The Toledo Zoning and Planning Committee on Oct. 15 recommended approval of a planned unit development for Westgate Village, a proposed multi-tenant retail redevelopment at 3450 West Central Ave., and sent the proposal to full City Council with 72 conditions.

The project applicant, Jim Sutphin, described the plan as “a redevelopment of what formerly used to be a Sears department store and auto center” and said the proposal covers roughly 20 acres with a multi-tenant retail building and related site improvements. The plan commission had recommended approval subject to 72 conditions and three waivers.

The recommendation matters because the site is a large parcel in a commercial corridor and residents told the committee they fear the plan will compound existing neighborhood problems rather than provide net community benefit. Peggy Daley Mausternak, a neighborhood resident of more than 40 years, said she did not oppose “intelligent development” but objected to what she described as deviations from Toledo’s land-use plans and to excessive parking and restaurant density in the proposal. “There’s nothing unique here,” she said, adding the plan has “far too much parking, no mixed use as was desired by citizens and planning staff.”

Resident Glenn Reihing testified that Westgate Village had outstanding property taxes, telling the committee: “Westgate Village owes total delinquent property taxes in just size of $300,000 as of today, certified by the auditor’s office this month.” Another council member later cited a specific total of $296,381 (the applicant responded that the taxes “will be paid by the October” meeting). Those figures were presented as testimony and not independently verified by the committee during the hearing.

Resident Steven Masterneck raised procedural objections, saying the applicant had not complied with several provisions of the Toledo municipal code governing neighborhood meetings and public-notice requirements. Masterneck cited specific code sections, saying the meeting notice in the developer’s PDF had a creation date that made it impossible to meet the code’s 20-day mailed-notice requirement and that required written reports had not been filed in the statutory timeframe.

City planning staff told the committee the 72 conditions are “typical conditions with the development of this size,” including added landscaping, pedestrian walkways and extra attention to elevations. The staff representative noted that planning staff had intensified review of the elevations and landscaping, which is reflected in the additional conditions.

Committee discussion ended with a motion to send the PUD to full City Council as approved; the applicant indicated acceptance of the plan commission’s 72 conditions. The zoning and planning committee scheduled the item to be heard by the full City Council at its Oct. 21 meeting.

The committee’s recommendation does not finalize the matter; final approval and any legal or financial assurances will be determined by the full City Council and any subsequent permit review.