Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sidewalk Code And Grandfathering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Findlay council, residents debate sidewalk code change for cul‑de‑sac properties; committee asks law director to review
Summary
Owners of condominiums on Glen Eagle Drive objected to a planning committee discussion that could require sidewalks on rear property lines. Councilmembers said the immediate step is to update code language; the council accepted the committee report and will review the affected property case after code changes.
At the Aug. 5 Findlay City Council meeting, multiple residents and council members debated whether the city's sidewalk rules should require property owners on cul‑de‑sacs to install sidewalks where properties back onto another street.
Resident Gene Meyer described the parcels at the rear of 3340 and 3342 Glen Eagle Drive and told council: "They should not have to pay two times for sidewalks," saying condominium owners paid for front‑facing sidewalks at construction and do not own the rear land where the city might later require sidewalks.
Council discussion and committee action: the Street, Sidewalks and Parking Committee requested that the law director review the specific section of code to confirm the committee's intention that interior cul‑de‑sac sidewalk installation be optional in some circumstances and to ensure the language does not unintentionally absolve other cul‑de‑sac owners from all sidewalk obligations. Councilman Russell told residents, "Step 1 is ensuring that our code is correct," and said the next step would be to look at the property's specific situation once the code language is clarified.
Why it matters: residents said the lack of connected sidewalks creates safety and access gaps, especially with new nearby destinations such as the Blanchard Valley Wellness Center. Residents asked that properties built decades ago not be forced to pay retroactively for sidewalks, or that the city use its sidewalk funding when gaps affect safe pedestrian access.
Public comment and council response: Danny DeLong and others said committee minutes and public engagement at the July 31 committee meeting were insufficient, and asked that the committee clarify whether the property would be grandfathered. Council members and the mayor clarified that proposed code changes would apply moving forward, not retroactively, and that the city would not require owners to install sidewalks until the code is revised; council members said the committee report reflects a 3–0 committee vote to ask the law director to review the code section.
Next steps: the law director will review the code language and return to the committee with recommended language; the council accepted the committee report during the Aug. 5 meeting. Individual property decisions will be addressed after the code review; residents were encouraged to work with the administration on options such as variance pathways or use of sidewalk fund dollars to address gaps.
