The Madison City Plan Commission rejected a setback request from D & W Realty Holdings for a proposed multi‑unit single‑family development at 2629 Michigan Road and Century Lane and did not approve a separate right‑of‑way variance after public opposition and legal questions about whether the project is a permitted use in the general‑business zone.

Jim Pruitt, identifying himself as a representative of D & W Realty Holdings, told the commission the plan envisions 19 single‑family rental homes on a single parcel and described engineering work showing a 26‑foot curb‑to‑curb street within a proposed 40‑foot right‑of‑way. "We were led to believe that we needed a street," Pruitt said, describing several redesigns and the applicant’s preference for a city street rather than a private driveway to serve the development.

Attorney Patrick McGrath, speaking for several adjoining landowners, urged the commission to deny the requests. McGrath argued the lot lines had been vacated, leaving one parcel and meaning subdivision‑control variances do not apply, and he maintained the submitted plan—20 single‑family rental houses on one parcel—was not a permitted use in the general‑business category under the local zoning code. "Based on the definitions in the zoning ordinance, this is not a permitted use," McGrath said, and he questioned whether the variance standards (showing a hardship unique to the property) were met.

Neighbors voiced concerns about property values, traffic and sewer capacity. Daryl Detmer said residential homes in a commercial corridor would "devalue the business property around there," and Cher Austin, representing the England Motel at 2629 Michigan Road, expressed worry about existing sewage burdens and congestion at the nearby Taco Bell intersection if 20 more homes were added.

Commission discussion focused on procedures and options: staff noted the first application could be handled as a private driveway (which would avoid the public right‑of‑way requirement), commissioners emphasized the difficulty of making a final determination with only five members present—the ordinance requires five affirmative votes of nine to approve certain actions—and they debated tabling versus deciding the items.

The commission proceeded to vote. A motion to reject the right‑of‑way variance (SDVA‑25‑1) was made and recorded; commissioners later said the application "died" because it did not secure an affirmative approval to advance. The subsequent application to establish 5‑foot setbacks for the proposed development (PCGB‑25‑3) was presented and, after a motion to reject, recorded a roll‑call vote rejecting the setback request; the chair stated the roll call produced five affirmative votes to reject the application.

With the setback request rejected and no approved right‑of‑way variance, the applicant was left to consider alternatives such as pursuing a private driveway design or returning with a revised application at a future meeting. The commission did not adopt any conditions that would allow the project to move forward as proposed.

The commission also noted the UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) transition: staff and commissioners discussed how pending applications filed before a new UDO’s effective date would follow existing rules, while new applications after that date would be subject to the updated ordinances. The UDO public hearing was separately rescheduled to a special meeting on Jan. 26 at City Hall.

The commission adjourned after the actions on the two applications.