City Council - public_hearing

on Ordinance 9365 from City Attorney Hunter Brown.

Good evening, normally you know Heather would be here, so I am Heather tonight, so be nice. So this concerns the section 150.44 accessory uses of our zoning code, specifically this is 150.44 and this is regarding ADUs, accessory dwelling units. So the way it currently reads, It says on any lot in 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, or in the case that the lot or structure has multiple owners or is owned by a corporation, one of the dwelling units must be occupied at least 180 days per calendar year. by one of those owners or a member of the corporation in ownership. Sorry, I'm trying to read through my edited one, the one that's put forth here. So the edits suggested would remove the language that says occupied at least 180 days per calendar year by the owner of the ladder structure and adds the principal residence of the owner of ladder structure and removes the occupied at least 180 days per calendar year by and adds the principal residence of and then again removes by one of the members of and adds of a member of the corporation ownership who has at least 50% ownership in the corporation. What essentially the section was doing before, it was theoretically requiring the place to be the principal residence of an owner, but what was and is happening in fact, it has happened in at least one occasion, is a corporation which has an interest in the property, typically the ownership will sell a small percentage of their corporation to a person to make that their principal residence, essentially giving themselves a slight ownership in the corporation, allowing them to be the resident on the property, allowing then someone to rent out the ADU. the suggested changes would remove that, would change that to make it be, if it's a corporation, it has to be the person has to have a 50% ownership, so that would limit the amount of times you could do that.

Okay, thank you. Any questions?

No.

Sorry, it's just you. Okay, so this ordinance originated with the city, so there will be no additional applicant testimony at this time. Are there any members of the public that would like to address the committee? You can come up and give your name and address for the record.

My name is Rose Drane. I live at 228 East Court Street. I didn't prepare any remarks, but I did prepare some thoughts today. And that is that I'm concerned with the prevalence of rental properties in Bowling Green and the increase since the zoning code read right in 2023 in short-term rentals. I feel that short-term rentals are disadvantageous to a city that wants to be able to offer citizens who have the means to buy a modest home, but don't have the means to buy a home that is more than $400,000. I appreciate the council members suggesting this change so that because since 2023, the number of short-term rentals has increased by nearly twofold, somewhere between by a third and a half. um and the the issue with short-term rentals is that then that takes that not as it's not a home where people can live for the long term whether they want to rent the home or own the home they can't live there for a while they can't become residents of the city of bowling green and enjoy all the opportunities that this fine city gives them They can't keep their kids in school, you know, through grade school and high school like I did my children, who then also went to BGSU and then stayed in Bowling Green. So I think that this is something that could address the issue of increasing the number of short-term rentals in Bowling Green. Thank you.

Thank you. Would any other members of the public like to speak? Jody, did we receive any correspondence? We did not. Thank you. And now the committee has an opportunity for a discussion.

Do you want me to go first?

Sure. I agree absolutely with the comments that Rose made. I guess I reach a different conclusion. Right now, ADUs would seem to be We have a number of ADUs that I think are used as short-term rentals right now. What we would be doing by eliminating those ADUs would be then shifting the demand for that type of housing back to single-family homes. I mean, this legislation in effect limits the supply of housing further than what it is now. You know, I worked with Councilman Harrell to draft this legislation. I intend to vote for it, but I think we do need to have a broader discussion about what that will mean for the local housing market. ADUs are one element of a healthy housing market. They provide or can provide housing for caregivers. They can provide housing for aging relatives who would like to age in place. They can provide housing for young professionals who are saving money to become first time home buyers. more housing is the solution to rising rents and rising home prices. We need to increase the supply. We have seen that in cities across the country. The supply side tools that we have are the most effective tools for reversing increasing rents and increasing housing costs. Now that being said, the law is the law and the intent of this body when this law was passed was to create an owner occupancy requirement. Obviously as we have seen and just heard, that is not happening. So if there are gaps in our current regulations, If there are ambiguities, then the gaps need to be closed and the ambiguities need to be eliminated. If we would like to have a broader policy discussion about how we can promote forms of housing that, frankly, are largely missing in the city of Bowling Green and the impact that that will have on the larger housing market, then I think we should do that. And I hope we do do that. But it should be done with ample opportunity for public feedback. It should be done transparently. And the result should be a clear set of rules that we are holding every homeowner and every resident to in the city of Bowling Green. That's not happening right now, so I think, I will only speak for myself, that certainly was my motivation for assisting Councilman Harold with this legislation and based on the feedback I'm hearing tonight and based on what I have seen right around the corner from my house, that would be why I intend to vote for it when we are asked to do that.

I agree. I think we have a general agreement that we need more housing and more types of housing. And I did have a conversation with a gentleman who, when he purchased a property, he intended to complete a renovation of the garage into an ADU, and he thought he would be able to do that. The prior owner had started doing that. And when he found out that there was an owner occupancy requirement, but he knew there were other ADUs that he didn't feel were... owner occupied he wanted to know how that worked and so I think we know that the intention of the original legislation is not being met and that for fairness sake we should make sure that our laws are being applied in the way that we want them to be. And that I think we should have a broader discussion. Are we preventing new housing in the city with some of our regulations? But that should be, like you suggested, a broader discussion with a lot of input.

Agreed.

Okay. Anything else?

I have nothing to add.

Okay. Well, thank you, everyone, for your participation. This concludes the public hearing on Ordinance 9365.