Madison council approves transfer of Coal Lot to redevelopment agency, adds ban on variance requests

Madison City Council voted to transfer the riverfront parcel known in public discussion as the Madison Coal Lot to the Madison Redevelopment Commission, adopting an amendment that forbids any future developer from requesting zoning variances as part of an economic-development agreement.

The council introduced Resolution 20-26-7C and then approved a council amendment that would require the Redevelopment Commission to include a clause prohibiting requests for variances from the Unified Development Ordinance in any transfer agreement. At roll call the amendment passed 5–2. The final vote on the resolution passed 5–2 later in the meeting.

The decision followed an extended public-comment period in which dozens of residents urged the council to reconsider the transfer and questioned how the city valued the lot. ‘‘Many voters will speak tonight, virtually all of them against the sale of the Madison Coal Lot,’’ said Robert Stacer, identifying himself as a resident at 518 East 2nd Street. Stacer predicted the motion would pass despite opposition and urged voters to act at the ballot box.

Other residents raised specifics about the project’s financing and the project’s evolving scope. ‘‘There will be over $7,000,000 of public funds,’’ said Warren Oxford, citing figures from grant applications and an earlier Indiana Economic Development Authority commitment for a prior proposed project; Oxford said the mayor’s original proposal had changed over time from higher-end, market-rate units to a larger, lower-cost building.

Opponents also emphasized riverfront character and floodplain risks. ‘‘This will destroy our riverfront,’’ Jan Vatres told the council, urging preservation of open green space and noting historic efforts to restore the waterfront.

Supporters of the transfer framed it as a housing and economic strategy. Kevin Callums, who said he serves on the Regional Development Authority board, said the project scored highly in regional funding rounds and that more housing — particularly permanent downtown residents — would strengthen downtown businesses. ‘‘The project scored very highly during the first round,’’ Callums said.

Several speakers questioned the city’s valuation and asked for public documentation of appraisals. Richard Ice noted a separate private offer of $450,000 for the lot and urged the council to slow the process and engage the community. The mayor responded to multiple objections, saying the city did not offer a $7 million direct subsidy and that the city is complying with standards in the Unified Development Ordinance.

The amendment’s mover sought to preserve council control over deviations from zoning rules by preventing variance requests tied to the agreement; the amendment carried on a 5–2 roll-call vote (Patrick Tavanagh: Yes; Carla Krebs: Yes; Lucy D'Tillo: No; Josh Schaeffer: Yes; Joel Storm: Yes; Jim Bartlett: No; Josh Wilbur: Yes). The council then voted on the resolution itself with the same 5–2 margin recorded later.

The council did not vote on any final development plan at the meeting; staff said project details have changed repeatedly and that no single, final plan has been presented to the council. The mayor and other officials said they support the transfer as a step to pursue housing in downtown Madison, but multiple residents asked for additional transparency and community discussions before the project advances further.

Next steps: the resolution transfers interest to the Redevelopment Commission subject to the adopted amendment; council discussion and public requests for further documentation were left on the record, and city staff indicated additional analyses and meetings would follow.