Board of Zoning Appeals and City of Madison Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Are we ready? Our video camera is rolling. Welcome to Board of Zoning Appeals for Madison, July 13, 2026. Madam Secretary, could we have the roll call? Yes, sir.

Rick Harris? Scott Holt?

Here.

Here. Here.

Here.

Here.

Board members, have you had a chance to look over last month's meeting minutes? Are there any additions or corrections? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Minutes are accepted. Just a reminder, last month there was an application at 2422 North K Road And the applicant requested that be tabled until our August meeting. So if any of you are here with regard to that one, we're not going to discuss it tonight. We just have two items on the agenda. But if you're here for that and you just want to sit through our meeting, you're more than welcome. So next item on the agenda under new applications It's BZVD-26-6, Brian Marshall, requesting a variance from developmental standards for setbacks of a duplex, 1125 Walnut Street. That's zoned R2. So do we have someone here to address the board about that? Come on up and give your name and address for the record and tell the board what you have in mind and why you're applying for a variance.

Brian Marshall, BZVD-26-6.

Is the microphone on?

Thanks. There was an old house there that was demolished earlier this year. I'd like to build a duplex there. There's a driveway already on the property to access the back And that's why I'm asking for the variance to be four foot off versus eight foot of that empty lot next door.

Personally, the only concern I have is about being a floodplain. That property has been flooded, hasn't it? Once in a while?

Not up here where I'm building, but I've already talked to the DNR. I know I have to be up two foot above the 100-year floodplain, so I've already taken all that into consideration.

Just for information, what is the 100-year floodplain at that location?

I know I have to be four blocks high. We measured it and everything. I really don't know the specifics, but I had an elevation survey done two weeks ago, so I'm all good there.

Well, that was my only concern, that you knew about that, because we have to follow FEMA's rules. Board members, do you have any other questions or comments?

You said there was a house there before. What happened to that house? It was demolished? Yeah. Do you know why?

It was deemed unsafe. It was really never a living unit. It was kind of put there for storage, but it was pretty rough.

Are you just planning on building the one duplex? Correct. So I went by from at the right lot. I went by a couple days ago. So you put some gravel down? Is that the right? That's not it?

No, it's the one north of that.

The one north of that. Okay. All right. I wasn't understanding the gravel.

Any other questions or comments, board members?

So you're at that little higher elevation, and the one where you put the gravel is three or four feet lower. There's like a little berm there kind of. Okay. So you're up above that. Okay. All right. Got you.

These can be just rentals?

Yes.

How many bedrooms is each rental going to be? Two.

And you're requesting a I'm trying to find here the exact amount you're requesting.

There is a, and that is on your staff report there at the very beginning, requesting a four-foot side yard setback. And the other one is that the stairs that would be used for access from the front would be within the front yard setback. The facade would be at the required setback line, but those stairs would be within the setback. That is also included in that, so forefoot side yard setback and to allow the front stairs to be located in the front yard setback.

Any other questions or comments, board members?

And there was one recommended condition from staff that just parking must be provided on the side of the structure rather than in front of the structure where your driveway is, and we have put some messages on the open gov application on that so you have a driveway to the site already that was a recommendation to consider

So the whole street parks in front of the houses, and I've got 30 plus foot to park in front.

You have 20 feet from outside of the right-of-way. Here we go. So your right-of-way to the building facade is 20 feet.

There's another 13 foot to the road, though.

Yeah, so I know that our ordinance doesn't allow parking within the right-of-way unless that's approved by Board of Works. So you would have to provide required parking, you know what I mean, just like the ordinance would for any other dwelling unit within the city, required number of parking spaces, and to comply with our UDO on that. would be required to, I can tell you exactly how many if you want to know that really quickly, but we also do have standards in terms of the sizes of those parking areas and that sort of thing that would need to be complied with. So parking on the side would comply with that.

Which is true of the board obviously. Oftentimes the The right-of-way doesn't look like the right-of-way. Right.

Yeah, because it's two spaces per dwelling unit is what we require for single-family and two-family on that.

Any other questions or comments, board members? Would anyone in the audience like to speak for or against this proposed variance? guess not you want to speak yes sir come on up if you give your name and address for the record please my name is Kenneth Dan Y and I live at 1133 Walnut Street Madison Indiana 47250

I've lived on that block. My parents owned that house since 1952. And it was willed to me, so I basically was growing up on that street. And where he's planning on putting that house, that duplex, it does flood up above that bank. I've seen it many a times, and it doesn't flood where he's planning on putting the duplex at. That's all I've got to say.

Well, I appreciate that. The county surveyor, if you ask him, he has the flood elevation. You know, per the rules, FEMA has a 100-year flood elevation. So like in downtown Madison, I believe that's 465 feet. above sea level. The river is generally 420 feet above sea level. So there is some flood plain on Crooked Creek, which to get a building permit, he would have, as he already said, he has to look into that. And the bottom of his first floor has to be two feet above that. That's for FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Administration. which we all have to follow new construction especially so it may well flood but his first floor has to be two feet above that expected level just federal law I just noticed that being there all my life it gets flooded more often now and the water's coming up higher last one got the

My house is barely on the flood zone, barely, and it almost made it to the back of my house. And I'm pretty good far away off the creek. It's never been flooded before.

According to the GIS, that's a tool which is available to anybody that wants to look at it, The elevation of the land there is about 482 feet where the house goes, plus or minus a foot or so. So whatever that flood, expected flood elevation is, he's got to be two feet above it. That's just the law.

I have the DMR. Do you want to pull that up? Sure. That's helpful. So this is the... This is the mapping where the data that is used by the state and we comply with as well. So this shows all of the flood elevations within the entire state. You can see the creek. I believe this is the structure that was demoed. I think this is that structure because here's that grave street that's across the way. So it does cut into that property. But again, nothing can be constructed unless it complies with our floodplain ordinance, which complies with the state's floodplain regulations. So basically, as long as we're in compliance, two foot above base flood elevation. There's requirements for flood vents and that sort of thing. Like Scott said, if it doesn't comply with the floodplain ordinance, it can't be built. So he's already aware of that, it sounds like, elevation certifications, so he has to have a licensed surveyor come out there and show him where that base flood elevation two foot above is, and then after it's constructed, go out there and certify that it is above that location.

So the one you're showing with the dot, that's the one that you're saying that was knocked down?

I believe, because if you look at... Couldn't be.

That house was not... It wasn't even with everybody else's house. It was set back over there.

I was using it basically based on this. Oh, maybe it's the one north of it then. So here's this graves. I was trying to kind of align because the state's map doesn't have parcels on this. So this is that graves, which is right here. So maybe that is the existing house then. So it might be this area right below it. But we do know it is within that floodplain area. and or as you get into the back of the property, you get into the actual creek.

You have to know this stuff because there's a flood plain where the water just accumulates, and there's a floodway where it gushes. And you have to build two feet above the highest expected flood elevation, and your foundation has to be built so that the water can gush through it and not take the house with it. Go ahead.

In the floodway, we don't construct unless the state approves. The state has to approve anything in the floodway.

It's pretty strict, and it's designed to keep houses from floating down the Ohio River. Right. Which has happened.

The floodway is that hashed area right there. That would require going to DNR.

I was just wondering, probably seen every flood that went through there.

Well, you can easily find this information on the Internet because it's worth studying, especially when you live where you do. And my sympathies are with you when water comes gushing down the mountain. Yeah, that's why they call it flashback.

But do you think this would be an improvement in the area, putting this duplex in, compared to what was there?

That's my question. Well, it is. raise the value of the houses towards having a duplex there, not the value of the houses there.

And just to remind the board, the request is for the variance. The duplex is a permitted use, so it's just the setback that we're debating on tonight.

That's true. It is worth noting that Madison just adopted a new zoning ordinance a couple of months ago. And it follows pretty much the pattern that the state of Indiana dictates. And now you have by right the ability to build a house, correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Williams, in virtually every zoning district there is.

Well, some of that was in the House Bill 1001 legislation, and some of that passed and some didn't. It, I believe, is planned to come back next session.

So people have the right now in places where localities used to have jurisdiction. The state is overruled, so he does have the right to build there.

The duplex, that is a local ordinance.

I know this gentleman was talking about with all the gravel they're putting that campground there. They asked for permission for that or not?

I did say that if there was a question that we can definitely talk through that outside of the meeting and see if there is a permitted use or not. And then if it's not, there's a process for violations and enforcement if it's not a permitted use or they didn't get permits or whatnot.

Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Anybody else from the public like to speak for or against this proposed variance? Board members, one last chance. Well, seeing none, we'll declare the comment period closed. And now we'll go through our three findings of fact for developmental standards variance. And I'll just go down them and ask each of you to comment, since this is a variance. First criterion, the approval will not be injurious to the public health safety morals of general welfare. Mrs. Burkhart.

No, I don't see any problem with any of those.

Mr. Eaglin. No, I don't see any problems. Mr. Amick.

Same, no problems.

And we've certainly heard no testimony that public health safety and its morals will be harmed by this. I think that one's met. Second criterion, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. Mrs. Burkhart?

No, I don't believe it will be.

Mr. Eaglin? No.

Mr. Amick? No concerns.

There was a house there previously. We've heard no testimony from a realtor or an assessor or anybody recognized by Indiana comment with authority on that, so I think that one's met. And number three, this is always the big one with variance. A strict application of the terms of the ordinance will result in practical difficulty in use of the property. Practical difficulty cannot be based on a personal financial hardship, personal inconvenience, or be self-created. Mrs. Burkhart.

Well, as the staff responded, the proposed variance allows development to occur outside the flood area and the hillside.

Mr. Eaglin. Yeah, I agree with all of what you said there. Mr. Amick.

No concerns.

Practical difficulty. It's in a location which is subject to periodic flooding. There are Our constraint's on the usable portion of the property, so I think that one's met. Having gone through our findings of fact, we will take a motion.

I make a motion to approve the application BZVD-26-6. Second. Second.

I'm going to have a roll call.

All right. Scott Baldwin?

Yes.

Carleen Wood? Yes. Nancy Berker? Yes. Friday Mayday?

Yes.

You have your variance, sir. All right. Thank you. We wish you well. Next item on the agenda. Okay. VZVD-26-7. Charles Stewart is the applicant. Owners are Kenneth and Janet Degler. And this is an application for a variance or developmental standards variance. at 3519 North Shun Pike. So sir, come on up and give your name and address for the record and explain your situation, why you need a variance. I'm Charles Stewart.

I own Madison Iron and Wood. And it's at 3519 North Shun Pike Road, Madison, Indiana. So we want to build a showroom off the side, an art showroom next to our manufacturing area that we have. to show more local art and stuff to the area and to us. And we get a lot of people from out of town just due to social action and stuff like that that we have, media. And we don't really have a great place to show them, so we wanted to make another little building instead of them coming into our shop to have just a showroom that we can show them some stuff and have a more pleasant place to bring people from out of town instead of just... manufacturing area so it's just kind of an awkward thing for us so concocted a plan but a building on the side yeah right right around there And now you'll see that GIS, that's totally inaccurate. We shipped it way over that way. We had a thing done. We actually own that easement that actually goes back to the bottom. So... so we're planning on building a building we need the easement because it's within the industrial zone or something that I didn't realize before that there's a 50 foot variance I've never realized that and I've never observed that from any of the other buildings being built in that same area.

And part of that is the new UDO clarified a lot of things. The new ordinance clarified a lot of things where some of those districts, the setbacks were kind of silent on some of those. And so it's actually defined now. One example is general business was a case-by-case. You know what I mean?

So on a one-acre lot, it's pretty restrictive. Yeah, because you have a smaller lot. So given that, you know, we still have to have quite a bit of space there, you know, because we can't interfere with the easement, and there's a power line there, and I have to be 12 1⁄2 feet off of that. So I'm roughly almost 50 foot, but just to be able to maintain that distance, I just need a few feet toward that, you know, area. Not a lot, but like I said, just a little bit. You know, I figure 10 feet or something. you know it would beautify the area that that area tends to get cluttered up a lot you know throughout there not a great looking place but i think you know with us building that there we try to keep our place pretty straight and then unifying even our areas we're going to make it look better but i think we're going to bring the property value everybody else around there just bringing that So, but at the same time, I don't want to go buy another plot of land. It's a whole other expense. I don't necessarily, you know, want to really go into it. We have land to put it on. So we're looking at, you know, a 1,600-square-foot office shelter right there. Here.

And we included in the request a 35-foot setback? Yes. Because you said that would more than cover it, and then you're... Don't have to worry about if it was, you know, a foot or two this way or that way.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That way, you know, I doubt it. Because I was still going to stay with it. So that's what I got.

Yeah, I looked into your plate. In the 1967 zoning ordinance, heavy industry required an acre. And now it requires two acres. And then the 81 and the 2016 zoning ordinance, it was 10,000 square feet, I think. So I can imagine that your properties were laid out a long time ago.

I'd say so.

The ordinances have changed, but your property was there. And in the 67 zoning ordinance, there really wasn't much about the setbacks.

Yeah, I was surprised to hear the 50-foot. I was just thinking 10-foot. I never had a problem until I was going to go get a building permit.

You're in heavy industry now. I mean, this is steel mill territory. And interestingly, your specific use was allowed in 1967, ironworking. Well, I see your plight now. You're on a property that was laid out long ago. Things have changed. You're requesting a 35-foot instead of a modern 50-foot. You know, this ordinance is laid out for giant factories. It's not laid out for little shops.

Yeah, because you probably wouldn't be zoned out, too. You know what I mean? In reality. Yeah.

Board members, anybody have any questions or comments? I do notice that Schmidt Rental is on an acre and a quarter. That was obviously laid out long ago. The lot directly east of you is part of the junkyard. It's five-eighths of an acre. And Madison's own water tower is on a half acre. So... At least for me, you've got ample reason to be here. I did ask board members. Nobody had anything. Would anybody in the audience like to speak for or against this application? Well, seeing none, I declare the comment time closed. And we will move on to our three criterion. Once again, I'm going to ask each of you board members to state your reasons since this is a variance of the first one, not injurious to public health, safety, et cetera. Mrs. Burkhart.

No, he's just using it for administrative functions.

Mr. Eaglin. No, he needs a showroom.

The showroom is working. It makes perfect sense to me. Mr. Amick. No, I think it's quite an asset getting the, a little bit of a safety measure, getting the public out of your manufacturing area. You don't need people in there with the work you're doing, so you'll be good.

And this is zoned heavy industry. This is where this kind of stuff is supposed to be. So I see no problem with the first criteria. The second criteria, this is harming the, Use and value of adjacent properties. Mrs. Burkhart.

No, I see no problem with that.

Mr. Eaglin. No, no problem. Mr. Amick. No problem. Certainly heard no testimony that it would, so I think that one's met. And number three, this is always the big one, the practical difficulty in use of the property. Mrs. Burkhart.

I know. Like I said, the current use has less setback than requested. It's really not out of character for that area.

Mr. Eaglin. I agree. It just fits the area. Mr. Amick. I agree. And by the standards when probably this property was laid out, there would have been no problem whatsoever. So I see the practical difficulty is just fitting everything on a... on a one-acre lot. So I think that one's met. Well, having gone through our findings of fact, we'll take a motion.

I move we approve BZVD 26-7. I'll second.

I think we have a roll call.

All right. Scott Baldwin? Yes. Carl England? Yes. Nate Spurkart? Yes. And Brian Ames?

Yes.

Well, We wish you well, sir. We appreciate you. You've kept a very valuable little company going, despite having a very bad knock a while back. That concludes our agenda, unless our secretary has anything.

We have no new business, other business tonight, so just a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn. So moved. I second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed no. We are adjourned.