Council puts zoning change for single-room occupancy conversions on first reading after public debate

The Washington Court House City Council on April 23 placed Ordinance 7-2025 on first reading, a proposed amendment to the city zoning code that would add a substitution classification to allow single-room-occupancy (SRO) uses for certain nonconforming structures after Board of Zoning Appeals review.

The change would not automatically rezone properties or approve specific conversions. Instead, the ordinance would permit owners of qualifying nonconforming structures in residential zones to apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for an SRO designation. The BZA would be required to hold a public hearing and could impose reasonable conditions, the council and city attorney said.

Why it matters: Council members and residents said the measure could create more low-cost rental options but also raised questions about neighborhood impacts and oversight. Supporters said the BZA process creates a local review and the authority to require inspections and limits; opponents asked how the city would guard against absentee owners and ensure monitoring.

At the meeting, Brian Miller, who described himself as a prospective operator and property owner, said his plan for one church property includes month-to-month or up-to-12-month leases and an on-site resident property manager. "I found out people were staying 400 dollars a week to stay at hotels, and then I saw the opportunity to purchase the church to have real estate where people can stay that's affordable," Miller said.

Resident Della Castricki said neighbors were not being notified and asked how the city would ensure a manager would be present and that rules would be enforced. "Is that a guarantee that somebody is going to be there? How do we know that? Is that going to be monitored?" she asked.

City Attorney Mark Fitzick and council members repeatedly noted procedural limits: the ordinance would remove the automatic two-year extinguishment rule for some nonconforming uses by creating a pathway through the BZA, but any SRO conversion still must comply with BZA conditions and applicable safety inspections. Councilmembers described the BZA as the appropriate venue to evaluate building-specific issues such as parking, occupancy limits and annual inspections.

Council debate stressed that the ordinance establishes a process rather than approving any individual proposal. "Every time that a substitution takes place, it has to be in front of BZA. There has to be a public hearing," one council speaker said. Several members said they would look for BZA-imposed safeguards such as fire-department inspections and parking limits.

Action: The council voted to place Ordinance 7-2025 on first reading. The roll-call vote on first reading was recorded as yes from the members present and the ordinance will return to council later in the process if and when the BZA acts on specific applications.

What happens next: If the council continues to advance the ordinance after subsequent readings, property owners seeking SRO designation would still need to file applications with the BZA; the BZA conducts hearings, solicits public comment and can impose site-specific conditions.

Background: The Planning Commission recommended amending the zoning ordinance to provide an SRO option for certain nonconforming structures. Council members said the change is intended to give a formal review route for properties such as vacant churches or older commercial buildings in residential areas.

Ending: Supporters and critics at the meeting agreed the BZA review will be central to any approval, and residents said they plan to attend future BZA hearings if an application is filed.