Commission tables proposal to allow detached single-family homes in B‑1 business zone; related SUP also tabled

The Madison County Planning Commission on April 1 tabled a proposed zoning-text amendment that would permit detached single-family dwellings in the B‑1 business district and, separately, tabled a related special-use permit application to convert a business building to a residence.

Staff explained the two-step process: the planning commission must first decide whether the B‑1 district should allow a detached single-family dwelling by special‑use permit or by right, and only then consider site-specific SUP requests. Commission members and staff raised multiple drafting concerns about the proposed text: as written, the amendment included no limits on the number of future dwellings or whether the change could be applied to newly constructed detached homes, which commissioners said could create unintended precedent.

Several members urged limiting any change to existing structures or to properties that had existing water and sewer infrastructure as of the ordinance’s passage date. "If we deal with properties that currently have the facilities, plumbing and water in existence as of the date that this ordinance is amended ... that locks in place buildings that could be converted to use," one commissioner said, urging a grandfathering approach. Staff also warned that area and setback regulations in the B‑1 district were not written with primary residential use in mind and that allowing residences broadly could create compatibility problems over time.

Members of the public offered mixed views. Evans Hookerson said residences already exist near the site and that local businesses generate tax revenue and jobs; other commissioners and staff stressed that the comprehensive plan directs residential growth toward designated residential areas and that a broad change could undermine long‑term economic-development goals for the Route 29 corridor. Staff noted the planning commission’s earlier recommendation and the need to re-advertise any substantially changed language; commissioners agreed a workshop should refine the wording and consider a date-based grandfathering clause or a clear limit to conversions of existing buildings only.

The practical result of the April 1 action: ZOA‑02‑26‑02 (the ordinance amendment) and SUP‑02‑26‑02 (the special-use request to convert an existing business building at 27 Jack Shops Road owned by Janine Jensen) were both tabled. Staff said the items will be returned to a planning-commission workshop to refine language and that the earliest likely advertising would be for a June public hearing if the commission completes revisions in time.

The tabling preserves the applicant’s position: the applicant’s representative said he was willing to wait for the county to craft the language and re-advertise rather than proceed today with the current draft.

Next steps: staff will place the ordinance-redraft on a planning-commission workshop agenda for additional drafting and consider limiting the amendment to existing structures (date-stamped) or adding explicit criteria for SUP approval in B‑1.

No formal votes on the substance of the ordinance were taken; the planning commission used a motion to table both the text amendment and the SUP to allow staff and the commission to draft more constrained language.