Culver Zoning Revisions
Steve Gorski, Culver Building Commissioner, has stepped up to the task of updating the Culver Zoning Ordinance. Having served on multiple committees to do this, I know this can be a mind-numbing and somewhat thankless task. This was one of the goals of the 2024 Comp Plan and Mr. Gorski has tackled it. At the last meeting, he presented a lot of the changes and corrections he is proposing. It wasn’t really open to the public for discussion, but was handled as a line-by-line presentation to the commissioners.
For 100% of what he presented, I appreciated what he was trying to do and the clean-up it represented. I think there was 10% that could have been improved by some additional input. My concern with the current approach being taken is two-fold:
- Mr. Gorski is the Building Commissioner, so naturally he tends to look at things from the administration and enforcement side of things. While those are relevant and extremely important, it doesn’t always pick up the implementation side that is important to the citizens when they try to comply with the ordinance.
- In the past, this has been done by a subcommittee, involving Plan Commission members and members of the public. While Mr. Gorski has a good working relationship with the Plan Commission, it’s harder for the Commissioners to question his suggestions since they are more personal than if they were created by a subcommittee. It’s impossible for one person to do this without it being affected by their personal experience. That is tempered by a committee. (Though this can easily double the time it takes to do this work.)
There is also the factor that Mr. Gorski has only held the position for a couple of years. I’ve written about “Institutional Memory” here before. This applied to more than a few items that he suggested changing. A couple examples just in the category of height restrictions:
- In the existing ordinance, there is a restriction that accessory structures in the residential districts have a height limit of 16′. This was added to the ordinance because multiple permits were issued for garages that later had a second floor area remodeled into a second residence, which was not permitted. Mr. Gorski has been questioned multiple times about this and would like it remove it.
- In the existing ordinance, the S-1 district allowed accessory structures to have a height of 50′, above the regular height restriction of 35′ in other districts (except A1 – Agriculture). The 50′ limit is there to accommodate grain elevator legs from before there was a separate A1 district. It was left in the ordinance during the last revision so existing farmers in the S-1 weren’t forced to rezone to comply if they added an elevator to their silos.
The ordinance is meant to be somewhat of a living document, so I am by no means saying that these things are written in stone. But the institutional memory of why they are there, could temper the decision to change them.
A couple larger items I struggled with on the changes were:
- Many of the tweaks, were to address current recurring problems, such a setbacks on small lots. I whole-heartedly agree with the thought process that the ordinance should be changed to reflect the reality of variance being given. Where I struggle with this is in the tweaks being made to setbacks in the R-1 district (as an example) to eliminate current setback issues on existing small lots, without considering how this would affect new lots with the larger lot sizes recommended by the ordinance. If the smaller existing lots are acceptable in R-1, then change the ordinance so new developments mimic the existing. Else, leave them intact as aspirational to what is desired in new construction. Or create new districts and district overlays to accommodate the current needs.
- The Comp Plan suggested some major changes in how zoning is handled. In some ways, it suggests moving away from Euclidean Zoning to more Hierarchical Zoning. This wouldn’t have to be done all at once, but could be done in steps or waves. Much of what is currently being fixed reinforces the current Euclidean Zoning. I did bring this up in the public comment section of the agenda and those that seemed to agree with me felt that fixing what we have is a good first step towards this. I hope that’s true since I know sometimes things get busy and major change is hard.
Overall, I commend Mr. Gorski for taking the bull by the horns and moving something forward. I hope the Plan Commission continues to work on this and takes the next steps recommended by the Comp Plan.
Berger Audiology 10 Year Anniversary
Hard to believe it’s been 10 years since Becky decided that she could provide better service to her patients on her own than through her previous employer. At that time, her employer began dictating maximum 20 minute appointments, not understanding that a hearing test takes an hour. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. She is not able to spend the time she needs to with her patients. It’s not nearly as lucrative, but she’s pleased to be able to provide better care.
Jamie Fleury did a nice article on Dr. Becky’s Berger Audiology 10 year Anniversary Open House last Thursday. Somewhere around 34 attended. She is planning a second event for Physicians and professional colleagues next month.
City of Plymouth, IN-Mayor’s Office was represented by Mayor Robert Listenberger and City Attorney Jeff Houin. Future Marshall County Sherriff, Les McFarland, was there as well as Matt Hovermale from the Plymouth Chamber. Seven nuns from the The Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ also attended. Naomi Peacock won the award for the youngest attendee. We won’t disclose who was the oldest! Becky was pleased with the turnout! Thanks to all that attended. 
Water Street Townhomes – Firemen, EMS & Fire Sprinklers
Last Month, Chief Holm, allowed us to host the Plymouth Fire Department for a tour of Water Street Townhomes in Plymouth. This was done over three days to cover all three fire department shifts.
We have done this in the past at Sand Hill Farm Apartments and The Paddocks in Culver. We also did this at LaPaz Commons in LaPaz. We generally try and do this at least once during the framing stage so the fire fighters get the opportunity to observe how the framing goes together in case the worst happens and they are fighting a fire in the building or rescuing someone. We generally try and invite EMS as well since it’s a good opportunity to see how to access the building.
In the case of Water Street Townhomes, we showed them where the electric service entrances are with the associate disconnects, where the electrical panels are, where the Knox Box will be and other pertinent information. For emergency access we showed why entrance from the rear might be a better choice due to tight access with a 90 degree turn at the front door.
The buildings are wood framed using modern framing techniques such as engineered wood products. They react differently in a fire than dimensional lumber. We also have 2-hour rated, double 2 x 4 stud, insulated fire walls between the units. These walls have minimal penetrations and have two layers of Type X, fire rated drywall on each side.
In the commercial space on the end, we were required to install sprinklers on the second-floor apartments because those units were over commercial space. While showing this to the firemen, one of the firemen asked why the entire building wasn’t sprinkled? Ah! A teaching moment!
As discussed in this post last week, municipalities charge a fee for buildings to have a sprinkler system. This is a somewhat random fee, for no actual service. Plymouth Water Department Utility Superintendent, Donnie Davidson, said this when asked what the fee covers: “What service is provided is providing water and pressure to the system, the city does nothing else. Everything from the property line is private.”
I took the opportunity to suggest the fireman advocate for the removal of this fee. Municipalities should be doing things to encourage fire sprinkler systems, not discourage them. In the case of Water Street Townhomes, the cost to sprinkle the two 1-bedroom units is $15,800. This is just the installation fee, then there is the $1,500 tap fee and the $537 annual inspection fee. Now on top of all of that, Plymouth charges $54 in its annual Fire Sprinkler Fee. The fee goes up by line size, so this is low as a 1-1/2″ line. Culver would charge their current flat fee of $1,200 + tax (or the new proposed fee of $2,199 + tax) for these two apartments, just as they would for 8, 24, 100 units, etc.)
There is a cost to install the fire walls between the units too, but it is a one-time cost which is less than the cost of installing a fire sprinkler system. (It also does double-duty by providing sound dampening between units.) I won’t leak or require maintenance or inspections. It is one and done. Is the protection as good as what you get with a fire sprinkler system? Probably yes as far as unit to unit spread, but probably not for saving the unit that catches fire. Plus, much more water is used in fighting a fire from the exterior of a building than that used to when a fire sprinkler system douses the fire at the source when it first starts. But as demonstrated with the two flats at Water Street Townhomes, this is only a solution when there is a horizontal division of units, not a vertical division.
I hope the fire fighters I spoke to speak up to City officials and suggest that this fee be removed. The huge and unjustified increase being contemplated in Culver is why these types of fees are scary to developers and building owners. The fact that they are a regressive fee on renters and discourage additional protection for fire-fighters just adds to the negatives.
Regressive Fees
We generally talk about taxes being regressive or progressive. The income tax in the U.S. is generally considered a progressive tax system, i.e. the percentage of tax paid on income progressively increases the more you earn. The Top 10% of taxpayers in the U.S. paid 75% of the total income tax paid, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 2.3% of total income tax paid, per the the Tax Foundation. This is opposed to sales tax, that is applied evenly across the board, but takes a larger percentage of a person’s total income, the lower they are on the income scale. While this is debated incessantly (“Billionaires don’t pay their fair share!”), the various governmental fees are rarely factored in.
I discussed this in a post (Deposit Dilemma) last year, when we first opened Riverside Commons Apartments in Plymouth. At that time, Plymouth required a $150 deposit to start water and REMC required a $350 deposit to start electric, for a total of $500. This for an apartment where some residents were paying less than $400 for rent due to their reduced income level. A similar problem has been brought to light in Culver as the Culver Town Council struggles to meet their water service obligations.
There was a Public Hearing for a new water rate ordinance at the Culver Town Council meeting last week. For various reasons, Covid being one of them, Culver has not raised rates in nearly 15 years. Kicking the can down the road has led to somewhat dire straights and they need to do something. Even those opposing specifics of the rate change, me included, acknowledge that some form of rate increase is needed. Because water service is a service, there is no methodology to do progressive billing. Fairness prevails and the rate goes up across the board with no favoritism. Where this falls apart is in the fire protection fees, specifically fees for fire sprinklers.
The State of Indiana requires new apartment buildings to have fire sprinkler systems if they have more than two units. Somewhere in the past, municipalities were advised to charge fees for these. In reality, it is a tax, as a fee would imply there is some service provided. No service is provided beyond providing water at the street, which they would do anyway. Because it’s termed a fee, there is sales tax attached to this, despite no product or service being provided. We can talk about the life safety benefits of a fire sprinkler system to residents and fire fighters another time, but this cost appears to be without merit.
There is no inspection or scheduled inspections, no maintenance, and no record-keeping. The only justification is the cost of bringing water to the site, which the municipality would do anyway. Reasonably, water usage for a fire in a building with sprinkler system would be significantly less than that used to fight a fire using traditional methods, since fire sprinklers generally put out the interior source before the building is engulfed.
The existing fire sprinkler fee is $1,200. The new ordinance proposed a fee increase of 83% to $2,199. Several points on this:
- The fee is per system, with no adjustment for line size, square footage covered, commercial vs. residential. On a reducing scale of coverage, CabinetWorks pays the same fee as The Cove, which pays the same fee and Sand Hill Farm Apartments, which pays the same fee as one 8 unit building at The Paddocks. Because there are three separate apartment building with fire sprinklers at The Paddocks, they pay this fee three times.
- This fee had little justification before, but the increase is not tied to any increase in service or increase in cost other than the overall cost of the water system. Whether a structure has a fire sprinkler system or not, does not affect that cost.
- When this fee is applied to residential units, this results in a double hit, since the resident will experience the increased water bill for their water usage and then a second hit for the fire sprinkler fee. This may come as a rent increase for apartments or a HOA assessment for condos.
- Because this is labeled a fee, Sales Tax gets layered onto this, further increasing the burden.
- This unintentionally targets the most vulnerable. Renters often fall on the lower end of the income spectrum, so this fee is extremely regressive, hitting those least able to pay.
The Town Council did listen and delayed a vote on this. (Much Appreciated!) The Town Manager said he would do more research into this. I will be interested to hear the background on how this fee was set and whether there is an option for more fair and equitable sharing of costs.
Post Frame Housing
September 8, 2025
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Culver, Plymouth, Politics, Rants, Tips
Community, Culver, government, housing, Plymouth, Rants, Tips, Trends
A few years back, there was an effort to ban post frame (also known as timber frame) housing in Plymouth. A similar ban has been floated a few times in Culver and resurfaced at the August Plan Commission meeting. In both cases, the rational has been that the style doesn’t fit the community. As near as I can discern, (and I could be missing something) it doesn’t have much to do with the post frame construction, but more about the look of vertical metal siding, since these homes can be indiscernible from homes built using standard framing.
Post frame construction is most often associated with the “Shade & Shelter” functionality of Pole Buildings. Where post frame barns are designed to protect farm equipment, post frame homes are generally better insulated, stronger structurally, sealed tightly and have a different aesthetic. It’s just a different framing technique that has recently had a resurgence in popularity.
The main difference in this style of construction is the use of posts (poles) to provide the frost protection and uplift protection in lieu of the footings and frost walls used in standard construction. They are nearly always slab-on-grade (SOG) for the first floor. (Many standard construction homes are SOG as well, but standard homes could also have crawl spaces or basements.) Standard construction will use 2×4 or 2×6 studs at 16″ or 24″ on center to form the shell. Post frame buildings have posts spaces as much as 8′ on center with horizontal 2x4s girts to support the siding. Standard construction will have trusses or rafters at 24″ on center, where post frame buildings space out the trusses to bear on the posts and then use 2×4 purlins to support the roofing materials.
For a pole building, the big advantages are the ease and speed of construction. The construction is very forgiving. It is generally a big box to provide the most cubic feet of storage with the minimum of effort. They tend to leak and creak over time, but provide the basic shelter function needed. For a post frame home, there are a lot of enhancements:
While some of these homes embrace the barndominium style, such as the one to the right that even includes a simulation of a silo, they often are hard to distinguish from their neighbors. It’s not the framing that determines the exterior aesthetic, and in many cases you wouldn’t know the framing style if you didn’t see it under construction. Three of the apartment buildings at The Paddocks have a definite barn aesthetic, yet they were stick-built.
Stating that the style doesn’t fit the community seems a particularly curious thing to say about a home in Culver. Culver has a myriad of building styles ranging from traditional to bungalows to A-frames to geodesic domes. Culver has exterior finishes ranging from siding to painted concrete block to limestone to fieldstone. The siding breaks down to various styles including vertical, horizontal and diagonal. We have buildings with vinyl, steel, aluminum and wood siding. Culver is allowing new construction to expand in size to the point that they encourage replatting/combining of small lots to accommodate the larger construction.
Some communities establish aesthetic requirements. Culver doesn’t have these. As it stands, they’re zoning decisions are based mostly on safety. Post frame verses traditional framing is more of an issue for building codes and as of this time it is allowed. Many would object to the use of vibrant colored residential standing seam roofs as not fitting the traditional aesthetic, but nothing has been said about banning those. Personally, I’m fine with the diversity. Culver shouldn’t stoop to the level of a group of Karens. A flock of Karens is known as an HOA. Culver shouldn’t go there. (Neither should Plymouth…)
0 comments