Council hears public hearing on zoning change to allow substitution of nonconforming uses; developer describes plan for 312 Rose Avenue

The Washington Court House City Council held a public hearing April 9 on a proposed amendment to the city zoning code that would give the Board of Zoning Appeals broader authority to allow substitution of nonconforming uses in residential districts.

The change under consideration would allow a nonconforming building or structure to be changed to another nonconforming use of the same or a more restricted classification “provided no structural alterations except those required by law or ordinance are made, and no exterior additions are made,” and provided the property complies with other zoning requirements, according to language cited at the hearing. The planning commission recommended the language to council.

The matter drew most of the night’s public attention after Brian Miller, who identified himself as the owner of 312 Rose Avenue, described plans to convert a large, former church on that parcel into multiple small rental rooms for short‑ to medium‑term leases. “It is a church building, but it is very, very big. It has a lot of rooms,” Miller said, adding he would install kitchens and bathrooms and conduct background checks for tenants. Miller said most sleeping rooms would be single‑occupancy and that he did not plan to provide meals at the property. “No, sir,” he answered when asked whether meals would be served.

Council members and staff pressed for clarity on limits and process. Council chairperson Dale Lynch and others noted that the proposed amendment applies only to existing nonconforming uses — properties that predate the current zoning — and not to single‑family homes that currently conform to their zoning. One council member asked whether a homeowner on Farmington Lane could convert a regular R‑1 house into multiple rooming units; staff and council members answered that, absent an existing nonconforming use, a conforming single‑family home could not be converted under the proposed language.

Miller told council the property at 312 Rose Avenue is in an R‑2 district and said he would offer minimum three‑month leases. He said some rooms in the building could meet the size of a studio apartment but that, for safety, he intended to limit occupancy to one person per small room and would have an on‑site manager. Miller said two basement rooms and another upstairs room might function as studio units, but he expressed hesitation about placing children in the same shared‑room arrangements.

Council members asked the city attorney for a written memorandum clarifying whether and how the proposed ordinance would apply in different residential districts and what restrictions — such as maximum occupants per room — would remain in force. The city attorney agreed to prepare a memo for the council’s next meeting to “make it crystal clear” how the amendment would operate in practice.

The council closed the public hearing after the discussion; no final vote on the zoning text occurred that night. Several council members urged caution and asked staff to confirm parcel zoning and to return additional written guidance before any ordinance is adopted.

Miller said his intent was to provide temporary housing for people in need and that the units would meet building and safety codes. Council member Caleb Johnson said he was generally supportive of Miller’s goals but urged a careful approach to protect neighborhood interests and avoid repeat zoning disputes.

If council chooses to proceed, the next steps described at the hearing are (1) a memo from the city attorney clarifying applicability and limits, (2) confirmation of the property’s zoning record, and (3) any subsequent ordinance language edits or conditions the planning commission or council wishes to add. The planning commission will remain involved; council members noted they may return the item to the planning commission for reconsideration if they vote against the commission’s recommendation.

The public hearing included questions about the distinction between a “boarding house” and a “rooming house” (one council member said a common practical difference is whether meals are provided) and references to local examples of longstanding nonconforming uses. Council members repeatedly emphasized that nonconforming status typically stems from uses that predated zoning and that a nonconforming use that ceases for two years commonly reverts to the underlying zoning.

Council closed the hearing and moved on to other business; staff will return further documentation at a future meeting.