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

This could be the fastest meeting ever. puppy. to sit here.

All right. Be nice. Okay. You make motion about 6 o'clock. Welcome to Madison's Board of Zoning Appeals, May 11th, 2026. We have a roll call, please. Of course. Rick Ferris here. Scott Baldwin here. Carl England here. Nancy Burker

here. Uh last month's meeting, we had a tabled application BZBD-25-18. For various reasons, that one is no longer needed. Under new applications, the first item on the agenda was BZCU-26-4 and that one has been withdrawn, leaving us with one more item on the agenda. BZVD-26-2.

What about the minutes? Oh, the minutes. Thanks. He's rolling. this new streamlined procedure has thrown me. Um, before we proceed with that, the minutes, have you all board members got any additions or corrections? Take a motion. I move we approve the uh minutes of the previous meeting as all in favor say I.

I oppose. No. Minutes are Uh, moving on to the one new application, BZBD-26-2, Chris Heights, uh, representing I won't even try to pronounce it. Requesting a variance from developmental standards for a sign located at 606 East Main Street. And yes, sir, we have somebody to address this. following up. Give your name and address for the record. Please tell the board what you're why you're requesting a variance.

Chris Heights with Heights Sign Company, 905 Industrial Drive, Madison, Indiana. Um we are wanting to replace the sign for uh it's a CEG Properties, which is the Gardener Insurance building. Um it's over at the it's over on East Maine at 606 East Maine. Um he has a the main tenant there is gardener insurance. Uh but he's got a lot of uh lot of smaller tenants in there too. There was an old sign that was done by the the previous owner of the property which was a a law office a long time ago. Um it's just it's just fallen into disrepair. It is uh it's actually physically fallen on the ground and we're looking to replace it with uh something that is going to be similar size. Uh it's going to have u the same ability to have the multi-tenants on it, be able to change them in and out. I know he's got a uh they've got the main facility there, but down in the basement and up stairs, they have different types of uh professional uh services that are there. And so there's there's often people walking looking for the spaces. So, um, but yeah, we're basically just going to use the same footprint, but do something that, um, is, uh, going to be less of a, uh, hazard for them. Um, that the way that sign was, it had a lot of hanging, uh, thick wood pieces that were always falling down. It was just was a constant problem for him. So, we're going to we're going to do it. So, they're they're actually fixed onto the sign. um which I think will be but you know keep the same look and the same um footprint and the same size. So

I understand that part of the problem is the zoning ordinance has changed and previously there wasn't much requirement of anything about a sign but now there is correct the previous ordinance basically didn't have a lot of sign regulations and what was the specialty district and it got absorbed into the HDR district. So, this is one thing that's on our kind of six-month assessment list to talk to plan commission and council about. Um, trying to recognize the HDR district actually is a little bit of a small business district, too. You know, now with the ordinance. Yeah. And I don't what was the what were the restrictions according to the ordinance? I mean, there

um Yeah. So, the issue with the current ordinance, it treats the HDR district like R1, R2, and R3. Um and so you're allowed to have a wall or you know mounted on a structure sign and that's just two square feet um or monument signs for subdivisions. So again when SD kind of got merged into HDR I think that's caused a little bit of a thing a need to reassess. Again we have a we have a number of things we were planning when the ordinance was first adopted to come back in six months and do any small tweaks. No major changes but just kind of right sizing things here and there and this is one that is on my list. Yeah. like in a two square feet would be completely useless. I mean, it's intended for a house like a single family house

like a a yard sign and somebody's doing the job. That's a political sign, right? I mean, yeah. So, that's essentially a lot of temporary signs, too. But he's gonna But he has lots of tenants in there. Some of them just have an office or some of them just use the space certain times. I know he said he's got a lot of um you different there's some mental health professionals and there's always people trying to find the building and so I mean I think it needs to have something out there. Um is it going to be a one-sided sign or it's doublesided? Doublesided. Will there be any any lights? No lights. No lights. Okay. Yeah. You said it's essentially the same size as before. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. It's the same footprint.

Yeah. paid for. Yep. Your submission shows it's exactly the same sign. The only difference is you can't see through the gaps anymore. But in my opinion, that would be no impediment to traffic or anybody pulling out on the street or anything like that. It's back substantially. Any other questions or comments, board members? Nope. So actually this is same sign only a little different. Yeah. Just newer and not falling apart.

Historic order of review did um it's an administrative approval but they did issue a certificate of appropriateness for it as well. So from the historic district it's fine as well. Um our just ordinance because we're replacing the whole thing. It's not a um it doesn't qualify just as maintenance. Well, seeing nobody from the public who seems to disagree. Well, you could have a seat, sir. Okay.

Thank you. Board members, with your approval, since this is a variance from developmental standards, there are, as you know, three criterion. And as part of the public record, staff has presented their opinion. And in staff's opinion, they think all three uh criterion have been met. So I'm just going to go down each criterion and I'm going to ask each of you with your permission or I shall ask if any of you have any objections if that's all right with all of you.

Yes. Uh findings fact number n number one it's not injurious to the public health safety morals etc. Staff thinks that one's met. Are any of you have any disagreements? No. I agree with that. Finding a fact number two use and value of the area adjacent to the property is not going to be substantially adversely affected. Staff thinks that it's not. Does anybody have any objections to that one? Nope.

Not. Uh fact number three uh strict application of the terms will result in a practical difficulty which is not based on a financial hardship, personal inconvenience or itself created staff thinks that this one is met as well or members. Is there anybody that disagrees? Nope. I do not disagree. And personally, I think I would agree that that one is met because that sign has been there for years. I would venture to say a lot of people probably won't even notice.

They won't even You Well said, sir. They will not even notice. So, having gone through our findings of fact, we'll take a motion. I move we approve this variance of developmental standards for the sign with dimensions and design as given. Do we have a second? Second. We have a roll call. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Well, per our agenda. That's it. Unless there's something else.

Did you I think you did you submit?

Is there anything else I've omitted or that you wish to say? Staff? No, we don't have any new business. got a lighter month which is great and I think there's right now there's one thing on the next well take a motion to adjurnn second all in favor say I opposed no we are adjourned Scott

I second it Thank you. Thanks for your help. We know his next kill.