Public raises signage concerns as council holds hearing on annexation and IE interim zoning for 95-acre Bowling Green Road East property

The Bowling Green City Council opened a public hearing on Ordinance 9254 to consider establishing interim Innovation and Employment (IE) zoning for approximately 95 acres located on Bowling Green Road East (listed in the staff packet as 10433 Bowling Green Road East), petitioned for annexation by James A. Grandowicz Jr. on behalf of Ronald J. and Linda K. Joseph.

Planning Director Heather Sailor summarized the staff packet, noting the four parcels total about 95 acres, are contiguous with existing IE zoning in the city and that the Planning Commission recommended interim IE zoning at its Dec. 4 meeting. “I gave you a copy again of the IE Innovation Employment Zoning,” Sailor said, pointing councilors to district standards and permitted uses in the packet.

Resident Vicki Venn appeared to address the council and raised a procedural objection about notice on the ground: she read from the code and argued that applicants must erect signs for a change of classification. “This has got to be a big sign... It's gotta be every 600 feet down Bowling Green Road East down Durham,” Venn said, asserting the required sign dimensions and placement described in section 150.111. Venn said she drove the frontage and did not observe required signs and therefore believed the request could not be considered.

Planning Director Sailor and others distinguished interim zoning tied to annexation from a rezoning request that changes a parcel—s official map. Sailor said the ordinance and the city—s practice require signs for rezoning requests but not for interim zoning following annexation: “Correct, that's for rezoning requests,” Sailor said. The presiding official and staff said they would follow up with the city attorney for a definitive interpretation; the city attorney (referred to as Hunter in discussion) was present but no formal legal ruling was entered on the record in the transcript.

Council discussion recorded in the transcript included clarifying questions about prior township zoning and taxation: staff noted the parcels are currently in Center Township and taxed as agricultural property under the township, and that township zoning does not control city zoning after annexation. No development plan was presented at the hearing.

After public comment and staff responses, the presiding official concluded the public hearing on Ordinance 9254. The transcript records the opening and closing of the hearing but does not show a council vote adopting the ordinance during the recorded portion of the meeting.

The transcript shows the key unresolved procedural point was whether the statutory signage requirement for map amendments (section 150.111 paragraph b) applies to interim zoning established at annexation — staff said their practice has been to require signage for rezoning but not for interim zoning, and the council indicated they would consult the city attorney for clarification rather than rule on the procedural objection during the hearing.