Town should explain position

S ome attending this month’s Madison Town Council meeting were doubly surprised. First, the council let die Councilman Charles Carter’s proposal that would have made it easier for downtown business owners to rent out parts of their buildings as apartments. Second, none of Carter’s fellow council members did much in the way of explaining their lack of enthusiasm for his proposal.

While The Eagle isn’t offering a blanket endorsement of the proposal, on the surface at least it seemed to have offered some positive things. It would have provided a way around the sticky situation encountered by several downtown property owners, such as Susan Bernhardt of The Last Nickel on South Main Street.

The Culpeper businesswoman operates a gift shop on the first floor of the large, 1920s-era, two-story, wood-frame building that was probably originally built to strictly serve as a home. Later, the upstairs was used as rental apartment while the downstairs had been converted into what at that time was a restaurant. This was allowed because this situation had existed before zoning laws were enacted. However, after the property changed hands its “grandfather” exemption from the zoning restriction ceased.

Bernhardt wants to again be able to use the building’s upstairs for a rental apartment -- with a few updates -- while the downstairs remains a business, but is apparently blocked by a town zoning law that prevents creating “new” apartment “updates” in buildings currently housing a business. Curiously, there are instances in town where buildings with downtown businesses and upstairs apartments co-exist in what appears to be a successful union. One example that comes to mind is the Beasleys’ apartment-topped Laundromat building on North Main Street. Another is Washington Circle’s Peterson Building, which has several offices on the first floor – including Madison’s town office — and multiple apartments on the second and third floors.

While these exist because of their being “grandfathered” in, they also serve as models that show such “multi-use” zoning can work in general.

One thinks the council would want to more openly share why it opposes the change. Is it just philosophically against all new “multi-use” zoning of downtown properties? If so, why? Or, were there certain aspects of how just this particular proposal was worded that caused them concern? If so, just what were their reservations? Since this is something citizens would naturally want to know, we call on the mayor and council to more clearly give their positions on this in future meetings.