On Monday night, I voted against an ordinance that aimed to end “legal nonconforming” over-occupancy in 28 years. I voted against the legislation because it would have made substantial and, I believe, unintended changes to our new zoning code, which was enacted just a couple months ago.
The problem the legislation was designed to address is a relatively minor aspect of a larger issue; by the city’s count, there are around 22 legal nonconforming over-occupancy uses in Bowling Green right now. It’s important to note, the city can address any illegal over-occupancy today; it need not – and should not – wait until 2051.
The changes to our new zoning code proposed by this legislation would have been a step backward for our city, and the specific problems with the legislation were too many to be fixed Monday night. I’ll point out just a few.
The legislation would have created a new standard for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) where the property owner asks for a variance from the occupancy provisions. Right now, when a variance is requested, the BZA is required to evaluate the “practical difficulties for the property owner” and 150.107 lays out specific criteria that the Board must consider. The legislation would have required the BZA to evaluate an entirely new list of criteria, including many that would prove tough to apply; criteria like “maintain[ing] aesthetic harmony,” protect[ing] the appearance of the City as a whole,” and “inject[ing] vitality.” I see no reason to create a new standard for occupancy variance requests.
The legislation seemed to allow structural alterations to be made to any legal nonconforming property without BZA involvement; instead, only a city permit would be necessary. BZA involvement is one of the most meaningful ways for citizens to provide feedback on issues directly affecting their neighborhoods. This is important and required by our current code.
The legislation would have tossed out all of the current language at 150.85. I like the current language. It uses terms that we define in our new code, and it addresses zones and districts in a manner consistent with our new code. Clear, consistent language makes our zoning code user-friendly and helps the city avoid litigation.
The legislation would have thrown out all of the current language at 150.87, too. Importantly, we just changed this section to insist that any legal nonconforming use end if the owner discontinues the nonconforming use for six months. The proposed legislation would have required the city to wait for an owner to voluntarily discontinue use much longer – for a period of two years – before the city could disallow the nonconforming use. And the proposed language would have applied to any legal nonconforming use, not just over-occupancy. This would have been a step backward as we work to improve our neighborhoods.
I regret that there was so much confusion about what the ordinance was attempting to accomplish; confusion that began immediately after it was introduced. Council must do better at communicating the need for and goals of legislation to the community in the future.
I’m happy to discuss this issue with anyone who is interested in chatting. My email: rphipps@bgohio.org.
Rachel Phipps
Third Ward Bowling Green City Council
