little sitting area on that corner just for old time's sakes but i mean i hate to see it tore down too but it's not our property and i don't want to see it become an eyesore or a place where people hang out that I don't need in my neighborhood. And that's it. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Whoever would like to speak next, feel free to come forward.

Good afternoon, plan commission members.

Before you start, I need your name and address.

My name is Gary Lenhart, and I live at 853 Euclid Avenue in Toledo, Ohio. Please raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be true and accurate? If so, say I do.

I do.

Sir, go ahead.

I have a statement just to introduce myself I'd like to read, and then I would like to read a letter from a person that cannot be here.

Go ahead.

My name's Gary Lenhart. I live in East Toledo and have been working as a community builder for the past four plus years as one voice for East Toledo. The One Voice Free Slittle platform engages all stakeholders, specifically residents, that are working to create and make change in their neighborhoods. My primary responsibility has been the Garfield Neighborhood Master Plan, which was approved by City Council. Sacred Heart Church falls within the Master Plan of the Garfield Neighborhood. The focus of the plan is to improve the Garfield neighborhood that encompasses the residential area, that's around Waite High School, the business district, and the riverfront that connects East Toledo to the downtown area. The plan is broken down into focus areas, including the residential area, the main star business district, the riverfront, the greenway, which is Ravine Park 1 and 2 that the Metro Parks is now managing, and our icon anchors of Wade High School, the Weber Building, the Masonic Temple, and Sacred Heart Church. Over 600 different residents, community partners, and others have attended one or more community meetings in East Toledo. Attendance at our meetings peaked in October of 2023 after the announcement that Sacred Heart Church was closing. Today, I share the voices of Eli, Rachel, Glenn, Mike, Bill, Will, Christine, Jan, Maggie, Catherine, Janice, Steve, Annie, Andy, Samuel, Ellen, Craig, Linda, Megan, Ted, Sue, Lawrence, Bernie, Marlene, Magdalena, Fran, Royce, Fannie, Nancy, Bob, Martha, Shirley, Holly, Lori, Alice, Anita, Elaine, Marion, Frank, Peggy, Dave, Ronald, Tim, Ron, Katie, Ann, Kim, Chuck, Karen, Kathy, Kathleen, Jonathan, Julius, Jody, Peter, Lisa, Don, Daniel, Mandy, Dan, Nancy, Robert, and Robert and Holly that attended meetings specifically to encourage our efforts to save this iconic structure. I believe that things happen for a reason. And here we are today standing together talking about this church and other historic iconic structures. I pray that we find the will and the way forward to help our history survive and to support the future generations of those who follow in our path. And for those who don't know, there are 9,400 people in East Toledo under the age of 24. I have hope for them that they might see a different future. I've been asked to read a letter On behalf of C.J. Estelle, and I'd like to do so now. My name is C.J. Estelle. I grew up as a Sacred Heart parishioner and now live in Florida. I was asked to read this statement on his behalf. These are C.J. Estelle's words. For nearly three years, I have been working to save Sacred Heart Church. I want the record to reflect what that effort involved. The Diocese's decision to demolish Sacred Heart Church relied on an architect's assessment that put repairs at more than $1.5 million. That assessment has never been shared in full with parishioners or with anyone working to save this landmark. Only a slide summary was ever presented. Many people firsthand knowledge of the building, including a licensed contractor who was paid to repair it, Longtime parishioners who were involved with its maintenance for decades and its former pastor have stated that they believe those numbers to be substantially inflated. They describe a slate roof with decades of life left and a basement wall that is modest with water intrusion repair, not a foundation problem. They also state that to their knowledge, no second opinion was ever sought. The diocese's own demolition estimate is $800,000 to $1 million. On December 27, 2023, I made a written offer to buy the church. It was declined by a letter. The bishop's explanation came days later in the blade, where he wrote that the offer lacked a use and a repair plan. In March 2024, I answered with a 15 year lease and a purchase option that could not be exercised until the repairs were done and two years of tax returns showed positive income. On June 5th, 2024, Dan Nestor of Polaris Logistics and Tim Croke of Croke Capital, two investors working with me, C.J. Estelle, on this effort, and I met with Diocesan representatives and handed them written proof of a $1 million pledge from a vetted anonymous donor with the funds verified out of more than $1.2 million pledged in total. We presented several uses, including a wedding and event venue, using existing commercial kitchen and rectory, a rehabilitation or counseling center, or and a senior assisted living in the non-worship areas and offered to accept whatever restrictions the diocese chose. They favored none of our ideas and offered none of their own. I asked for 90 days of access to do a feasibility study. That was denied. In October 2024, I offered $250,000 in cash toward the purchase. In November, the diocese declined. I am not the only person who has shown interest in repurposing and saving this structure. In December 2025, Jacob Estrada, owner of Lowrider Cafe and a 13-year veteran of Cherry Street Mission, approached the diocese about a neighborhood homeless shelter with 20 volunteers and contractors offering donated labor. After we met, he took that plan back to the diocese with Sacred Heart as the site. My understanding from him is that the conversation ended when Sacred Heart was named. Sacred Heart's cornerstone was laid in 1900. It's a contributing structure in the East Toledo Historic District on the National Register and an anchor institution in the city's 2021 Garfield Plan. Local landmark status is the one designation that actually governs the demolition permit. Land bank status did not tell the diocese what to believe whom to sell to, or what to do inside the building. It only asks that before an irreplaceable building comes down, there be a review and a real chance to consider the alternatives. The diocese has decided it will no longer use Sacred Heart for worship. That decision is its own. Once made, a building of this significance should be available for repurposing, and alternatives exist. They have names, funding, and a plan. Sacred Heart and Good Shepherd are both architectural icons of East Toledo, and both deserve this designation. I have focused on Sacred Heart because of my personal involvement in trying to save it. I ask this commission to recommend approval of the landmark designation for both churches. I would rather my kids see it standing as whatever it becomes next than see a gravel lot on Oswald. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Please step forward. Name an address, please.

Michael Snyder, 235 Van Buren, Toledo Isle, 43605.

Please raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is true and accurate? If so, say I do.

I do. Sir, go ahead. All right. I was married in that church 67 years ago. My wife was born and raised in that church. nineteen forty i was in that basement the day that that wall came down on that north side of the basement we knew it was bulging there have been other problems with the interior of that wall those walls were constructed of a hollow clay tile similar to what you have in your home as drywall or latham plaster where water has been to filter in and destroy it. You go in and you eliminate the water coming in and you take the lath and plaster down and redo it and continue on with your life. The town hall meetings that they were holding where the price was inflated so high that the other two churches looked like they were better off than what Sacred Heart was. I went by there just now coming down here. That building is standing strong. It was built by craftsmen workers and all they have to do is get the water away from the foundation. We did that back years ago on the south side of the building, got it out into the yards. The north side goes into cast iron pipes into the ground. We never figured out whether it went into a sewer or what, but it was infiltrated into the basement and caused that to leak. Myself and two other fellows went down there and tore the stuff down that was hanging, made that basement safe, But Father Gill put the basement off limits. Nobody else used it after that. And a number of pastors come through that church, and nothing was ever done until they decided to close it. And it breaks my heart to see them want to demolish it. They think that if they demolish the church, the hurt will go away. You destroy that big, beautiful church, the hurt will never go away. I went out for supper. I went into an old church at Bethany and Woodville Road. It's now La Festiesta Mexican restaurant. Beautiful done inside. They preserved the outside of that building rather than have a vacant lot there. That's it. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Come on up.

Name and address, please. I go by Chuck Schlager. I live at 7334 Wicklow Woods Drive, Sylvania. I'm a former East Sider on Mason Street.

Will you please raise your right hand?

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be true and accurate? If so, say I do.

Yes, yes I do. Sir, go ahead. I wasn't prepared to say anything, but hearing some of the other testimony here causes me to want to add to it. My great-grandfather was a general contractor and built that structure. It opened around 1900. The beautiful stained glass window was a nativity window. His family donated that window to the parish. I've been a lifelong Catholic, active. I was very active at Sacred Heart for many years. Received all my sacraments there, except for one. A few things have changed. puzzle me as far as the reasoning for closing this beautiful parish church. Like some of the others here, I believe the report on the virtual collapse of the structure was completed There was no other opposing assessment to establish whether the church was intact or not intact. I've been in that basement as recently as the last two years, I think, before it closed. I've been in construction all my life. What the wall that people are referring to was what Mr. Snyder just said, what we call a curtain wall. They wanted some smooth surface to be able to hang pictures and so forth, wall hangings. The original foundation is made out of heavy boulders, Sandusky limestone. That structure, that foundation has not moved as far as I know. I'm only speaking from hearsay. But I think it's worth being suspicious. I hate to say this, but I don't have a lot of confidence and trust in our local Toledo diocese for forthrightness and honesty in dealing with its parishioners. In fact, I heard it said, maybe an urban myth, that diocese could get a lot of money for each one of those beautiful stained glass windows, which were manufactured and sent over from Germany. But they couldn't send the windows during World War I. The windows had to be shipped in the 1920s after the war. But the company, which is still in operation, protected those windows, buried them, put them in a cave, whatever, to preserve the windows so we could get them here in the United States. I just would like to challenge the diocese as to What did they give for the windows? The highest bidder, I suppose. And I'd like to see an opposing competitive assessment of the structural integrity of that building. Yes, it needs some maintenance, needs some work. There's been a lot of deferred maintenance, but every building requires money to be spent on maintenance. I don't have any suggestions for a future. I have no resolutions. But to tear that building down and any other edifices of that stature, It's just a shame. And Toledo is so well known for reducing beautiful buildings to rubble. And by the way, Mr. Whittington, I could hear you only. The rest of the people I couldn't hear very well. So thank you for speaking into the microphone. I guess that's all. I just, I challenge some of the so-called facts involving this structure.

Thank you, sir.

Yep.

Name and address, please.

Karen Medina, 7051 Garden Road, Maumee, Ohio, 43537.

Please raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be true and accurate? If so, say I do.

I do. This property has been an interest. I am a founder of iDance, which is an inclusive arts Ohio. It's an adult disability performing arts center. This property has been of an interest of mine since February. And it actually wasn't the church area, it was the house that was next to it at this time. At that time, I was offering to actually make this place a music therapy institute that we could have healing and education for the arts and workshops and programs and summer camps for the community there. At that time, I was told that the diocese was going to graze the church, that that wasn't even an opportunity. So I was going back and forth with the business manager, and iDance did, as a nonprofit, put in an offer. We had to actually get approved by the bishop, which we were approved by the bishop for our use of this. And at that time, then, the offer was... Not accepted. So we raised our offer, and then again, it wasn't accepted. So my understanding from the last conversation I have had, they were going to auction off the house part of it, the nunnery house part, and their goal was still to graze then the church area. which pretty much left me without the opportunity of what we would really like to still accomplish and see in Toledo, which is a arts education, music therapy place where people can actually go and connect to the arts and connect their community and connect their healing. And again, I don't have a lot of what's going on, and that is up to you guys, but I just wanted to let you know that, yes, I support perhaps saving this building and creating something special like that. I would also support maybe trying to relieve the restrictions of its use, and Inclusive Arts of Ohio would gladly love to be part of the programming. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Hi, name and address, please.

Let me just say at the outset, I'm happy to be sworn, but like Mr. Antonini, I am a member of the bar in Ohio and Virginia, but I'm happy to take it.

We're okay with your name and address, then. Okay.

My name is Edward Walker. I reside at 3000 Franklin Street in Alexandria, Virginia. But I wanted to explain my connections first. My great grandfather, Joseph Kesting, I think along with Mr. Schlagerer's great grandfather, Julius Comte, built the church. In fact, they formed the parish in the 1880s and then built the church. I grew up until I was five at 189 East Broadway, so two blocks from the church. We then moved out to 528 Grasser Street in Oregon, where we remained parishioners of Sacred Heart Church until I was well into my adulthood. I went to grades one to eight at Sacred Heart School. I graduated from Cardinal Stritch High School in the University of Toledo. So I do have a pretty good Toledo connection, even though I'm now living on the East Coast. I don't intend to go too far with this point, Winston Churchill at the end of World War II was confronted with a major decision. The Nazis had bombed the historic House of Commons and he had to decide whether he was going to get behind an effort to rebuild it as it was originally or tear it the rest of the way down and do something new. And he opted for the former. and said as only he could state so simply and eloquently that we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us. And now we come to Sacred Heart Church and Good Shepherd Church. I will speak to both. These two churches have graced the earth and skies of East Toledo for over 120 years. And I dare say East Toledo will not quite be East Toledo if either one of those churches is gone. I'm telling you all what you already know, but Sacred Heart Church, it is, by the way, mentioned throughout the nationally registered East Toledo historic district registry as an anchor of the Garfield neighborhood. And so it's featured there and in the Garfield plan. And it's clearly the architectural linchpin of the Garfield district. And I think can be viewed as standing at the gateway of East Toledo from the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Bridge. Good Shepherd Church is equally iconic, different form of architecture, but equally iconic. And as we all know, sits at the gateway to East Toledo from the foot of the High Level Bridge or Anthony Wayne Bridge, if you prefer. So those churches If they're not going to be churches, the buildings themselves are architectural linchpins in East Toledo. And being in East Toledo, there's not a lot of architecture like that to be preserved on that side of the river. I would submit that the issue before this commission is not who owns the deeds. And with all due respect for the diocese, certainly I understand one has to take into account the landowner and their points of view. But the real issue is, are these magnificent structures historically, culturally, and architecturally significant such that they're deserving of recognition as local landmarks? I think the answer to that is quite resoundingly yes. And again, with all due respect, regardless of what the Toledo Diocese or the Toledo Blade Editorial Board, for that matter, regardless of what they have to say on the matter. The point is they are landmarks and should be recognized as such. What exactly then becomes of them, what's done with them, should be a collaboration. You heard some of the testimony. There's been effort now for the last number of years to try to work with the Toledo Diocese and work on something other than the terrible deed of demolishing Sacred Heart Church. I think perhaps this could breathe some... extra air into the process of some discussions to see if there isn't something short of demolition so i want to thank teresa gaddis and city council for stepping forward to at least try to recognize these buildings and preserve these buildings because they are beacons of inspiration and aspiration not just the catholics But to everybody on the east side of Toledo, and for that matter, Toledo proper. And I think there deserves to be more discussion as to what should become of them. As was mentioned, the diocese decided to deconsecrate both churches. As far as I'm aware, at least with respect to Sacred Heart, they've removed most or all of the sacred objects. They have removed the cherished stained glass windows, which have now been shipped out to Arizona. Those windows, by the way, were donated by parishioners a century ago. but but they're gone and perhaps that though in a funny way helps with the repurposing of the buildings because they have removed all of the sacred objects there's there really shouldn't be any reasonable viable reason to not try to see what can be done to repurpose those buildings for the community so uh... with all due respect to everybody involved here i would ask this commission to take the lead from the unanimous city council and from the commission staff, including Mr. Harbert, and do the right thing here in designating Sacred Heart Church and Good Shepherd Church as the local landmarks that they are and should be. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

My name is Ronald Matthew Martin and I live at 612 Oak Street in Toledo. Please raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be true and accurate? If so, say I do.

I do.

Sir, go ahead.

I very much like what the last gentleman said. I think he was really right on point with that. I'm here because of Good Shepherd. I don't know that much about the other church. But I do think that they're both landmarks and they should be preserved. And I suspect that maybe what's driving all of this underneath it is that perhaps the diocese wants to have a homeless shelter in East Toledo because it's a moneymaker. The amount of money that you spend in a situation like that is far less than what they can get in donations. And so they need a place to do that. A couple of years ago, we became aware because of Teresa Gaddis, thank you to her, that they were trying, the diocese was thinking about turning Good Shepherd in the facility there into a homeless assist type community center, which our neighborhood does not want. I don't think any neighborhood would want that. And they said they would preserve the church, but they would demolish the rectory. And they put a new building in there, and they already had funds that were reserved, you know, something like $4 million that the diocese was going to contribute. And Good Shepherd, I mean, St. Louis Helping Hands had $1 million toward the construction. I mean, there was a lot of money involved. And I think that for all of us in Toledo, I would think anybody anywhere isn't going to want some kind of a service center for homeless people, people who are destitute, people who are poor and idle versus being poor and active, engaging in making their life better. I don't think any of you would want that kind of a place in your neighborhood And yet, you know, if the diocese feels that they can make money off of doing that or if they have a genuine real concern for people who are indigent, I don't think any of us really have a problem with that, but they should find a place to do it that's, for example, like an industrial zoned area, something that is away from the rest of us. We don't want those kinds of things in our neighborhoods. We know exactly the kinds of things that go on. It becomes a magnet for all the things you do not want.

Sir, if I can, I appreciate your sentiment, but this decision has nothing to do with the eventual use. Whether it's designated historic or not, it could be a homeless shelter, It could be a dance studio. It could be a million different things. This only is with respect to whether it's a historical building or not and should be designated as so. And so we don't want to get too into the weeds on the ultimate use because this has no impact on that.

But I think that I agree. And I think that what's underlying this is the use of the buildings. Like Good Shepherd, for example. it's the use of the area and the good shepherd a lot of these churches they have the church itself they have the rectory they may have other buildings in parking lots and it's the use of it that's important i do think if all you're really deciding is should these two buildings on these churches be designated as having some special protection protection the answer should obviously be yes they are beautiful and they need to be maintained In my neighborhood, it's the center. Good Shepherd is the center of our neighborhood. And when you come over the high level bridge, you see it. It's iconic. And like someone said, they're just not making buildings like that anymore. So, you know, as long as the purpose, if it's repurposed in some way, as long as it's not antithetical to why the building was created in the first place, those buildings need to remain. And if they want to do a homeless shelter somewhere, let them do it somewhere else. But we should keep these churches and they should be designated as being of architectural value enough that if the diocese doesn't want to continue caring for them, that they should not in an antagonistic. relationship between the city, the community, and the Diocese of Toledo, we should all work together to preserve these things. Right now, Good Shepherd is being cared for well. It looks good. They maintain the grounds. It looks great. If it stays that way indefinitely, okay. But we do need to make these designated as something that we need to preserve for future generations. I think that's very important.

Thank you, sir. Okay, at this time, I'm going to make note of the fact that we have several letters and other correspondence in our packets that have been received through today's date. Bill, do you want to make any final comments on this?

No, so just to kind of rehash that, there was 18 letters of support, three letters of opposition, and the 14-page petition that should be in your packet.

Mr. Antonini, does the diocese want to add anything before we consider this? No, thank you. Thank you. Okay, commissioners, any final questions? If I may. Mr. Grossweiler, go ahead.

So this all came about with a decision that was made a year ago, or was it a year and a half ago?

The study was completed. There were two studies. I think the latest one was about a year ago.

And in that, we showed designated potential properties. Were these properties listed in that? I can't remember.

Yes, they were.

So to say the notice came all of a sudden, the potential, it was out there over a year ago that these would be brought up as far as this consideration going on. And I'd also like to say that today's decision has nothing to do with usage, ownership. It doesn't say they can't pass ownership. They've got to keep ownership. It doesn't even have to say what they can do on the inside. It's just the building itself. It doesn't say they can't demo at any time. We're not making that decision today or anything like that. So I just want everyone to remember that when we're making this decision today is do we think this is architecturally significant enough and significant enough for showing our past city history to give it the designation and perhaps give the owner at the time that they want to do anything with it the inconvenience that they may feel to go in front of a committee to do anything with it. Demolition or anything like that. That's all we're deciding right now. So I don't know if anyone else has anything to say on top of that. If not, I'm going to make a motion to approve the designation at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Grossweiler. Obviously, this is a challenging case because there's a lot of interest away.

But I think that's why we're here, to make these decisions.

So I'll ask, is there a second to Mr. Grossweiler's motion?

How many will second?

Okay, we have a first and a second to approve the designation in this case. This is case M15-26, I'm sorry, M-16-26 with respect to Sacred Heart Catholic Church. Ms. Cottrell, let's go ahead and do a voice call.

Okay, so Ye will be in support of staff. Mamani?

Ye. Whittington? Yes. Rakoff?

no grossweiler yes motion passes three to one all right let's read case number seven into the record please Case number eight. Yeah, I'm sorry.

Case number eight. Sorry. Item number eight is M1726, requesting local landmark designation for Good Shepherd Catholic Church. Located at 550 Clark Street, staff recommends approval. Again, the applicant is city council. I did get a text from her saying that she is ill and was not able to attend.

Let's just give it just a moment. We have a lot of people leaving. Let's let them exit and then we'll call the case forward. All right, there is no one from the city council here to present the case, so we'll let Bill, will you present this case?

Yeah, that's fine. So once again, I'm not going to go through everything that I had mentioned previously. I think everyone is aware of why historic preservation is important to the city of Toledo. This site specifically, as many people had mentioned, is on the east side, just on the exit of the high-level bridge. It was built in... Oh, actually, so the cornerstone was laid in 1899 for this church. It's got a lot of interesting historical features that I'll go over as part of the reasons for consideration of this project into the future or any questions that you may have concerning this project.

Thank you, Bill. This came through referral from city council, as we talked about in the other case.

That's correct, a resolution was passed by city council, may be included in your packet.

And we have an architectural study that was provided as well for this case, correct?

That's correct. That was completed by Thomas Porter Architects.

Okay.

And commissioners, that is also in your packets. Okay. So I'm going to go through some of the preliminary questions we talked about on the last case. Is this specific church either proposed to be or currently on the National Register of Historic Places?

We are not aware that it's located as part of any national designation, and we are not proposing to seek that at this time.

Okay. And can you talk about some of the historical character or architectural elements of this building?

Yeah, sure. So this is a combination of Byzantine and Romanesque architectural styles. It's a very unique structure. It has a center-focused raised area, and it extends out from there, so it's kind of centered around the center altered areas. It does have the walls, once again, Sandusky limestone with stone arches. The stone details include three Romanesque entry arches topped with arch balustrades. The three entry arches are flanked by columns as well as a smooth aster stone banding. So it does have some unique doming as well that's important with this project. Yeah, so this is a little bit different in architecture than the previous case that we've seen.

And do you know what the current use of the building is? It's not operational currently, correct?

It's currently. I do not believe that it's in operation. No, at this time it is believed to be owned by the Catholic Diocese.

And do you have any information on the condition of the property currently?

Once again, I did do a site visit where, when I posted the property, I did do a walk around of the property. It does contain a rectory building as well as an accessory building on site. The overall condition appeared to be in fair condition, if not good condition, with no visible signs of severe deterioration.

And are there any current pending redevelopment plans that you're aware of on this property?

Once again, it is owned by the church and we are not aware of any sort of redevelopment plans that they may have at this time.

Thank you. Okay. Those are my questions to start with. Commissioners, questions for Bill? Hearing none, I will ask Mr. Antonini, is there anything you'd like to add with respect to this case?

Yes, thank you. Still under oath. Good Shepherd, there are no current plans. It's never been contemplated to raise or demolish this church. If you think adding this designation is going to help our efforts to find a use for it that we're currently exploring, you're wrong about that. This is premature. Again, this goes back to the fact we have not consulted. You can talk about putting notice up on a bulletin board or on a public website. I'm a phone call away from anybody. And we've made that known as long as two years ago. But again, back to Good Shepherd, it's premature. This makes no sense. This is a solution in search of a problem. So I would ask the board to vote no on the recommended legislation. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioners, before I open up to audience testimony, is there anything you'd like to add? Any questions? Okay. Yeah, you can come back up.

Just for the record, I'm also incorporating by reference my prior statement.

Perfect, perfect. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this case at this time? Okay, not seeing any. If you'd like to, come on up. You got to speak at the microphone so we have a recording of the hearing.

I echo everything I said about- Just real quick, I'm sorry. Sacred Heart, anyway- Give us your name again, and then go ahead. 7334 Wicklow Woods Drive, Sylvania.

You don't have to be sworn in again, go ahead.

Okay, I just wanted to, I was going to make a joke. Good Shepherd was for Irish people. Sacred Heart was for the German immigrants. And so we don't have a lot to do with Good Shepherd, never did. But folks, there is a lot of history there. Sacred Heart got its start. because the German Catholics worshiped at St. Mary's over by St. Bees Hospital. Back in those days, whatever bridge there was now called the Rosa Parks Bridge, Cherry Street Bridge, kept being knocked out by ice flows and so forth. So the people on the east side of Clio, the German Catholics, petitioned the Diocese of Cleveland, we were still in the Cleveland in those days, if they could build a mission church. And that goes back to about 1883. So anyway, I'm sorry. Thank you, sir.

No, we appreciate the history and the context. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak at this time? Okay, seeing none. Bill, is there anything else you'd like to add?

Yeah, I'd just like to add that These local landmark designations, they have nothing to do with trying to curb any sort of future development plans or anything of that nature. These are solely based upon the city's need in order to feel a need to preserve these structures or provide this designation for... uh... it's not just one or two properties it's going to be a number of properties uh... they're gonna be schools there's going to be swimming pool we we had swimming pools on on you know the one that's on uh door street uh we have the smokestack at willis uh you know there's a lot of different unique structures throughout the city at slito that are iconic and they tell the city's history and we feel that they're important to make sure that we preserve those for all into the future so i just want to make sure that we're aware that this isn't for one specific purpose

Thanks, Bill. And I appreciate that. And my concern as I look at these is, Lisa, if you can help me out, what was the church on Navarre that the land bank acquired in 2018 that we just finished with the redevelopment? Not Navarre, Nebraska. St. Anthony's. St. Anthony's. And my concern is that ultimately, as we work to preserve structures, who pays for it? That was a very expensive project that took eight years, mostly from public monies. And it shouldn't be a shock that we do not have the ability as a local government or public body to preserve all of these potential structures. And so when we look at these, I do think it's important to consider how do we do this in a fiscally responsible manner? And I don't know that today on either of these cases, we've really developed those concepts or those plans i i feel maybe we're a little premature on where we're at the buildings obviously have historic character but we don't have a plan and that that's what concerns me so and but just to kind of build off of what you just said san anthony's you know is a good example of what can happen

Former church, now it's getting a new life, historic preservation. It's going to be great for that neighborhood and the community that it serves.

Agreed. It was also a project that required a tremendous amount of effort to assemble the resources to do it. We've got to keep that in mind.

Hopefully we all can work together in order to do what's best for everyone in the city.

Sir, I'm going to let you make a final comment, and then we're going to move to a vote here.

Okay.

Give us your name one more time. You don't have to be sworn in again.

Okay. Ronald Matthew Martin, 612 Oak Street. The thing that's different about Good Shepherd is that it has a dome. It has a big dome and two smaller domes with a tower, and it's very different from all the other churches. You're right. There's so many churches. It'd be nice to save them all, but it's not practical, right? So we've really got to choose which ones we keep. And we should be thinking in terms of the long term, like 100 years from now. Good Shepherd is so unusual compared to other churches. That's what makes it different. That's why you need to give it that protective status. because it is so very different. It's an entirely different style of architecture.

Thank you, sir. All right, commissioners, at this time, if there's no, you got something, Eric, go ahead.

Yeah, just with what was said, I don't think this designation necessarily gives it a whole lot of protection. It could still be demolished if it's economically unfeasible or anything like that. I just keep hearing that over and over again. I understand the concerns, and yeah, can we save all of them or anything like... I mean, you could consider it another level of protection, but it's really not changing ownership or anything like that. It's not putting it in the city's hands or anything like that, unless the church abandons it and stuff. And if the church wants to demolish it, all they have to do is plead a case to it. And I'm not saying that's in the plans or anything like that. I just want to make that point that this really doesn't do anything. It's just saying we do recognize the structure, and we would like people to recognize it as well, anyone who may own it, and possibly try to retain it if possible.

Thank you. Anything else, commissioners? No? Okay. Then at this time, I'm going to accept a motion on this case, M-17-26. I'll make the motion for approval. And we're waiting a second. We have a first and a second to approve the application. Ms. Cottrell, let's do a voice call and go ahead and call that out.

Okay. Mamadi? Yes. Whittington? Yes. Rakoff? No. Grossweiler? Yes. Motion passes three to one.

All right, so those cases will both go to City Council on October 21st at 4 o'clock in these chambers. That's correct. City Council planning and zoning on October 21st at 4 PM. Ms. Cottrell, Director's report.

So we have two quick items. I think that we have someone on the back who wants to say a few words really quick.

Richard Arnold, 3305 Middlesex.

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be true and accurate? If so, say I do.

I do. I just briefly want to make the members aware of what transpired at city council. It's a zoning issue. I attended their agenda review meeting Tuesday of last week. I pick up my packet, and it bears mentioning that whenever they approve a settlement, there's usually some description. city truck hit something like that. There was nothing on this. It's a city of Toledo versus Singletary and they approved the settlement of 62,500. Okay, it turns out this is a group home that was denied in 2021. I believe that was during the pandemic lockdown. The owner sued, I believe, claiming a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act was denied, and it's still in litigation, and the city law department was recommending this settlement. The members of city council had questions, but they couldn't be answered because of pending litigation, so they went into executive session for 16 minutes. All I can really tell you is they went into executive session with worried looks on their faces and they came out with smiles on their faces. So whatever legal counsel told them seemed to make everyone happy. It was put in the agenda for Tuesday and approved by an 11 to 1 vote. So two comments. One, I think this was wrong. I think the secretive matter in which it was done was wrong. And I also talked to city council. Did we need to revisit this document? This is the text amendment regarding group living. Presented by the plan commission staff to city council in February of 2019. never acted upon, brought back in May of 22, never acted upon. And I'm well aware of how much research went into this. So it was wrong of City Council to not approve this. And I'm of the opinion that if they had approved it, we would not have seen the settlement we saw on Tuesday night. So I just want to take this opportunity to commend the staff for all of their hard work. It's a shame that City Council has not acted on this. but i am concerned that what happened tuesday may set a precedent and we may see other potential group home operators suing the city hoping to get a settlement so thank you for listening thank you mr arnold

Okay, and then the second item is the zoning code consultant is coming in the third week of October We're going to attempt to hold a special City Planning Commission Hearing that week. We're looking at maybe that Wednesday the 21st If you could check your schedules and let me know or what would be available? It's really important to us to introduce them to you first Do you have a sense of?

what the length of that meeting would likely be. Is it an introductory meeting or are they going to have a presentation that they'd like to make?

I think they'd probably have a presentation. I suspect it would go longer than a half an hour. Just introduce themselves, tell you a little bit about themselves, maybe give a quick presentation. Show you the timeline, the draft engagement plan, but we could definitely keep it to half an hour.

I just wondered if they had specified how long that meeting would be. But we'll look at our calendars for that week, and if everyone could email Lisa your availability, we'll try to get that meeting scheduled that week.

Was there a specific time that was being looked at?

I think it's pretty open. They're going to be here that entire week, and so they're going to put together a calendar of tours and meeting different leaders, doing some internal staff interviews, that type of thing, but you would be the priority as you're the commission. So it's largely open. I'll send you some dates and times.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anything else? That's all I have.

All right. Thank you, everyone. We're adjourned.