City residents on Thursday voiced their opinions on legislation that would “sunset” non-conforming occupancy uses for properties in Bowling Green after 28 years.
Bowling Green’s Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee held a public hearing on the matter.
During its Aug. 7 meeting, council introduced the ordinance, which amends sections 150.85, 150.87 and 150.89 of the codified ordinances. According to the legislative package document prepared for council when the legislation was introduced, per request of Council President Mark Hollenbaugh, this legislation sunsets non-conforming occupancy uses after 28 years.
The legislation relates to non-conforming properties in the city; if approved, after the 28-year time period, the properties would be required to adhere to the city’s zoning code.
The language of the ordinance, in part, notes that “City Council has determined that pre-existing non-conforming uses with respect to occupancy level in all residential districts within the city should be discontinued in order to achieve compliance with the goals and objectives of the zoning ordinances passed in 1975 and 2023 and amended from time to time, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the city’s master plan, and to protect the value of property within the city, and to encourage the revitalization of blighted areas, and to lessen the over-crowding of residential neighborhoods, and to reduce over-use of municipal services and systems, and to instill neighborhood vitality, and to promote aesthetic harmony in residential districts in the city …”
Further, “the collective affect of the pre-existing non-conforming structures, dwellings, buildings, or premises with respect to occupancy level in all residential districts which do not conform to the regulations for said districts constitute a nuisance.”
The ordinance received its third reading during Monday’s council meeting, but was tabled until council’s next meeting on Sept. 18, when it is expected to receive a vote.
Resident David Maurer first suggested that it might be better if council gave the new zoning ordinance, passed this summer, some time before engaging with these amendments.
“I know a lot of people are still wrapping their heads around it, much like myself,” he said.
Maurer also said he believes that the legislation, if passed, would decrease the values of the properties it covers. Further, he noted the legislation seeks to help revitalized “blighted” areas of the city.
“Blighted areas in Bowling Green? I need somebody to show me where those areas are,” he said. Maurer said that he called the Wood County Auditor’s Office and asked about property value increases in Bowling Green. He said that values increased 38% in the past six years.
“So, again, I question where is the blight that I read about in this ordinance that we need to start passing ordinances to correct?” he said.
Additionally, Maurer argued that the legislation was an attack on renters and discriminatory against college students.
“I think that they’re not being treated the way that they should be,” he said. “Things like this would increase the cost of living for renters,” and decrease housing options.
Landlords, Maurer said, want to invest their money in Bowling Green.
“I think this gives them a reason that people might step back and say this doesn’t seem very business friendly. You’re taking away property rights from people… I think that we should be sending a different message to investors and developers,” that Bowling Green is a welcoming community for these investment dollars, he said.
Rose Drain, a member of the BG Strong organization, said that members of her group have not reached a consensus about the legislation, but she attended Thursday’s hearing to speak for what the group sees as the good and the bad of the ordinance.
She quoted one member, who said “My response is simply that it is hard to get excited about an ordinance that goes into effect in 28 years! As it stands, any positive impact will be a generation and a half away. I think the only avenue worth pursuing is whether this amortization period can be reduced.”
Among other concerns, Drain pointed to a portion of the language in section 150.85 “that allows non-conforming alterations if they ‘… are erected pursuant to a city permit,’” wondering why this change was being added.
“However, we do find plenty to applaud in the proposed ordinance,” Drain said, including seeking to protect the city’s appearance, promoting revitalization in the residential neighborhoods, protecting the value of residential property, and other goals.
Drain said that recently volunteers from BG Strong and the East Side neighborhood group asked residents in portions of the Pedestrian Residential District about the condition of rental properties. One report along South Main Street, she said, included dirty windows, missing screens, broken storm doors, unpainted exterior surfaces, and other issues.
“So there is blight, and I guess you have to get up close and see it,” Drain said. “We think that people who are living in rental properties deserve decent living conditions and that’s not uniformly available” to renters in the city. She said that BG Strong wants to work on that issue as well as the availability of more standalone homes appropriate for families, whether rentals or owner-occupied.
“Where have all the children gone from our neighborhoods?” she asked. “These central residential neighborhoods were populated with families that had children and it’s dismaying to see that that is no longer the case with our city,” she said.
Answering a question from committee member Nick Runabdo, former City Attorney Mike Marsh – filling in for current City Attorney Hunter Brown – said that the reason 28 years was written into the legislation is because it is meant to encompass the depreciation period allowed by the IRS for real estate improvements.
Member Greg Robinette said it had been his understanding that the new zoning code would supersede any non-conforming designation, because properties would all have to comply with the new code.
Marsh said that is true, unless the uses that preceded the new code were legal. He noted one property he knew of that has legal non-conforming uses that date back to before the city’s first zoning code was established in 1975.
“Your new zoning code does not make that any less legal non-conforming,” he said. “That’s what I believe the target is for this ordinance, properties like this.”
“So there are going to be still, in spite of your new ordinance, legal non-conforming properties that can continue right now,” Marsh added later. “The reason the ordinance was written with exceptions for city permit” is because “there are properties that are over-occupied under the code, but by virtue of having a variance granted, so that was intended to say those could continue.”
Answering a question from Rubando, Planning Director Heather Sayler said that there are currently about 22 properties in the city with legal non-conforming uses related to occupancy.
