[0:06] [clears throat]
miles.
[0:08] » We're all set to go, Bob.
>> The hot.
[0:11] » Yeah,
>> we all set. All right, great. Like to
[0:14] welcome everybody to the uh planning
commission for the 2nd of September,
[0:20] 2026.
Uh I guess the first item is uh roll
[0:25] call. [clears throat]
>> All right, Mr. body
[0:29] » here.
>> Miss Broadwell
[0:31] » here.
>> Miss Denbo
[0:33] » here.
>> Miss Andis
[0:35] » Yes. here.
>> Mr. McComereber
[0:37] » here. [clears throat]
>> Mr. Phillips
[0:39] » here.
>> Mr. Reis
[0:40] » here.
>> Mr. Stalter
[0:42] » here. Mr. Wadd
>> here.
[0:46] The second item is the approval of
minutes for the August 5th, 2026
[0:51] meeting. Does anybody have any
corrections or
[0:56] other issues?
Hearing none. Is there a move to
[1:01] approve?
>> So moved.
[1:04] » Second.
>> Second.
[1:07] » Do we need to
[1:11] call it anyway?
>> All right.
[1:13] » So, everyone approved by voice vote.
Yes.
[1:16] » Yes. Yes.
>> Thank you very much.
[1:19] » Third item on the agenda is lobby
visitation. Uh before we open anything
[1:25] up there, I would like to uh remind
everyone that there is a signin sheet.
[1:30] So if you do in fact want to come up and
speak uh in front of the commission,
[1:34] please make sure that you sign in. Uh
we'd appreciate that. With that in mind,
[1:40] is there anyone who would like to come
up and address the commission today
[1:44] about anything uh else that is not on
the agenda?
[1:54] Seeing none, I guess we'll go to the
next item.
[1:58] Okay, we have a public hearing this
evening on the reszoning requests for
[2:04] 0.238 238 plus or minus acres located at
903 North Main Street identified as
[2:11] parcel numbers B 08 510
2 4 020
[2:19] 03300
0 and B 08
[2:25] 51024203
[2:31] 400 0
from pedestrian residential to medium
[2:37] density residential R2 zoning
classification. James Smith is the
[2:42] applicant and property owner.
Uh just wanted to read this quickly uh
[2:48] from the city here. Uh the purpose of
the public hearing a public hearing is a
[2:53] meeting that provides the opportunity
for public discussion regarding
[2:56] petitions for reasonzoning, annexation,
variance and special use. Today the
[3:02] issue is uh as we just read
uh interested parties may express their
[3:08] views and submit evidence supporting
those views at the public hearing. The
[3:13] information shared will become part of
the city's permanent record of the
[3:17] meeting and may be used by the planning
commission in forming its conclusions
[3:21] and making recommendations to the city
council. The planning commission is
[3:26] charged with conducting a fair and
impartial factf finding hearing.
[3:31] Accordingly, commissioners must remain
open-minded, objective, and impartial in
[3:37] considering testimony and forming a
decision. Okay? So, there's four parts
[3:42] to the public hearing. The first is the
staff report and then the applicant's
[3:47] testimony and then public testimony and
then finally deliberation by the
[3:53] commissioners. So with that, Heather, if
we could have the staff report, we'd
[3:59] appreciate it.
>> Absolutely. So, of course, the staff
[4:01] report is part of your packet. Um the
applicant, James Smith, is also the
[4:05] property owner. The reasoning request is
for pedestrian residential to be changed
[4:10] to R2 [clears throat] medium density
residential at 903 North Main Street,
[4:14] which is comprised of two parcels. One
parcel is 48 ft by 150 ft. Um then the
[4:20] other one is 24 ft by 150 ft.
All the procedural requirements for the
[4:26] hearing have been met under section
150.111 of the ordinances. That includes
[4:32] posting a sign on the property along
with uh posting in the public hearing in
[4:36] a newspaper of general circulation and
notifying all the adjoining property
[4:40] owners. The present use of the property,
it's been had an existing structure and
[4:44] a garage that's been vacant per our file
for many years. Uh proposed use
[4:49] according to the application is the
property owner would like to use the
[4:51] structure as a duplex home with an upper
and lower unit. Uh as you can tell I
[4:56] gave you quite a bit of a history that I
could find from our records. So we
[5:00] believe the residence was at least built
prior to 1915 since we did find the
[5:05] dwelling on a January 1915
Sanborn Insurance map. Um, that's a
[5:11] rabbit hole in itself that I don't need
to go much further into, but um, at
[5:14] least we know it was built prior to 1915
at least. Um, making it at least 111
[5:20] years old. Uh, still has some historic
architectural features left, including
[5:24] the original foundation and twotory
curve bay windows, for example.
[5:28] According to the application, the under
the rationale for the zoning request was
[5:32] that it has always been used as a
duplex. Uh, however, city records
[5:36] indicate the legal use as a single unit
dwelling. And I gave you a memo from the
[5:42] file titled exhibit C. While it may have
been used as a two-unit dwelling in the
[5:47] past for or for a short time, once the
use became a single unit dwelling, it no
[5:50] longer was considered a legal
non-conforming use per the city records.
[5:54] And I give you a copy of nonconformities
section 150.85 through 89 in our zoning
[6:00] code. Um, we also did some additional
research just to make sure we were
[6:03] crossing all our tees and dotting our
eyes. Uh, we looked at the utility
[6:07] business office, the utility accounts.
there is only one electric meter and one
[6:10] water meter to the site. Um we also
found a note that the pipes had burst in
[6:15] 2022.
Uh we also checked with public works
[6:18] department and they didn't have any
record of it being a duplex. They only
[6:21] charge for one can there. Normally a
duplex will have a can for each unit. Uh
[6:26] we also looked at the wood county
auditor website and found that the
[6:29] property was used as a single family
dwelling for at least property taxation
[6:33] purposes. Um, again, that letter that I
gave you, exhibit C from March 2nd,
[6:40] 1994, gives a pretty in-depth look at
the property being used as single unit
[6:44] dwelling, uh, including mentioning the
long-term residents, Clyde and Hazel
[6:49] Ursel, who lived there at least from the
1920s to 1970s. Uh there also was a note
[6:55] that they had added a kitchen to the
upstairs for visiting relatives and did
[6:58] rent it for a short time, but didn't
really it didn't really appeal to them
[7:02] to continue to rent after that one time.
Again, it's all per that memo I gave
[7:06] you.
Uh we also had another zoning code
[7:10] enforcement officer later on have a memo
in the file that talked about it uh the
[7:15] property being used as a duplex with a
contractor. uh the contractor had been
[7:19] inquiring about it and our code
enforcement officer told them or
[7:23] reminded them that they could not use a
duplex at that point in time and that
[7:25] was in 2024. Um we also had other
documentation in the file uh basically
[7:31] one zoning permit dated April 28th of
1995 which changed the pitch of the roof
[7:36] on the detached garage. We gave you a
copy of that. Uh we also have a couple
[7:40] of violation notices from the Wood
County Health Department to repair,
[7:43] replace the deteriorating second level
porch and porch roof, including all
[7:47] structural components, walking services,
means of egress, and required protective
[7:52] railings, handrails to ensure the porch
is safe, weather resistant, capable of
[7:55] supporting normal loads, and provides a
safe and unobstructed means of egress in
[8:00] compliance with sections 400.08
through10. And that's exhibit J. We also
[8:07] gave you a copy of the current zoning
classification of PR. So you can see the
[8:11] minimum lot depth with front yard
setback, sideyard, rear yard, structure
[8:15] height, lot coverage. And then we gave
you a copy of the proposed R2 with the
[8:20] same zone standards to give you an
example. Uh as far as traffic, nothing
[8:24] would change or has been requested. So
nothing [clears throat] needs to be
[8:28] followed per our access management
policies and guidelines. Uh, as far as
[8:32] public improvements, public utilities
are available on Curtis and North Main
[8:36] Street. Curtis Avenue has electric, a
6-in water line, a 42-in combined sewer.
[8:41] North Main Street has electric, a 12-in
water line, and an 18in combined sewer.
[8:47] The sidewalk exists along North Main
Street frontage, but there is not a
[8:50] sidewalk along Curtis Avenue.
Uh, the next section compares building
[8:57] and lot standards. So you'll see the
main differences between the PR and R2.
[9:01] There's a minimum lot area of 5,000
square ft in the R2. There is a minimum
[9:07] lot depth in the existing PR of 100 ft,
but there's not a minimum lot depth in
[9:11] the R2. The front side and rear yard
setbacks are the same and the structure
[9:16] height is 5 ft taller uh would be
allowed in the R2. And there is a lower
[9:22] lot coverage maximum of 65% in the R2
versus 70% maximum in the PR. Also gave
[9:29] you a comparison of permitted and
conditional uses. If you look at PR and
[9:34] R2, there's really not a whole lot of
major differences. So for example, PR
[9:40] does allow some light commercial uses
such as a barber shop, beauty shop, or
[9:44] day spa which would not be allowed under
the R2 zoning according to our
[9:48] comprehensive use table. Another
example, might be kind of odd to point
[9:52] this out, but a cemetery is allowable
conditional use or conditional use in
[9:56] the R2, but not in the PR. That's
another difference. A daycare center is
[10:00] allowed in PR, but not allowed in R2.
Um, another example is a mobile home
[10:05] park is a conditional use in R2, but not
PR. A mortterary or funeral home,
[10:10] ironically, is allowed a conditional use
in PR, but not R2, where you could have
[10:15] a cemetery. uh professional offices are
allowed are permitted in PR but not R2.
[10:22] Retail services are permitted in PR but
not the proposed R2. And um the main
[10:28] difference that we're discussing would
be the allowable use of a two-unit
[10:32] dwelling in R2 which is not allowed in
the pedestrian residential. However, you
[10:36] could have an accessory dwelling unit um
in the PR, but it would have to follow
[10:40] those specific um conditions within our
zoning code. So, as far as adjacent
[10:45] zoning, we've got that up on the screen
and also a map in your packet, but to
[10:50] the north is zone PR, residential, and a
little bit further northwest is mixeduse
[10:55] neighborhood zoning with residential and
commercial uses. To the east is zone PR,
[11:00] and a little bit further northeast is
zoned, again, that mixeduse neighborhood
[11:05] with some residential uses in a hair
salon. To the south is zone PR
[11:09] residential uses and to the west is zone
PR mostly residential uses and further
[11:14] northwest is another um MUN zoning
mixeduse neighborhood. So the staff
[11:20] recommendation is neutral for this
request for many reasons that um I tried
[11:24] to cover by going into sections. So
first I review the future land use plan
[11:29] and then the future land use map. Then
the next section I look at the community
[11:33] action plan and then um I basically
summarize the staff report with pictures
[11:39] and um references to the exhibits.
So if we look at our seven principles
[11:46] when you look at these I figured there's
at least five of the principles that do
[11:50] get covered by this request out of the
seven. So you know that's that's
[11:53] positive when it comes to highly livable
urban form that creates preserves a
[11:57] community.
and we looked at local flavor and
[12:01] character. It's very walkable and
adjacent to the downtown, which of
[12:04] course we want more people to support
our downtown and um the great market we
[12:09] have there that uh really needs that
small local support. Uh broad housing
[12:14] spectrum, good neighbor neighborhoods,
and easy access to health and fitness.
[12:18] It's a very walkable neighborhood u very
close again to downtown city park, even
[12:22] Ridge Park, Worster Green.
For the next section, we look at
[12:27] applying the action items of the future
land use plan under the priority area
[12:32] northeast sub area. This area is shown
on the map and the goals of this area it
[12:38] says is in addition to tree proposed
there's also ADUs on alleys as a
[12:44] recommendation which you know our zoning
code again as I mentioned already allows
[12:46] accessory dwelling units as long as they
meet the conditions. Um, also on the
[12:51] future land use map, the area is uh the
color orange, which is which is
[12:55] recommended as traditional residential
with retail permissions. And that's on
[13:00] pages 47 through 48 of the land use
plan. And also under that map section,
[13:06] there's principles, priorities, and fit.
And it's under number one mentions
[13:10] Bowling Green has concluded the
traditional urban core, urban core in
[13:14] orange should be the primary focus of
redevelopment.
[13:19] Uh section three, we review the
community action plan which was
[13:23] completed in 2018. And this area fits
into priority three, single family
[13:28] reinvestment areas. And the color on
that map is yellow, which calls for
[13:32] lower density residential. And again,
that's covered on pages 6 and 38 of the
[13:38] community action plan. Um the other
priorities of priority 3 or excuse me
[13:43] strategies that they encourage are
renovations, public improvements to
[13:48] simulate private investment and
marketing the uniqueness of these areas
[13:51] to the broader region. And again this is
what the community action plan says
[13:55] exactly for this area of where this home
is.
[14:00] I gave you a copy too of the preferred
plan labeled diagram one.
[14:07] So in summary, after reviewing all these
various planning documents, it does
[14:11] support the future land use plan
intention statement to have a diverse
[14:14] community of residents, business owners,
shopkeepers, students to be economically
[14:18] viable, environmentally sustainable,
comprised of households that work
[14:22] together to steward scarce natural
resources and neighborhoods to be
[14:25] walkable, safe, and vibrant. Um,
supports the five of the seven
[14:29] principles. does not necessarily support
the future land use map as traditional
[14:34] residential with retail perm
permissions. Since I mentioned that PR
[14:38] does allow the retail permissions,
whereas the R2 would not allow any of
[14:41] those retail permissions except a home
occupation. Obviously, you could be a
[14:45] lawyer at your house and and that would
be um allowed to be doing that. um
[14:51] unclear if it supports the low density
recommendation of the community action
[14:54] plan since that's a bit subjective to
say a one family versus a two family is
[14:59] lower density. I mean I personally
consider it lower density but other
[15:02] people may not consider that lower
density. So I want to just recognize
[15:06] that that's really subjective. Um
however the rehabilitation of this
[15:11] building does meet the primary focus
area of redevelopment in the CAP which
[15:14] is around the urban core of the city.
This would preserve a historic structure
[15:19] and that's by definition. Our historic
structure is defined as 50 years or
[15:23] older and having architectural features
that are historic and having residents
[15:29] that have potentially submitted to or
been part of our culture, our past
[15:32] history. Um, also under chapter 158 of
our historic architectural preservation
[15:38] code, which encourages the saving of
resources and this is better for the
[15:42] environment, avoiding the landfill
debris and costs along with the embodied
[15:45] energy of those who built the structure
at least 111 years ago and would add
[15:49] much needed housing. However, there is
not any R2 zoning near this property, so
[15:54] this could be considered spot zoning.
However, there are other legal
[15:57] non-conforming uses, two-unit dwellings,
three-unit dwellings, and apartments
[16:01] along North Main Street between Poe and
Clay, and we have highlighted those in
[16:05] exhibit K of your packet, at least 16
that we counted on the list that we gave
[16:11] you. Uh, as a reminder, this is a
recommendation to city council, so
[16:15] they're still required to also hold a
public hearing. Uh, to finish my report,
[16:19] I also give you several pictures of the
property, front, back, and sides, and
[16:24] the detached building.
uh using pictometry, we give you some
[16:28] different aerial views of the prop
property that you can see along Curtis
[16:32] and Main Street, a copy of the
application and also all the other
[16:37] exhibits that were mentioned in the
report.
[16:41] So hopefully I covered all you wanted to
and maybe even too much. Um but I'm
[16:45] happy to answer any questions you may
have about the report or anything else.
[16:51] [clears throat]
>> Are there any questions?
[16:55] I have one. So, um, will the structure
be maintained?
[16:59] » Can you talk in the microphone? Sorry.
>> Will the structure of the building be
[17:02] maintained?
>> Um, I believe so, but I believe that
[17:06] would be a better um question for the
applicant who is here.
[17:09] » Okay.
[17:13] Any other questions?
Thank you, Heather. Appreciate that. So,
[17:18] now we'll hear testimony from the
applicant. Is Mr. representative here,
[17:23] please.
[17:31] » Good evening. I'm AJ Smith. I am uh son
of Jim Patith who own the property.
[17:37] » I guess I'll start from the beginning.
Uh this was owned by my grandparents who
[17:41] owned Al Smith Chrysler. Um to address
the duplex part, the reason my grandpa
[17:47] was a car person, not a real estate
person. He owned the brick house next to
[17:51] it, which I've lived into. Great house.
The home uh that Lee lives in in the
[17:55] middle, and then this white house and
the stone house behind it. He tried
[18:00] several times in the '9s with probably
this council to tear down those houses
[18:05] and put a new dealership there. That was
his dream. That's why he wasn't a real
[18:11] estate guy. That's why he never did the
duplex. He bought those houses to tear
[18:15] them down to build a new duplex or I
mean a new dealership. That's why I did
[18:19] it.
As far as I lived there, it was a duplex
[18:24] from the late 90s to the early 2000s. My
sisters lived there during college. It
[18:27] was a duplex. Uh after that, uh my
grandparents got old, they let uh my
[18:34] cousin stay there for free who used it
as just a one house. And then when his
[18:38] brother wanted to move in there, it was
back to a duplex, an upper and a lower.
[18:42] uh it has sat vacant for a long time
because when they passed away in 2012
[18:45] and went to a trust with multiple people
and we all know how that goes. Nobody
[18:49] wants to put money into a place when not
one person owns it. So my parents did
[18:55] get control I think 2021 or 2022 but by
this time they're in their 80s and
[19:00] they're car people too. Um and they
didn't know what to do with it and so
[19:04] they asked for my help so here I am. Um,
it has a bathroom upstairs, a kitchen
[19:10] upstairs, a separate entrance from the
front upstairs. That's how we always
[19:13] used it. One door that's locked from the
inside separates the other side. The
[19:19] bottom unit, you walk in from the back
and it's there. There's nine parking
[19:23] spots, four in the driveway, two in the
uh garage, and three along the side. So,
[19:28] there's ample parking. And if this were
to stay as a single residence, there's
[19:32] six to seven bedrooms anyways in this
house. So there isn't going to be a big
[19:36] difference as far as the number of
people living in this place. Really none
[19:40] that I can tell. Then I would go to if
you go from this building down to PO
[19:46] which is about five blocks. There is
over 20 multi-unit places including five
[19:53] 1 to 19 unit and up to six offices with
apartments above it. They don't list how
[19:58] many there are. That's just on Main
Street. If I were to take my time and go
[20:03] from Main Street to Grove, I'd probably
more than double that number. So, this
[20:07] is not unusual. This is a rental
neighborhood. I live three blocks away,
[20:11] one house in from Main Street. And
there's an old classic house next to me
[20:15] that is a three-bedroom place, and I'm
fine. I know what neighborhood I live
[20:19] in. Two houses down from this was an old
high school classmate. It's been listed
[20:25] for rent by New Love. So, this is a
rental neighborhood. That's what this
[20:30] is. So, I would go there as well.
Finally,
[20:35] there's no classic features on this
house. I'm not going to tear down
[20:39] anything. I'm going to completely redo
it with the help of my family. We're
[20:42] going to put new windows in, new duck
work, new kitchens, new bathrooms, split
[20:49] the lines, everything. When my
grandparents did leases, I can't find
[20:53] them. So, I can't give you any leases.
That was well over 30 years ago. So, I
[20:59] don't have that for you. But again, I
don't know of a 100-y old home with
[21:03] separate entrances with a kitchen
upstairs, a kitchen downstairs, a
[21:06] bathroom up, and a bathroom down that
are separated. I've never seen it, and
[21:10] I'm in real estate. So, I've never seen
that at all. And then my last point
[21:15] would be that there's precedent for
this. Within the last two years, uh 416
[21:19] West Worster, right next to Dun is a
much more classic home. Uh actually it's
[21:26] in the the twob block radius which I
would call as a lifelong resident the
[21:30] the most historical neighborhood in in
the town and it was uh allowed and it
[21:35] has sat and hasn't been worked on and
it's still vacant. That won't happen
[21:39] with this house. We will get it done but
we want to do it the right way. We want
[21:44] to split the lines. And then the last
point I would say is I'm in real estate.
[21:48] There is many homes in this city that
are duplexes that don't have the their
[21:54] utility split. Many. I'm not going to go
through and name them, but there's many.
[21:59] So, uh, in the end, I'm not changing
what this place was uh used as. I'm not
[22:05] adding a bunch of walls. I'm not tearing
into a bunch of stuff. In fact, I'm
[22:09] going to put well over $100,000 into
this, which will increase all the
[22:12] neighborhoods value. So, I would think
that would be something that they would
[22:16] like and I would think it would be
something the city would like cuz I just
[22:20] think that's what the city needs. People
that actually take care of their stuff
[22:23] and redo it. So, I thank you for your
time.
[22:26] » Thank you. Are there any questions?
[22:31] None. Thank you very much. Appreciate
it.
[22:33] » Yep.
>> Okay. At this point, we'll hear
[22:37] testimony from the public. Any
[clears throat] uh member of the public
[22:40] who'd like to address the commission may
come forward at this time. Please come
[22:44] to the microphone at the podium and
state your name and address for the
[22:48] record and uh please spell your last
name.
[22:53] Any volunteers? Anyone who wants to
speak?
[22:59] » Howdy.
>> I wrote things down because I'm a little
[23:02] nervous.
My name is Lee Liatru. L I E B E T R E
[23:08] U. I live at 909 North Main Street, the
house just north of the property that
[23:13] we're discussing.
I'm here tonight to respectfully ask
[23:17] that you deny the request.
I'm not opposed to development or
[23:22] anybody improving their properties. In
fact, I've spent years doing that. Every
[23:26] dime I have has gone into the house that
I live in.
[23:31] Something needs repair, I repair it.
This was once a beautiful old majestic
[23:37] Victorian home that has deteriorated.
It's been empty for about 10 years. It
[23:43] was used as a single family home before
that. I mean, it literally has gardens
[23:48] growing in the gutters. So, to think
that he's going to start taking care of
[23:52] it now when he hasn't in the past is a
little surprising to me. He's talked to
[24:00] me. He actually showed me the property
last year with some of his ideas with
[24:04] four bedrooms upstairs and four
downstairs.
[24:08] And
um I don't want beer pong on the front
[24:13] yard. I don't want cornhole being played
next to me
[24:17] and that's all I see going into there.
$100,000.
[24:22] It could probably use at least 150.
He talked about a kitchen being
[24:28] upstairs. It's plumbed for a kitchen.
There is no kitchen up there. There's
[24:33] five bedrooms upstairs. There's no
bedrooms downstairs. So, I don't know
[24:37] where the seven came from either. And I
don't understand where the parking would
[24:42] be. There's There is a twocar garage
that's filled. I I don't know how that
[24:48] would work with a twocar garage and then
more parking behind it. That's all there
[24:55] is. So, I I see parking for possibly
four cars at the most.
[25:02] I would like to think that my quality of
life means something to y'all. Also,
[25:07] with as much money as I've put into my
home, we've all made significant
[25:11] investments. We we maintain them. We
repair them. We improve them. We do that
[25:16] with the understanding that the
residential character of our
[25:18] neighborhood matters.
[snorts]
[25:22] by if restoring this property to a
single family home is too much for the
[25:27] current owners, then I would ask that
they sell it and let somebody else move
[25:32] in there that can that can manage all of
the repairs that it's going to need.
[25:38] If the zoning is changed to accommodate
an eight-bedroom use with inadequate
[25:42] parking, the burden of that decision,
excuse me, falls not only on the
[25:46] property owner, it falls on every one of
the neighbors that's invested their time
[25:50] and money and life into maintaining
their home. I respectfully ask the city
[25:55] council consider us too and that you
deny the petition. Thank you.
[26:01] » Thank you.
>> Is there anyone else who'd like to uh
[26:07] address respond to that real quick.
>> I think it's insulting.
[26:11] » Can you come to the mic to me?
>> I'm I'm sorry, Mr. Smith, if you could
[26:15] come back to the podium, please.
[26:23] » I think it's insulting to insinuate that
college students are bad renters and
[26:27] that I'm going or my family's only going
to rent to college students. I have
[26:31] plenty of properties in town and more
than half of them I probably put at 70%
[26:36] are to regular people, not college
students. But again, I I think that's
[26:41] insulting.
[26:44] Is there anyone else who would like to
address the commission?
[26:49] [clears throat and cough]
[26:55] » Good evening. Um I'm Sheri Layman. I
live at 136 Curtis Avenue and my name is
[27:02] spelled l a y m an not like the street.
Um
[27:09] we have rental properties on our street
and I'm fine with having rental
[27:13] properties on our street as long as they
take care, mow the grass, shovel the
[27:20] snow, you know, do all the things. My
concern about this house is parking is
[27:27] tight on our street. It's not really a
you can't park up by Main Street. There
[27:35] is a twocar driveway and a twocar
garage, but I'm worried about spillover
[27:41] parking creeping down the street. And
when we have guests or relatives over,
[27:48] my driveway can accommodate some but not
all of them. And so that's a major
[27:54] concern um to me. The property as
vacant,
[28:00] yeah, it's kind of dilapidated, but the
grass is mowed and you know those kind
[28:04] of things. So I don't have an issue with
that. But I have an issue with more
[28:10] rentals on an already crowded street
when parking is at a premium already.
[28:18] » Thank you.
>> M Let me ask you a question. I I'm
[28:21] wanted to clarify the parking situation
>> because I'm hearing different things.
[28:26] There's they can park two cars in the
garage, right? Yeah.
[28:29] » And then the the other two are just the
entrance to the garage in the driveway
[28:34] entering the garage.
>> Yes.
[28:36] » How about And then along Curtis Avenue.
Is there parking along there?
[28:40] » Well, you have Main Street and you can't
park up by the stop sign. So, it would
[28:45] be [clears throat and cough]
>> the garage.
[28:48] » Past the garage. Is that right? Yeah.
>> Pass past the past the um alley.
[28:55] » Okay. Any additional parking would be
past this properties
[29:01] » border.
>> Yes.
[29:03] » Okay.
>> Okay.
[29:04] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[29:14] » You're going to have to excuse me
because I don't speak well in front of
[29:18] people. But I did want to come here
tonight. Uh, I've known Lee for a very
[29:22] long time.
>> Excuse me, ma'am. Please.
[29:24] » Oh, I'm so sorry. My name is Sean
Reeves, 324 Sunrise Drive. Reeves. Re ee
[29:31] ves.
>> Thank you.
[29:33] » Um, so I've known Lee for a very long
time. She's always lived in that house.
[29:37] We've known each other about 12 years.
I've never known the house to really be
[29:42] vacant enough for me to pay attention
to. And they also own the beautiful like
[29:48] Snow White cottage in the back too. It's
just begging to be redone. Um I myself
[29:56] purchased the Lincoln house and it was a
college party house basically. Uh I
[30:03] attempted to turn it into the town's
first historical bed and breakfast but I
[30:07] ran out of money. And [sighs]
uh I will tell you when you're driving
[30:13] through town on the north end of town,
it has a different vibe.
[30:19] When you reach south of the businesses
and stuff, it has a different vibe. And
[30:25] the difference to me there is the
college students. And I understand how
[30:31] important they are to our community.
However,
[30:35] I don't want North Main Street to start
looking like South Main Street, and this
[30:41] is where it starts. I did offer to
purchase that home. I was given the
[30:46] price of $200,000,
to which I declined. Um,
[30:52] I think that it should remain a single
family home. Thank you.
[30:57] » Thank you.
[31:02] Is there anyone else?
[31:09] » Hello, my name is Felicia Boyd. I live
at Oh, sorry. B O Y D. I live at 823
[31:16] North Main Street. So, the house on the
other side of Curtis, but still next to
[31:20] this property.
And I had to bring my notes, too,
[31:24] because I don't remember everything
well.
[31:28] So, I am asking the commission to
carefully consider the proposed resoning
[31:32] of this property from pedestrian
residential to medium density. My
[31:36] concern is not necessarily about
renters. I do know that we have renters
[31:40] um along Curtis and also actually right
next door to me. Um I just met my new
[31:44] neighbor. She's lovely. Um
I'm not really concerned about who may
[31:50] ultimately live there. My concern is
more about the change in density and how
[31:53] that change would affect the existing
residential neighborhood and the
[31:57] properties immediately surrounding it.
Um much like others have said, it is
[32:01] somewhat of already congested street. Um
since I live right on the corner with
[32:06] this property, I do often see that if if
there is anyone parked where you're
[32:10] allowed after the yellow line, um
traffic coming in and coming out, it can
[32:15] get a little bit congested at times. Um
especially when we have, you know, our
[32:20] community events like Black Swamp,
people they park, they walk. Um
[32:24] [clears throat]
but it's aside from those times of the
[32:27] year, it is already pretty congested. Um
we do tend to notice when there's a lot
[32:32] of parking on our street when we try to
back out of our driveway since some of
[32:35] the parking is right at the end of ours.
Um
[32:39] there would be possibly um substantially
more vehicles, parking demand, traffic,
[32:45] noise, activity, and then reduced
privacy for those of us who live
[32:49] directly around that property. I
respectfully ask the commission to
[32:53] carefully consider the impact this
change would have on the surrounding
[32:56] homeowners and renters and their quality
of life and to please deny the resoning
[33:00] request. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[33:15] Good evening. My name is Tom Kiger, Ki
Ger. I live at 148 Curtis. That's four
[33:22] houses down from the subject property.
Uh,
[33:28] first of all, I'd like to provide some
additional information that the city
[33:32] maybe doesn't have. I was over at the
county courthouse. According to the
[33:37] auditor's department, the house in
question was built in 1900.
[33:44] I went over to the public library. I
went through the city directories
[33:50] from 1897
to 2025.
[33:57] They're not sequential, but
there's a couple or three years between
[34:03] each volume.
In 1947
[34:07] and in 1949,
there was a listing for a 9003 12 North
[34:14] Main Street.
That suggests to me that in those dates
[34:19] there was in fact a duplex there
that supports the uh information
[34:27] that is in the memorandum to the city
[34:32] paragraph 5.
Uh further on in 1980
[34:40] 82 and 84
uh Mrs. Ursel who lived there at the
[34:45] time. Mrs. Hazel Ursel had a had a
roommate uh Rebecca Pringle
[34:52] who was taking care of her. Uh she was
also listed
[34:58] in those directories and that would help
substantiate the information in in
[35:03] paragraph six of the city's memorandum.
Uh
[35:10] I mentioned the house is built in
according to the county 1900.
[35:16] If you look at uh
your handout, the handout that was
[35:22] provided to us on page 25,
you basically see the south side of the
[35:28] house looking northeast. And you can see
there's the stub of a little side porch
[35:35] there.
Uh historically that was part of a much
[35:39] larger wraparound porch that went from
the side around to the front and that
[35:45] was a piece of historic architecture
that's already been removed from the
[35:49] house. Unfortunately,
[35:53] if you also look in your packet
on page 28,
[35:59] you'll see a picture of the two-car
garage.
[36:04] And it's been stated that you could park
two cars in the garage and you could
[36:09] park two cars in the in the driveway.
Well, that's true. You could park
[36:14] vehicles,
but you can't get them out,
[36:18] right? You can't get the two cars out of
the garage because you got two cars in
[36:22] the driveway.
Uh
[36:27] earlier this evening, uh I took pictures
of typical parking on our street and I
[36:36] sent them to a couple of members of the
committee and I sent them to your
[36:40] committee president. Uh I didn't know
how to get them put up on the screen. Uh
[36:47] the street was full
from my [snorts] house all the way down
[36:52] to Main Street. We can park on one side
of the street. That's fine. We can park
[36:56] on the north side,
but between
[37:01] driveways,
and you know, you have to have a little
[37:05] yellow space next to your driveway so
nobody cut you off access.
[37:10] The street was full.
This wasn't a weekend. This wasn't a
[37:15] special event.
It's just life on Curtis Avenue.
[37:22] There's been discussion about
renting.
[37:29] Yes, we have rental properties on Curtis
Avenue.
[37:33] Their homes,
families live there. [snorts]
[37:38] Husband and a wife with their kids.
[37:42] That's a totally different type of
rental property
[37:46] than what might be encountered by a
duplex with the potential for four
[37:53] bedrooms upstairs and four bedrooms
downstairs,
[37:57] which would be allowable under that kind
of zoning.
[38:02] So, that doesn't sound bad, right? Eight
people.
[38:05] But you have to think about it. eight
people turns into 16
[38:10] because we have significant others.
You know, the boyfriend or the
[38:14] girlfriend or the husband or wife are
going to come and visit.
[38:18] Where are they going to park?
The street's full.
[38:23] You can't fit them in the garage. You
can't fit them in the driveway.
[38:28] Yes, there's a alley
that runs
[38:33] just to the west of the property behind
the property. Runs for two blocks. It's
[38:38] a single lane alley. It's paved.
There's no parking on the alley. There
[38:42] isn't enough room. If you parked a car
there, your car is going to get hit.
[38:48] Nobody has talked about
snow removal in the winter.
[38:55] If these alleys are full, where's the
snow plow going to go? If the street is
[39:00] full, we're not going to get our street
plowed properly. We're going to have one
[39:05] lane.
It's going to be a mess.
[39:10] Not to mention, with this house being on
the corner, it's going to provide
[39:15] additional traffic
at a corner intersection.
[39:20] those 8 to 16 people are going to be
going in of that out of that property
[39:26] and that intersection is not designed
for that volume of traffic. I'm sorry,
[39:30] it's just not.
[39:37] I could provide other information.
I believe there are other members of the
[39:42] neighborhood that that might also speak
to this, but in essence,
[39:48] turning that building into a multifamily
duplex does not fit the residential
[39:54] neighborhood, the family neighborhood
that we have. It just doesn't. [snorts]
[40:01] If we look down to South Maine, we can
see numerous old, beautiful homes
[40:09] that have had this very thing happen to
them. And those are certainly not in
[40:14] keeping with what we want to have down
here on Curtis Avenue in the fourth
[40:18] ward.
>> [snorts]
[40:20] » I would ask for your consideration
that you reject this application and
[40:27] help us keep our neighborhood a nice
strong neighborhood. Thank you.
[40:32] Any questions?
[40:36] » Nope. Thank you.
>> I Excuse me. I do have a question.
[40:39] [clears throat] Um, so when you did your
research, which is very helpful, and you
[40:42] said there was a 903 and a half.
>> Yes, ma'am.
[40:45] » A couple times. So what you're saying
was that was in the past and then since
[40:48] then it's been a single family.
>> Yes, ma'am.
[40:51] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Uh specifically in 1947,
[40:56] [snorts] uh Clyde and Hazel Ershel lived
in 9003
[41:02] and 9003 and a half was listed as Mrs.
Lahi Gmershaw Gomerol.
[41:11] Uh, and as you know, typically when you
go through city directories, if there is
[41:16] a duplex, it it's always a number and
then that number and a half.
[41:22] » So, I didn't see any place
since 1947 or 1949
[41:29] where the city directory substantiated
that it was a duplex.
[41:33] » Thank you.
[41:40] Is there anyone else who'd like to
address the commission?
[41:48] » Hello. Uh, my name is Lynn Pearson. Um,
P A R S O N. Um, I live at 127 Curtis
[41:56] Avenue. Um, and I just uh
um I share the concerns that my
[42:02] neighbors have described about the
congestion on our street. Um, we only
[42:09] have parking on one side of the street
and if people have guests over or if
[42:15] there's a party, the street fills up
very quickly. Um, I would also like to
[42:22] say is turning off of Main Street is
sometimes really dicey because there is
[42:27] parking in front of the the the property
that we're talking about. And you really
[42:35] can only go into this one little
space and wait for the other car that's
[42:41] coming off of Curtis to turn into North
Main. Um, and people in North Main are
[42:48] beeping at you [laughter] because you're
just having to wait um and kind of
[42:52] negotiate to let the space open up. And
this is a regular occurrence. So, it's
[42:57] not just
um black swamp or not just, you know,
[43:04] when there are other things going on in
the city. Um, I do recognize that
[43:09] there's a need for um,
multi-use properties and I'm a college
[43:16] professor, so I know my college students
need places to live. But in terms of our
[43:22] street, I just am concerned about the
possible congestion,
[43:27] um, the limited parking spaces that the
property has. And so for that reason um
[43:34] I support what my neighbors have said
and ask you to consider carefully the uh
[43:40] the application and to deny it. Thank
you.
[43:46] » Thank you.
[43:51] » I I'd like to readress just for one
second. I I forgot to submit my my
[43:56] paperwork, which was the uh directory
review with all of the uh [snorts] the
[44:03] address dates. So, who would I give that
to to get into the record?
[44:07] » Jason, please. Appreciate it.
[44:18] » Is there anyone else?
>> Just a second if you would, Mr. Smith.
[44:23] Is there anybody else who would like to
address us?
[44:28] » Hello. Uh, my name is Megan McMorris. M
C M O R R I S and I live at 821 North
[44:36] Maine. And um I'm new to this. I'm new
to Bowling Green. I've only been here
[44:42] three weeks and I'm a renter. So, I
think I wanted to just pipe up on behalf
[44:47] of Tom came to my door yesterday and
that's when I learned about this. But I
[44:51] also had seen the sign and I was a
little concerned myself. Um I think the
[44:56] issue isn't owning versus renting. I
think we've cleared that up. Um [snorts]
[45:01] when I first saw the sign, I was a
little I was like, "Oh no, could this be
[45:05] happening again?" You see, I just moved
I'm a I'm a native of Bowling Green.
[45:09] That's why I moved back after 35 years.
I just moved from Portland, Oregon,
[45:13] where I was for 26 years. And [laughter]
I thought, "Oh no, could this be
[45:18] happening in Bowling Green?" Now,
granted, there's what I'm talking about.
[45:21] There's a lot of redevelopment, tearing
down places and um multi-use. I lived in
[45:27] this wonderful neighborhood and I saw it
over and over again um in displacement.
[45:31] Now, that's not happening here, nor am I
saying that. And I and I see you out
[45:36] there working and I'm not trying to rein
I don't I'm new to this. I'm just trying
[45:39] to I just wanted to um say it's not
about the renting. I think we've
[45:43] ascertained that. Um I just feel it's a
slippery slope. I I'm not quite certain
[45:49] about the duplex. If it's simply a
duplex, that's fine. Um the four
[45:53] bedrooms, I I am wondering about the
congestion. I love this area and I'm
[45:58] going to be whether renting or owning
for Bowling in Bowling Green for a while
[46:02] and I'm worried about about my
neighbors. Thank you so much.
[46:06] » Thank you. Is there anyone else?
[46:26] My name is Tom Knox. I'm speaking as a
resident of Bowling Green's fourth ward
[46:33] for over 50 years.
I'm speaking also as the owner of the
[46:39] late 19th century house recently
acquired at auction which is next to my
[46:46] own.
For more than 50 years it was the duplex
[46:51] rental
progressively less well-maintained if at
[46:55] all [gasps]
until it became uninhabited because it
[47:00] was uninhabitable.
Uh if all goes well, it will return as a
[47:07] single family owner occupied home that
fits into its neighborhood
[47:14] on North Maple Street
and be available at a moderate price by
[47:21] today's standards.
[47:25] Such an endeavor
as this
[47:29] is a fool's errand, however, if the
zoning code does not mean what it says.
[47:36] Okay.
To turn to the case at hand, in a very
[47:41] few instances, a serious argument can be
made for spot zoning.
[47:46] [gasps]
The current appeal for reszoning
[47:50] of 903 North Main Street from pedestrian
residential to R2 is not
[47:58] one of those cases. Okay. [gasps]
Uh the structure is in a series of
[48:05] blocks on the west side of North Main
Street that remain single family homes
[48:10] or at least retain the appearance of
such.
[48:14] For the most part, they were built in
the half century or so before World War
[48:19] II, and thus they reflect changes in
Bowling Green's residential architecture
[48:24] over several generations.
[48:28] » [sighs]
>> They and
[48:32] the houses on West Worester are arguably
what the public generally can see of
[48:39] Oldtown Bowling Green outside the
business district.
[48:47] The heart of the application for
reasonzoning is a vague and unsupported
[48:52] assertion that the house has always been
used as a duplex
[48:59] and an unspoken assumption
that that justifies a reasonzoning to
[49:06] bring it in line with the alleged use.
[49:12] I think even a short glance
at what was once one of the grander
[49:19] houses in Bowling Green suggests that
for at least many decades of its
[49:26] existence, it was never used as a
duplex. It functioned instead as a
[49:33] single family home.
>> [gasps]
[49:38] » The duration of ownership by the
applicant's family precludes anything
[49:43] other than occasional or historically
short-term use as a duplex.
[49:52] And I think uh the planning department
can confirm that [sighs and gasps]
[49:59] the house has been vacant in recent
years, not days, not weeks, not months,
[50:06] years,
and during that time it has not been
[50:10] used as a duplex.
Uh a further question,
[50:17] what exactly
does used as a duplex mean and does it
[50:23] justify a resoning?
[gasps] Uh the purpose of the sought
[50:31] after resoning is to remodel
to remodel this house into a duplex.
[50:41] There are few walls or facilities in the
structure that would suggest it was ever
[50:46] actually duplexed.
Observe from the outside, there is
[50:51] single electrical service and there's
nothing to suggest there was ever
[50:55] anything other than single electrical
service.
[51:00] uh this would account for the stated
objective in the application of
[51:07] remodeling
the structure into a duplex and
[51:12] splitting the lines.
The house has clearly suffered neglect
[51:19] as has an adjoining vacant property
owned by the applicant.
[51:24] But reszoning should not be a reward for
vacancy
[51:29] and owner negligence.
[51:33] In short, the application for resoning
is a self-serving convenience for the
[51:38] owner, no matter the grievous damage it
will do to the adjoining property owner,
[51:44] the neighborhood, or the integrity of
the zoning code.
[51:50] Moreover, if granted, resoning will
repeat a mistake regarding older housing
[51:56] stock that has been been made many,
many, many, too many times in Bowling
[52:03] Green.
As for the applicant, he has and has had
[52:09] other alternatives that comply with the
existing zoning code, and he has chosen
[52:14] not to take them.
Thank you.
[52:19] Mr. Knox, could you uh for the record
state your address, please?
[52:28] » And his last name.
>> I'm not sure.
[52:34] » I'm sorry.
[52:39] [clears throat]
[52:42] » I'm hard of hearing.
>> That's fine. No problem. Thank you. Oh,
[52:46] Mr. Ox, please, if you could, just for
the record, state your state your
[52:50] address. If you could state your
address, please for the record.
[52:53] » Will I state my what for the
>> address, please?
[52:56] » Oh, 217 North Maple Street.
>> All right. Thank you very much.
[53:00] Appreciate that.
[53:07] Is there anyone else? Yes, ma'am.
[53:18] My name is Rose Drain and I live at 228
East Court Street. Uh, my last name is
[53:26] spelled D R A I N. [clears throat]
[53:32] I am speaking this evening on behalf of
the board of directors of BG Save Our
[53:37] Neighborhoods Group, which requests that
the planning commission deny the
[53:43] application to reszone 903 North Main
Street from pedestrian residential to
[53:48] R2.
The 2023 zoning code was adopted to
[53:54] establish a more consistent, fair, and
equitable set of requirements to
[54:00] accommodate a variety of housing and
building needs within the city. Council
[54:04] and the administration worked hard over
many, many months to address the needs
[54:10] of all areas and neighborhoods while
working to preserve Bowling Green's
[54:15] sense of place. The resulting policy
decisions should be respected and upheld
[54:21] by the planning commission when
considering requests for resoning.
[54:28] During that process of the zoning code
rewrite, many citizens of Bowling Green
[54:35] came together. More than 600 people
signed a petition
[54:41] with the strong view of weighing in on
the ordinances that would impact affect
[54:48] the zoning of what is now the pedestrian
residential district. With a strong
[54:54] united voice, the people asked council
and the administration to write zoning
[54:59] code to address the conversion of single
family homes to income producing
[55:04] multi-unit rentals and the associated
loss of owner occupied housing in the
[55:11] district.
Both practices have been identified as
[55:16] the driving force behind the observed
overall loss of economic vitality and
[55:22] vibrancy in Bowling Green that were
detailed in the city's 2014 land use
[55:29] plan and reiterated in the 2018
community action plan.
[55:36] residents urged council to curtail these
practices in the PR district and create
[55:41] zoning to improve opportunity for owner
occupied residences, support social
[55:47] cohesion, and preserve historic
relevance, local character, and unique
[55:52] neighborhood qualities. An issue on
which residents remained firm was that
[55:59] additional duplexes should not be
permitted in the PR district. On June
[56:05] 12th, 2023
in this room, council agreed with a
[56:11] unanimous vote to prohibit additional
duplexes in the PR district.
[56:20] It's clear that the property at 903
North Main Street has not been
[56:24] maintained. Indeed, it's known to have
been unoccupied for at least 10 years
[56:30] and is in need of serious repair.
[snorts]
[56:33] Reszoning this property would undermine
the PR district's goal of presuming
[56:38] preserving opportunities for home
ownership by allowing another single
[56:44] family home to be converted to a
two-unit rental property.
[56:50] Granting the request would also serve to
weaken the zoning standards established
[56:55] for the PR district. when the commission
agreed to grant the zoning request um of
[57:04] Ana Miller to change uh the property uh
at West Worcester Street. Um
[57:13] the planning commission
[snorts]
[57:17] [clears throat]
decided that that was an exceptional
[57:23] case because of the historic nature of
the property. um and that because of the
[57:31] stated use by the um by Ana Miller that
it was going to be turned into um higher
[57:40] quality rentals that would be um an
asset to the neighborhood.
[57:48] Um,
[clears throat] also to speak to
[57:52] Abashek's question, um, regarding
whether the structure would be kept
[57:58] intact, um, once the the parcel is zoned
R2,
[58:04] um, the owner can do anything with it.
Um, and so the the property could be
[58:11] torn down if Mr. Smith decides he
doesn't want to put um $100,000 into the
[58:18] property, it could be torn down and um
the the lot could be used um to build
[58:26] something else uh a duplex in the R2.
So rather than allowing additional homes
[58:34] in the PR district to be converted to
rental use, we would encourage the city
[58:40] to work with residents and organizations
like BG Song to identify additional ways
[58:45] to support the rehabilitation of older
homes and return them to viable owner
[58:51] occupied housing. Doing so would
preserve the neighborhood character
[58:56] while creating new opportunities for
home ownership. The PR district was
[59:01] created in part to protect those
opportunities. Reszoning this property
[59:06] would work against that purpose. And for
these reasons, the board of BG Save Our
[59:12] Neighborhoods Group asks the planning
commission to deny the request to
[59:16] reszone 903 North Main Street from
pedestrian residential to R2. Thank you.
[59:24] » Are there any questions?
[59:28] » Thank you.
[59:31] Is there anyone else who wants to
address the uh commission?
[59:41] » Hearing none. Hearing none. I just want
to ask the commission. Does the
[59:45] commission have any problems with Mr.
Smith coming back one last time?
[59:49] » No.
>> Okay, fine. Mr. Smith, [clears throat]
[59:58] » I just want to address two things. Uh,
one is the parking. When I lived there,
[1:00:03] there was four people upstairs and then
separate three people down. Same thing
[1:00:06] when my sisters live there. We had zero
issues with cars. And there's again 937,
[1:00:12] 934, 625, 617, 611, 610, 616. Those are
all multi-units within two blocks of
[1:00:19] this place. And there's five one to 19
units within several blocks of this.
[1:00:26] This is the neighborhood. Second, one of
the neighbors here has parked two cars
[1:00:31] in front of this house for years. In
fact, they've called my parents and
[1:00:35] asked if they could use the uh driveway,
which of course my parents are great
[1:00:38] people. They said yes. So, I find it
iran ironic that they're complaining
[1:00:42] about parking. Second, to address this,
that house is was historic. It's in the
[1:00:48] most the most historic oneb block
radius. There's shades over all windows
[1:00:54] and no work's been done for two years
because I tried to buy that about 10
[1:00:58] years ago. No work's been done at all to
it and it's sitting there vacant. So
[1:01:02] there is precedent. That won't happen.
We're not going to tear down the house.
[1:01:06] We will get on it and we will make it a
nice place again.
[1:01:10] » What what house was that that you were
talking about? next to funeral
[1:01:15] west
cover everyone.
[1:01:19] » Here comes I voted against that.
[1:01:26] » I just had one one last question. The
photos that I took this evening of the
[1:01:31] on street parking conditions, how do I
get those entered into the record?
[1:01:36] Because a picture is worth a thousand
words. give them to you.
[1:01:40] » You can email them to us or do you have
copies you want to give us? It's up to
[1:01:44] you.
>> They're on my phone.
[1:01:46] » Okay. Yep. I can write down our email
for for you.
[1:01:49] » Very good.
>> Thank you.
[1:01:51] » Thank you.
Okay.
[1:01:56] Hearing no other requests, uh, I'll open
up the floor to discussion
[1:02:03] on the commission.
>> Y
[1:02:06] » any comments? Any particular questions?
Well, I'll start by saying I really
[1:02:11] appreciate everyone being here. There
have been some recent changes in my
[1:02:15] neighborhood and um I'm glad that people
are going around and speaking with one
[1:02:19] another about it because some things
that happened just a block north of
[1:02:22] where I live on Frezy I would have been
against but I mean it's my fault I guess
[1:02:28] I didn't know about it but um changes
that change the landscape of the
[1:02:32] neighborhood. um putting in a place that
has six bedrooms and I agree once you
[1:02:38] have six people living in a house it's
more than six cars that are then parked
[1:02:42] there and they're parked on the grass
and things like that. So I really
[1:02:46] appreciate everyone coming in here and
expressing their opinion about what it
[1:02:50] will do to the neighborhood. Um I am
against spot zoning. I was against the
[1:02:55] reszoning request for 416 West
Worcester. So, I will stand by that
[1:03:00] tonight and my vote will be a no for the
um resoning.
[1:03:06] » Heather, I've got a question for you. Um
if there was talk about being remodeled
[1:03:12] to have four bedrooms upstairs, four
bedrooms downstairs, if that were the
[1:03:16] case, if we're a duplex and had four and
four, how many people could legally live
[1:03:20] there?
>> Well, our zoning code is based on the
[1:03:22] number of bedrooms. So,
it's hard to say for sure though based
[1:03:27] on number of bedrooms because you could
have families there. Um, and what we
[1:03:31] mean by that is
relation. So, I could live upstairs with
[1:03:37] my four children and still have a
four-bedroom house or even smaller. So,
[1:03:42] it's hard to say occupancy, but it the
zoning code is one unrelated per
[1:03:46] bedroom.
>> However, family doesn't follow that same
[1:03:50] regulation. Am I explaining that well?
You have to be careful with fair housing
[1:03:55] laws and how those operate. So,
>> I guess I'm I'm responding to the point
[1:04:00] about could have as many like 16 people
living there. That seems like
[1:04:06] not the most likely result, but you
could have two people per bedroom. I
[1:04:10] could if you have couples living there.
I I could see.
[1:04:15] » Again, it depends on the definition of
family.
[1:04:17] » Okay. There's no so there's not a
definite number but
[1:04:21] » correct
>> it would be fairly substantial
[1:04:25] » and again defining a household is a
slippery slope and we're very cautious
[1:04:30] with that.
[1:04:33] [clears throat]
>> Is that a definitional problem based on
[1:04:38] how we put together this multifamily
versus single family?
[1:04:45] I mean, I'm asking you, as you just
covered this family, you know, in
[1:04:49] quotation marks versus, you know, you
got eight bedrooms possibly up to this
[1:04:54] number of people. And when you say
multif family, bringing the family in,
[1:04:59] does that bring down the possibility of
having, you know, so many unrelated
[1:05:05] people within a residence?
>> Um, so I'll back up a little bit. So,
[1:05:09] our zoning code defines multi- a
multi-unit dwelling as three dwelling
[1:05:13] units or more. So, we would not consider
a duplex multi-unit dwelling. We
[1:05:19] considered a two-unit dwelling. So, you
could have two units, whether it be up
[1:05:23] or down, side by side, as long as it's
two units and it meets our zoning code
[1:05:28] definition of dwelling unit where it has
kitchen, living space, bedroom,
[1:05:33] bathroom. Um, and it could technically I
mean I guess you could say it could
[1:05:36] technically have up to five bedrooms.
However, that's I'm guessing that's
[1:05:41] pretty unlikely given the space that's
there, but I can't say that for sure.
[1:05:44] But that's the definition of a one-unit
dwelling. You could have up to five
[1:05:48] bedrooms.
[1:05:56] You look perplexed. Do you have any
other questions?
[1:05:59] Do
how often do you get phone and maybe
[1:06:04] you're not the right person to answer.
Do we get phone calls about congestion,
[1:06:08] not being able to, you know, navigate
through streets because of traffic? Do
[1:06:13] do we have an idea of how legitimate or
how bad that problem is on that north
[1:06:20] west side of town?
>> I do not. That's not typically a call we
[1:06:24] would get. We would get more so
complaints if someone were parking in
[1:06:27] the grass, for example, or even our
police division would likely get those
[1:06:31] complaints. We try to be a one-stop shop
where, you know, we give complaints to
[1:06:35] the right person, but that's not
something we would normally hear about.
[1:06:37] » Is is that a street that um and I don't
know the formal name that is um deemed
[1:06:44] like a snow street that if we get over
two inches, they have to to move for the
[1:06:49] plows.
>> I'm not sure. I'd have to look at our
[1:06:52] records at the city.
Okay.
[1:06:55] » I mean, normally you'll have one side
that's no parking [clears throat]
[1:06:59] » and the other side would normally allow
parking, but again, it varies all over
[1:07:02] the city.
>> Okay. So, um I'm talking I'll keep
[1:07:06] talking. Um thank every I want to thank
everybody for taking the time and the
[1:07:11] effort to um voice your concerns and
they're all very valid. Um I'm you know
[1:07:18] I probably struggle a little bit more
with this one. Um, you know, I I have
[1:07:22] always said I think that our town needs
more housing. I see um probably more
[1:07:28] people transfer into town than probably
anybody else. And it's not always people
[1:07:35] that want to purchase a home, right? And
um our housing stock for rentals is very
[1:07:44] very thin. Um, and I'm specifically
talking about professional rentals, non-
[1:07:49] studentent rentals. You know, there is
no guarantee in my opinion that this
[1:07:54] property would be rented to college
students, right? Um, we heard from a
[1:08:00] professor that lives right down the
street, right? That is already living
[1:08:04] right there. And, um, there's a very
high percentage chance that, um, it
[1:08:09] could be somebody that's professional
that's there, too. Um, we heard that it
[1:08:13] meets five of the seven BG principles,
which is a high percentage of what we're
[1:08:19] looking for when we look at some of
these. Um, we already know that there's
[1:08:23] a lot of duplexes in the neighborhood,
too. Um,
[1:08:29] conversely, I am not a fan of spot
zoning, right? Just like Julie said, I
[1:08:35] am not a fan of the spot zoning. We went
through an exhaustive um exercise to um
[1:08:42] to redo our zoning code. Um and this is
part of it, right? Um congestion is a
[1:08:48] legitimate factor. You know, I asked
about um traffic and things like that
[1:08:53] and congestion is a legitimate factor.
Um but again, I don't know that there's
[1:08:57] any guarantee that um we're going to
have eight people live in a duplex. We
[1:09:03] don't know. We just we don't know. Um,
so, you know, I I struggle um with um
[1:09:11] with both sides. So, I see, you know,
your your point. I'd love to see um
[1:09:16] somebody actually put the money in and
and spend the money to to update and do
[1:09:20] the things to to beautify to make it
better because it has been um you know,
[1:09:25] neglected. So, um I know I just spoke on
both sides of the fence. Um, but those
[1:09:31] are those are things that I'm
considering as as we continue to
[1:09:35] discuss.
>> Another question. Uh, the these other
[1:09:39] properties that have duplexes and and
three units so far, are those legal
[1:09:43] non-conforming uses, is that what
properties are?
[1:09:46] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[1:09:47] » It's a good question.
>> And this doesn't fall under that
[1:09:52] heading.
>> Correct.
[1:09:55] Um, I know he kind of hit us with 416
West Worster and uh, Miss Miller's
[1:10:00] property. And that's a double-edged
sword, I think, because you're right. We
[1:10:05] we kind of went out on a limb to, you
know, looking at the property location,
[1:10:09] what it was, and what the historic
importance was to the city and said,
[1:10:13] "Okay, let's set aside what we've been
trying to do for these years and give it
[1:10:18] a spot reszoning." And,
you know, you're right. They They
[1:10:24] haven't done I should keep an eye on it
when I drive by it. I don't see anything
[1:10:26] being done.
>> Nothing's been done. But again, that
[1:10:31] runs
maybe both for you and against you
[1:10:34] because okay, so what if that's the one
mulligan we give out, you know, to
[1:10:39] somebody came up and promised us that
we're going to do X, Y, and Z, and well,
[1:10:43] they haven't done it. And so now the
next person's up to bat. I want to do
[1:10:47] and we get hit over the head every time
we we look at one of these gorgeous
[1:10:50] houses, you know, falling apart and go,
"Well, I want to beautify it, but I want
[1:10:54] to make it a duplex."
And so now you're the second person to
[1:10:59] come up to us and want this. So now are
we setting up a precedent where go,
[1:11:03] okay, here's some beautiful old house
that's fallen into ruin and somebody got
[1:11:08] a hold of it and it's like, well, I'll
beautify it, but I want to be able to
[1:11:10] turn it into a money maker, too, to make
it worth it. And I'm kind of on both
[1:11:15] sides of that fence because we set the
president once and so and it's
[1:11:21] [sighs and gasps] clearly bit us in the
ass to say pretty clearly. So um I don't
[1:11:28] want to set up a precedent where just
that every time you know somebody gets a
[1:11:32] hold of these old houses and like all
right we're going to we're going to
[1:11:35] beautify it and put it back to where it
was but we also need to make it a duplex
[1:11:39] to make it you know financially
feasible. I'm kind of wary of going
[1:11:43] ahead with that myself.
[1:11:51] » I'm going to jump in and just say one
more thing about um I've been in my
[1:11:55] house for 30 years and prior to that at
some point it was a duplex which I can't
[1:12:00] even imagine. I think what's there's an
outside entrance to the basement. I mean
[1:12:05] it's a 1901 built house. So, I think the
person who lived upstairs must have gone
[1:12:09] down into the basement and then back up
some stairs beside the kitchen or
[1:12:13] something to get upstairs, but there was
supposedly a kitchen up there and
[1:12:18] there's a second bathroom. Um, I don't
know where how they I have a single
[1:12:24] driveway. I don't know how they arranged
with with the parking and all that, but
[1:12:28] I will say since I've purchased it,
there are so many more there are
[1:12:32] benefits that you can get grants. Um,
and I have been the beneficiary of those
[1:12:38] um, through the city and then also the
county because it's owner occupied. So,
[1:12:42] I am all in favor of turning this back
into a or maintaining it, whichever it
[1:12:46] might be, as a single family dwelling
because that's where you can really get
[1:12:50] some money that you can put into your
home and make it much better um, because
[1:12:56] it's owner occupied.
[1:13:00] I I would just like to remind everybody
that this is just a recommendation and
[1:13:05] it goes to city council who will have
the final say. So I would encourage you
[1:13:10] all to come to city council and uh
express your views to them. All we do on
[1:13:16] this is just recommend yes, we would
support it or no, the planning
[1:13:20] commission would not support it. It's
not the end of the line. uh no matter
[1:13:25] what our decision is, it goes to city
council. So I I just think it's
[1:13:31] important that you all know that I
disagree that we are setting a
[1:13:35] precedent. I think we take look at each
individual request on its own merits and
[1:13:42] because we say yes to one it the maybe
the merits we saw differently than what
[1:13:47] you're presenting to us. Again, it goes
on to city council. um attack bill
[1:13:53] Harold if you need to, but just no
matter what happens here, it's not it's
[1:13:58] not the final end ending. So, however
passionate you feel and which you feel
[1:14:04] very passionate, keep it for city
council also.
[1:14:09] » That's a good point.
>> You made the point.
[1:14:12] » Thank you.
it it as I add up the things in my mind,
[1:14:17] there are some points that can be made
in favor of both positions. It's not a
[1:14:22] completely one-sided uh uh question
here. I guess the thing I think sways me
[1:14:29] one way or the other is these other uh
addresses in the area that are duplexes
[1:14:36] or threeunit buildings. Um, those are
legal nonconforming
[1:14:43] uses.
They're they're not what the what that
[1:14:48] area is intended to to have, but they're
grandfathered in basically because they
[1:14:52] were put to that use before the zoning
code was changed.
[1:14:58] So, and my conclusion is that just
because a number of other place other
[1:15:04] addresses are legal nonconforming uses
that that doesn't mean we should add one
[1:15:09] more to that list.
So, although I think it's a close call
[1:15:12] that uh there can be points made in
favor of Mr. Smith's position as well as
[1:15:17] against, uh I I think unless somebody
convinces me in the next few minutes,
[1:15:21] I'll probably vote no on this.
[1:15:30] Are there any other comments,
questions?
[1:15:40] Is there a motion to approve this and
forward it to city council?
[1:15:49] » I'll make the motion to approve it. So
it's gets gets up for a vote. Okay.
[1:15:57] » [clears throat]
>> I'll second.
[1:15:58] » He made the motion to approve it.
>> Yes. To approve.
[1:16:03] » I'll second.
>> No, he's got to do a roll call vote on
[1:16:08] the first motion.
>> We need to do a roll call vote.
[1:16:11] » Yes. [snorts]
>> All right, Miss Broadwell.
[1:16:17] » What's the motion?
>> The motion. The motion is for our
[1:16:22] recommendation to approve and go to city
council.
[1:16:27] So if if
>> to approve
[1:16:30] » as you had as you had stated previously
if
[1:16:33] » you don't agree with it.
>> Okay. No.
[1:16:36] » Okay.
>> Miss Denbo.
[1:16:40] » No.
>> Miss Enis?
[1:16:42] » No.
>> Mr. McComber?
[1:16:44] » No.
>> Mr. Phillips?
[1:16:47] » No.
Mr. Reis,
[1:16:50] » yes.
>> Mr. Stalterzer,
[1:16:53] » no.
>> Mr. Waddle,
[1:16:55] » yes.
>> Mr. Body,
[1:16:57] » no.
[1:17:02] » So, it goes forward to city council with
a with a uh
[1:17:10] no recommendation from the planning
commission. Correct.
[1:17:14] » Correct.
>> Correct.
[1:17:17] Thank you everyone who uh who came
forward. We appreciate it. And uh we'll
[1:17:22] go to the next item on the agenda,
text amendments.
[1:17:29] Uh there's a proposed text amendments to
chapter 150 of the zoning code, article
[1:17:35] 2, district and zoning regulations.
Sections 150.26
[1:17:41] commercial zone. Section 150.28 28
mixeduse neighborhood zone section
[1:17:48] 150.39 summary table of zone and
district regulations
[1:17:54] article 4 generally applicable standards
section 150.80 buffering
[1:18:02] section 150.81 81 outdoor lighting and
article six administration and
[1:18:08] procedures section 150.94
application and issuance of zoning
[1:18:14] certificate.
>> Heather,
[1:18:18] » well, I had a memo in your packet that
reviewed the changes that were fairly
[1:18:23] minor. I don't know if you want me to go
over those tonight or just wait till the
[1:18:27] public hearing.
[1:18:32] Uh, I
>> can you
[1:18:35] » Yeah,
>> I need the door.
[1:18:38] » Chase, can you close the door
>> or move them down the hall a little?
[1:18:48] » What did you say, Heather?
So, I gave you a memo in the packet um
[1:18:53] introducing the staff changes that we're
requesting and I didn't know if you want
[1:18:57] me to review those tonight or do you
want to wait till the public hearing
[1:19:01] that I hope you set for the next meeting
October?
[1:19:06] » Set up for a hearing.
>> Yeah, I don't I personally don't have
[1:19:10] any questions. Does anybody else have
any questions or need to hear additional
[1:19:15] information at this point? Uh we can go
ahead and set the public hearing for the
[1:19:19] next meeting.
[1:19:23] Is there a motion to uh
>> So moved.
[1:19:26] » Thank you. I'll second.
>> Thank you.
[1:19:35] » Thank you, Bill,
[clears throat] for closing the door.
[1:19:40] » I said thank you for doing that.
>> All in favor of the public hearing. You
[1:19:44] want to do it by voice? Voice the Kok
voice vote would be fine.
[1:19:48] » That's fine. All in favor say I.
>> I.
[1:19:53] » Opposed hearing none.
Okay.
[1:19:58] Next item reports. Uh representative to
the zoning board of appeals Mr.
[1:20:03] McCumber.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh on August
[1:20:07] the 12th, the ZBA met and considered
three variance requests. The first one
[1:20:13] uh involved a a woman Sue Yohi who lives
on West Worster Street and she had
[1:20:18] constructed a fence that was intended to
be six feet tall which is uh the maximum
[1:20:24] allowed and um this was similar to a
case we had a few months ago where
[1:20:29] because the ground was not even to make
the top of the fence level meant that
[1:20:34] part of the fence was more than six
feet. Um so she wanted a variance to to
[1:20:41] allow what had already been constructed.
Uh as we discussed this uh it uh became
[1:20:49] obvious that Miss Yohi, a retired school
teacher in the Bowling Green district,
[1:20:54] uh had had some problems with the
contractor.
[1:20:58] And it uh one thing that came to light
that was bothersome was that Chase had
[1:21:02] actually been on the site when the
contractor was there constructing the
[1:21:06] fence and told him that what he was
doing would be illegal. and he basically
[1:21:11] just ignored that that recommendation.
Uh the problem we had was I think people
[1:21:17] would have been inclined to not allow
the fence as is. Uh but Miss Yohi had
[1:21:23] paid the contractor in full. He's long
gone and if we made her revised the
[1:21:30] fence, it was going to be an additional
expense to to her.
[1:21:34] Uh so there was some discussion both
ways about that whether we wanted under
[1:21:38] those circumstances to uh make her
reconstruct a portion of the fence or or
[1:21:43] or leave it as it is. And we eventually
voted 6 to1 to give her the variance.
[1:21:50] Uh the second uh item was Rebecca
Ferguson who lives at 1622 Treetop Place
[1:21:56] uh wanted a variance to expand her
driveway a bit. We've had several of
[1:22:02] these recently. This one was a little
different. She didn't want to expand it
[1:22:05] to the side uh near a property owned by
a neighbor. She wanted to expand it on
[1:22:11] sort of the inside of the property to
try to partially or mostly eliminate a
[1:22:17] curve in the driveway that she's had
trouble negotiating.
[1:22:21] And uh that that passed seven to nothing
with minimal uh discussion.
[1:22:27] The third item was an interesting one.
Um, you may recall from I think Chase's
[1:22:32] report that last month when I wasn't
here that uh Chipotle had wanted to
[1:22:36] build a a store on the south side of
town and uh there was a 25- ft minimum
[1:22:43] height requirement for commercial
buildings and the building they wanted
[1:22:47] to build was going to be 18t 8 in tall.
And uh we uh uh turned that request down
[1:22:54] at the time, but they came back at the
next meeting and we we were advised by
[1:22:59] our legal counsel that we should allow
them a second opportunity because they
[1:23:04] said they had additional information
that might affect our decision.
[1:23:08] Well, the uh additional information
essentially was that after the prior
[1:23:13] hearing when they didn't get the
variance, the person in charge of the
[1:23:17] construction
um uh
[1:23:22] came forth with a um uh basically a deed
restriction on the properties that are
[1:23:26] around Home Depot in that area there. Uh
there is essentially a deed restriction
[1:23:31] that says the uh uh any commercial
building can't be more than 23 feet
[1:23:36] tall. So they couldn't meet the 25- foot
requirement even if they wanted to
[1:23:41] because of the deed restriction.
And this individual who was a different
[1:23:45] person than had made the presentation a
month before said he went to their
[1:23:49] architectural people and told them,
"Well, we've got to we've got to make
[1:23:53] this as tall as we can. The code is what
it is and and you know, they're not
[1:23:57] going to really budge on this." So they
came up with a design that would be 22
[1:24:02] feet 8 in tall, 4 in short of the
maximum that they that they could build.
[1:24:08] And uh um uh taking that into account uh
the variance now was granted. Uh so the
[1:24:16] 22 foot 8 inch height uh they had they
have the variance for although you
[1:24:22] probably saw that in the in the last
item we were looking at on the agenda
[1:24:25] here about changes to the zoning code.
One of the changes was to eliminate the
[1:24:29] 25- foot u minimum height for commercial
buildings. So [clears throat] maybe
[1:24:33] they'll go back to the 18 foot 8 inch
version.
[1:24:37] I'm not sure, but they did get they did
get their variance. So something's going
[1:24:40] to be built. There's going to be a
Chipotle on the south side of town.
[1:24:46] That's the the all of my report, Mr.
President.
[1:24:50] » Thank you,
>> Heather.
[1:24:52] » No report, but I'm happy to answer any
questions.
[1:24:55] Thank you for all the information you
supplied on the public hearing. It was
[1:25:00] » It was interesting reading, frankly.
>> You're welcome.
[1:25:04] » Amazing. Find all that information you
guys kept it all those years.
[1:25:10] » And I didn't even mention we looked
through city directories too, Chase and
[1:25:13] I. So, I know that gentleman said
earlier he had Well, we did too. I
[1:25:17] actually have copies. So,
>> find some information on my house.
[1:25:23] [laughter]
>> All right. All right. Well, thank you
[1:25:25] very much. Uh
motion to a adjourn.
[1:25:31] » Second.
>> All say I. I.
[1:25:34] » Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
>> Nice job, Bob.