Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Abandoned Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts vacant-and-abandoned-structure ordinance after lengthy debate over masonry standards
Summary
After extended debate and public comment, the Madison Common Council approved new maintenance and registration standards for vacant and abandoned properties, including a change to quarterly reporting but rejecting a wider mail-notice amendment and a proposed masonry exemption.
The Madison Common Council approved ordinance 2025-4 (second reading), establishing maintenance standards and a registration program for vacant and abandoned structures after extended council debate and public comment about historic masonry buildings.
The ordinance sets minimum maintenance requirements, a registration regime for affected properties and an enforcement process. Council debate centered on how standards should apply to historic masonry: several council members and outside preservationists warned that painting or applying modern sealants to historic brick can accelerate deterioration, while others said the ordinance is needed to reduce blight and hold property owners accountable.
Councilman Josh Schafer proposed amendments to carve out masonry surfaces from blanket painting requirements, and asked that the ordinance explicitly protect historic masonry materials. Staff and other council members argued enforcement will be collaborative, involving the city planning/historic staff and that the new standards are intended to eliminate blighting conditions that threaten the long-term viability of structures.
The council considered several motions. An amendment to add the word “non-masonry” to the maintenance paragraph and to exclude historic masonry from a repainting mandate failed on roll call. Council later approved a narrower change requiring the Board of Public Works and Safety to receive quarterly registration reports and added the Madison Common Council to the recipients of that report. A separate motion to require certified mail for owner notices failed for lack of a second.
Votes at a glance: the final roll call on the ordinance showed one council member voting no and the rest in favor; the amendment to exclude masonry failed 1–6. Supporters said the ordinance addresses blight and will be applied on a case-by-case basis with historic preservation staff; opponents warned about potential long-term harm to historic masonry if inappropriate materials or methods are used.
Ending: The ordinance moves into implementation steps; staff said city preservation staff and code enforcement will work with property owners on plans for repair or remediation. The ordinance also establishes channels for appeals and hearing authority through the Board of Public Works and Safety.
