Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Accessory Uses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves zoning amendment easing accessory-use setbacks; separate motion to allow sheds fails
Summary
Bowling Green City Council adopted amendments to its zoning code to exempt features such as patios, decks, pergolas and playhouses from typical setback requirements (with a 3-foot minimum), after a council amendment passed; a later motion to explicitly permit sheds failed and the ordinance was adopted as amended.
Bowling Green City Council on a unanimous vote adopted amendments to its codified ordinances that relax setback requirements for certain accessory uses while declining a separate proposal to explicitly allow sheds.
Council member Jeff moved to amend Ordinance 9354 so that “patios, decks, pergolas, trellises, rain gardens, swing sets, playhouses, and treehouses are not required to comply with minimum setback requirements,” adding that those features “are required to be located a minimum of 3 feet from all lot lines and cannot be located in a utility easement.” The amendment passed after discussion about definitions and enforceability.
Council member Elliott raised concerns that listing both “gardens” and “rain gardens” could create confusion for enforcement. “In f2b, we already list fences and gardens are not required to comply with minimum setback requirements. I think to add rain gardens to D would be very confusing,” Elliott said, prompting the city attorney to note that “rain gardens is a defined term within the city” while gardens currently are not.
After the amendment passed, a separate motion to include “shed” in the list of permitted accessory uses was offered but failed in a roll-call vote (Musgrave and Odoricio recorded as voting yes; a majority voted no). Following that result, the council voted to adopt Ordinance 9354 as amended.
The ordinance edits concern section 30.101b of the codified ordinances and were advanced following a required public hearing earlier in the evening. Proponents of the amendment framed it as reducing over-regulation of private property and clarifying that many small, common yard features need not meet larger accessory-structure setbacks; opponents and some council members said certain terms could require clearer definitions in the code.
The council’s action updates the city’s zoning language related to accessory uses and moves the matter forward administratively; no additional funding or implementation timeline was specified at the meeting.
Votes at a glance: the amendment to exempt patios/decks/etc. passed (recorded yes votes during roll-call); the motion to add “shed” explicitly to the list failed (recorded yes: Musgrave; Odoricio; recorded no: Jay Dennis; Kay Dennis; Elliot; Harold; Columba), and the ordinance was adopted as amended by recorded vote.
