By JAN McLAUGHLIN
BG Independent News
After hearing from those wanting to save a piece of history and those wanting to save their neighborhoods from more duplexes, Bowling Green City Council voted 5-2 Monday to change the zoning of the historic home/old hospital on West Wooster Street.
Voting in favor were Mark Hollenbaugh, Jeff Dennis, Bill Herald, Jordan Musgrave and Rachel Phipps. Voting against were Joel O’Dorisio and Greg Robinette.
Prior to casting their votes, council members listened for more than an hour to people speaking on both sides of the issue.
The property owner, Anesa Miller, asked to change the property at 416 W. Wooster St. from PR pedestrian-residential zoning to R-2 medium density residential zoning.
The change would allow the structure to be turned into a duplex – and potentially save the site from a wrecking ball. However, the change also defied one of the goals of the newly created PR zoning – to prevent more duplexes in the older neighborhoods surrounding the downtown.
Bowling Green Planning Director Heather Sayler reminded council members that the zoning change request had gained the support of the city planning commission and the planning department staff. She also explained the structure, built in 1888, has been vacant for at least 32 years.
Attorney Tom Vogtsberger, representing Miller, said it just isn’t economically feasible to renovate the site into single family housing. Despite neighbors’ concerns, Vogtsberger said allowing a duplex would not set a bad precedent.
“We encourage you to view this property as unique and distinct,” he said.
Bowling Green physician and pharmacist Dr. Andrew J. Manville built the red brick building as his family home, with a specially equipped part of the house to see patients.
Later, the building was popularly called the “Old Hospital,” serving as the main medical center of Wood County from 1932 to 1951. By 1961 the hospital had become a nursing home, closing in 1993.
Vogtsberger also disputed that approving Miller’s request would amount to “spot zoning.” He defined spot zoning as that which provides unjustified benefit to one property owner to the detriment of the public.
“Her aim is not and has never been monetary gain,” he said about Miller.
“Anesa is going to be underwater on this project indefinitely. She is never ever going to come close to breaking even,” he said.
“She ought to be commended for trying to do this,” Vogtsberger said.
Sean Brennan, construction manager of the structure, said the foundation is strong but much of the interior had to be gutted after years of deterioration.
“This property needs to be saved,” he said.
Brennan also said a duplex will provide much needed housing in the city.
Miller explained her desire to save the structure.
“I do not want to see the building torn down,” she said. Miller said she had compiled an inventory of the homes in the adjoining blocks and noted a variety of uses as single family homes, many rentals, and duplexes.
“I am dismayed some of my neighbors feel a duplex would harm their property values,” Miller said.
Some of those neighbors were present at Monday’s public hearing, with some citing Miller’s previous opposition to rentals in the neighborhood.
Eric Bucks, who lives on North Maple Street next to Miller’s home, recalled his first conversation with Miller when he and his family moved in. According to Bucks, Miller said she was relieved that the family had bought the home and weren’t renting.
Prior to buying the home at 416 W. Wooster, Miller was outspoken in her opposition to duplexes in historic neighborhoods.
“My how times have changed,” Bucks said Monday evening.
“I get wanting to preserve an historic building,” he said. “But what’s the rush,” with a new roof already being put on to prevent further water damage.
Bucks voiced concerns about the property when Miller sells it. “I worry about the next person,” he said.
Kendra Bucks, a history teacher, said their property backs up to the house at 416 W. Wooster St. Many of their neighbors share concerns about the eroding of historic neighborhoods and the impact on property values, she said.
“I can assure you, the majority don’t support this,” she said.
Kendra Bucks said she appreciates historic buildings – “I’m a history teacher for crying out loud.”
But the old house/hospital had long been abandoned by its previous owners, she said, asking City Council to “focus on properties still worth saving.”
“Frankly I’m appalled that the planning commission threw the zoning code under the bus,” Kendra Bucks said.
Another neighbor, Emily Dunipace, shared similar concerns. She offered the “perspective from the house across the street.” Dunipace’s home on West Wooster was built in 1886, with her grandparents being the second owners of the home.
Dunipace reminded council of the citizen-led initiative in 2023 to disallow more duplexes in the newly created Pedestrian Residential zoned neighborhoods.
“The citizens of BG were insistent,” that no more duplexes be allowed – with more than 600 signing a petition stating their desires. “The citizens have spoken,” she said.
“We are asking you to consider our best interests,” she said.
Changing the zoning would amount to “spot zoning,” which would “send the wrong message,” Dunipace said.
“That would set an unfortunate precedent. How will City Council be able to say ‘no,’” to similar future requests, she asked.
Dunipace also challenged the argument that the city needs more housing. “Let’s be clear – this is not about creating more homes.”
She asked council to think about the community, “not just one property owner.”
Also speaking against the zoning request was David Drain, representing Bowling Green Save Our Neighborhoods Group, which fought for the Pedestrian Residential zoning without more duplexes allowed.
“Let’s be clear – if this rezoning is approved, we will establish a precedent that undermines the intent of our zoning code and opens the floodgates to future spot zoning requests,” Drain said.
“Over 600 Bowling Green residents opposed new duplexes in the PDR district – more opposition than we’ve seen for any other legislation in recent memory,” Drain said. “The will of the people should not be disregarded.”
When it came time for a vote, multiple City Council members said they were torn on the issue.
Voting to deny the zoning change was Robinette, who said “I defer to the zoning code that we all worked so hard on.” He was joined by O’Dorisio, who said he had heard from constituents on the issue, with the majority opposed to changing the zoning.
“I personally support duplexes,” he said. But he felt compelled to vote with his constituents.
“We just had this discussion less than two years ago,” with the residents adamantly opposed to more duplexes in older neighborhoods, O’Dorisio said. “We were responsive to the community. I have to vote with the will of the community.”
Before casting her vote, Phipps said the zoning change could bring about a “clear community benefit” – preserving an historic property and supporting the city’s land use principles.
Musgrave said he weighed the value of three factors – history, housing and zoning – and came to the conclusion that the zoning change would benefit the community.
Dennis also said the issue was a “very close call.”
“I live in these neighborhoods,” with several duplexes and triplexes, which sometimes bring problems involving trash, noise, traffic, and late night gatherings.
“But these issues aren’t limited to duplexes, and not limited to rental properties,” Dennis said.
Before voting in favor of the zoning change, Hollenbaugh also said he considered the factors of historic preservation, the sacredness of the zoning code, the desires of the neighbors and the need for housing.
Bill Herald said he was divided on how to vote, but in the end voted for the zoning change. He stressed that “there are no villains here.” The zoning code, the zoning process, nor the zoning request was the bad guy.
“Anesa is not a villain, she has done everything by the book,” Herald said.
