Town rejects OK of new above store apartments

Town officials’ decision last week to leave a zoning ordinance untouched left some local property owners visibly upset.

Despite ongoing discussions regarding changing the town’s zoning rules to allow apartments within business properties, most Madison Town Council members decided to quietly pass over the ordinance revision.

“You guys might think that that ordinance thing is dead but it’s not to a lot of us,” Madison property owner Gay Kulenguski – a vocal supporter of the change – told council members shortly before they adjourned their April 2 meeting.

Empty chairs were scarce in the town office last week, as about 10 members of the public – many of whom have previously encouraged the council to pursue the ordinance change – squeezed into the small meeting room awaiting the council’s possible action on the issue.

The ordinance amendment would have allowed any residential uses permitted within the R-1 residential zoning district – which includes single-family homes – in the rear, basement or upper level floor of a building in the business zoning district.

Since late 2006, multiple town property owners and representatives from the Greater Madison Main Street project have repeatedly asked the town council to revise its zoning ordinance to include more “business friendly” provisions. One of the revisions suggested was a change to allow “multi-use” or “split use,” which would permit apartments in commercial properties allowing either business owners to live in an area of their stores or rent out a space to a family to collect some extra money.

But for about two years, the issue was never “officially” considered as town officials argued that certain proper procedures for requesting a zoning ordinance change were not followed.

In December 2008, Councilman Charles Carter – who also serves on the town planning commission – suggested the council come up with its own draft of the ordinance revision, which they did, voting in January to send it to the town planning commission for consideration.

At the meeting last week, Carter told the council that the commission had finally considered the ordinance amendment – due to a lack of members, the commission wasn’t able to meet and consider this request immediately – and had voted 3-2 to recommend its approval.

(Town Planning commissioners Carter, Jim Koontz and Zane Byram voted in favor of recommending the ordinance change, while commissioners Ron Taylor and Lori Morelock voted against the change, Carter told The Eagle. [Commission Chairman Ed Eddins does not typically vote on motions, according to Carter.])

But the commission’s recommendation didn’t move the majority of council members to support the revision, which was only briefly discussed during the April 2 meeting. The majority of the talk was between Carter, Town Attorney Jeff Early and members of the audience regarding Early’s concerns about the definition of what area of a building constitutes the “rear.”

When the discussion seemed it was nearing its close, Mayor Willie Lamar prompted officials to either vote to schedule a public hearing on the issue or take the ordinance home and make sure they were “comfortable” with the wording.

Although Carter seemed concerned that postponing consideration of the issue would put the earliest possible date for a public hearing in June, he made a motion to put the ordinance on the agenda for the council’s May meeting to be reviewed and possibly acted on.

But after no council members spoke up to second the motion, Lamar announced that the issue had died and attempted to move on to other business.
Several members of the audience responded by asking council members to explain their opinions on the issue and why they decided to let the issue “die again.”

But the residents didn’t receive a response. Council members kept quiet and Lamar finally spoke up explaining – “It has died, there has been no second to it,” and then moved on, asking if there was any old or new business to come before the council.

After a member of the audience spoke to the council regarding a separate issue, Madison property owner Gay Kulenguski – who owns the building that houses The Little Quilt Shop on North Main Street – voiced her concerns to the council.

Kulenguski said that she believed that the zoning revision wasn’t a concern of the council’s since two of its members – Lamar and Councilman Lawrence Beasley – have the “privilege” of being “grandfathered” since properties they own included both residential and business uses prior to the town’s separation of its zoning districts.

In the 1970s when the town’s zoning ordinance was first drafted and town properties were split into zoning districts, any properties that didn’t conform to the ordinance, including businesses with residential apartments upstairs, were “grandfathered” and granted a non-conforming use.

However, the town’s zoning ordinance includes specific restrictions of actions that can be taken on properties considered “non-conforming.” These include a ban on an expansion of a “non-conforming” building and that repairs of a “non-conforming” property cannot exceed a cost that is equivalent to 10 percent of the building’s replacement value in any 12-month period. These restrictions have prevented both Kulenguski, and another supporter of the ordinance change who attended the meeting – Susan Bernhardt, owner of South Main Street shop The Last Nickel – from being able to upgrade their properties in order to rent out apartments in their non-conforming buildings, they have both previously said.

“You’re telling me that I can’t live in the back of my building if I want to? Because you can live in yours but I can’t live in mine because, what, I’m newer than you? I think that there’s some definite discrimination going on here,” she said.

“I resent that,” Lamar responded to the assertion that he doesn’t support the ordinance since his property is “grandfathered.” (The town’s mayor does not typically make motions to vote on certain issues nor does he typically vote on motions.)

At a February 2008 town council meeting, Lamar had said that council and planning commission members had mixed feelings about allowing split use and whether it could result in parking problems and safety issues within town buildings. He had also said at the meeting that he was unsure if the change was something people living in town really wanted since he had not heard “broad support” for it.