Council hears wide-ranging debate on proposed ADU ordinance; no vote set

Bexley City Council spent substantial time on June 10 discussing Ordinance 15-25, a proposal to authorize accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in single-family zones under specific conditions. The item was read but deferred for further review and a public hearing date.

Nut graf: Supporters called ADUs a practical tool for affordability and multigenerational living; council members asked staff for clearer standards on occupant limits, owner-occupancy, parking and enforcement before any final vote.

Sponsor Councilmember Marcelino called the measure “a significant ordinance” intended to promote inclusivity and provide safe housing options for aging residents, younger adults and families. He proposed giving the council a break to review the full text and to set a public hearing and zoning review within the required time frame.

Public speakers urged the council to adopt permissive ADU rules. Resident Evan Franke said ADUs are “one of the smartest most efficient ways we can address” housing shortages, and urged removing owner-occupancy and minimum lot-size requirements while streamlining permitting and preapproving design templates.

Council members raised technical concerns. Councilmember Saad asked that council see the ordinance’s detailed size and configuration standards and pressed for enforcement that does not rely solely on resident complaints. Councilmember Silverman recommended that occupancy limits be explicit and suggested mirroring short-term rental language that limits occupants per bedroom; he also asked staff to outline impacts on city services such as trash and mail.

Councilmembers discussed possible guardrails including an initial pilot cap on approvals, owner-occupancy provisions, and parking or on-street permit adjustments. Marcelino offered a timeline to route the measure through the required zoning public-hearing process, noting the city must post 30 days’ notice for a zoning hearing.

Ending: Council left the ordinance off the consent agenda and scheduled further review and public hearings; staff and council asked for clarified definitions, occupancy and parking rules and an enforcement plan before any final adoption.