By JAN McLAUGHLIN
BG Independent News
Bowling Green City Council voted unanimously Monday evening to get rid of a loophole in the city’s zoning code for housing.
The new language approved will require that when an accessory dwelling unit is constructed on a lot already occupied by a house, the owner must live in one of the structures.
Back in 2022, when the city was updating its zoning code, one of the goals was to allow for more diversity in housing. One change involved regulations to allow accessory dwelling units – traditionally called mother-in-law suites or granny units.
“We’re trying to add in some housing options,” possibly for parents moving in or grown children moving back, said Sean Suder, of the ZoneCo firm which was working on the update.
Typically, accessory dwelling units would require the owner to reside on the property, he said, “so that it doesn’t turn into a multi-unit property.”
But when the zoning update was approved, the language for accessory dwelling units sharing a lot with a primary residence had a loophole. It stated, “On any lot with an accessory dwelling unit, one of the dwelling units, either the principal dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit, must be occupied at least 180 days per calendar year by the owner of the lot or structure.”
The new wording adopted Monday would require that either the primary structure or the accessory unit must be the principal residence of the owner of the lot or structure.
In the case that the lot or structure has multiple owners or is owned by a corporation, one of the dwelling units must be the principal residence of one of the owners, or of a member who has at least 50% ownership in the corporation.
“When City Council passed zoning reforms four years ago, our community and legislative body took the position that ADUs and other forms of smaller housing units should be severely limited,” council member Jeff Dennis said. “The compromise we adopted, which I helped develop, made these uses ‘conditional’ and included an owner-occupancy requirement.”
For property owned by a company, the code currently provides that the requirement may be satisfied when one of the owners of that company resides there.
Since that time, the city has seen very few ADUs added to the housing supply. “Most of the few we have seen have been added by a group of local builders who recognized an apparent gap in our regulations,” Dennis said. “Apparently, by making their tenants partial owners of the company owning the real estate, they circumvented the ‘owner-occupied’ requirement in our laws.”
Rose Drain, of the BG Save Our Neighborhoods Group, spoke at Monday’s council meeting, supporting the change in the language. City leaders and residents reached a compromise on the ADU issue, Drain reminded, requiring owner-occupancy of properties with accessory dwelling units.
City Council member Bill Herald introduced language to close the loophole, since the intent was for the owner to occupy one of the structures – not rent out both.
“It’s bringing it more in line with what we had intended,” Herald said.
Both Dennis and council member Katelyn Elliott, who is chair of council’s Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee, said they saw a need to close the loophole and revisit how the city can better use housing options that increase options for more affordable housing.
“We need to examine our zoning regulations and see if there’s a way to increase housing options,” Elliott said.
ADUs can provide much-needed housing for adult children, caregivers, and young professionals who are looking for a smaller, more affordable place to live, according to Dennis. They can allow older residents to maintain independence while living near family, and they can allow families to supplement their monthly mortgage and help make ends meet.
