One of the things that continually comes up in response to the controversy regarding The Dunes, is the State requirement that municipalities provide utility service to annexed properties within 3 years. The parcels The Dunes is being built on, plus the next parcel south were annexed into Culver around 13 years ago. This was done when Culver Garden Court was being built. The Town is remiss in providing water and sewer to these properties. Granted, they hadn’t asked for services before and as I understand it, the south property doesn’t particularly want services, but it is an obligation the Town accepted in their annexation plan which included a fiscal plan on how to pay for the utility extensions.
The initial impetus for this annexation was to bring Culver Garden Court into Town and provide utility service to support the project. As often happens, politics entered into this. The then Clerk treasurer had just moved to the southernmost property. So the annexation was expanded to include that parcel, else she would have had to resign her position as she would no longer be a resident. Doubling down on this, Culver has annexed the property on the south side of the Masonic Cemetery and that property owner HAS requested utility service. As I understand it, Culver has sufficient utility capacity for this extension, though it will use a significant portion of the capacity reserve.
I have no issue with any of the above. But the conversations regarding the municipal obligations do cause me some concern. If those are truly an issue, there is another ticking timebomb for Culver…
As with most of us, my life is now divided into prepandemic and post-pandemic, so I’m going to forego the research on the timeline beyond that as I talk about the property owned by Culver Investment Corp outlined in cyan and yellow on the adjacent map. (Also known locally as ‘The Beste Property’.) Prepandemic, Culver was presented with a plan for a PUD development at the Northwest corner of Town. This would take in most of the unannexed area within S.R. 17 and S.R. 10. Along with that area (72 acres), the PUD included 14.6 acres of land on the north side of S.R. 10. The majority of this land was to be residential, a continuing Town priority, with the parcel north of S.R. 10 slated to be a gas station/convenience store (area in cyan on the adjacent map). As part of that negotiation with the developer, Culver had sufficient utility capacity, but the developer would be responsible for extending utilities to serve the property. Overall, this was a positive for Culver. I didn’t have any issues with the project, though I did have a few issues with it holding up Sand Hill Farm Apartments and with the treatment of existing business, Good to Go. The property was annexed and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning was approved.
The project stalled shortly after that. No doubt the pandemic was a factor, but I suspect there were other issues as well. The Plan Commission gave the developer several extensions, but in the end, the PUD was rescinded this year (’23) and the land was rezoned back to S-1, Suburban Residential, as it was prior to the PUD. Shortly after the PUD was rescinded and the rezoning was completed, the property went on the market.
This brings me to my concern: The properties were never combined and are listed for sale individually. Culver Investment Corp is not doing any development of these properties, so the development agreement with that corporation is null and void. If the 6.7 acre parcel at the north east corner of S.R. 17 and S.R. 10 sells and is developed, Culver must run utilities to that parcel per State annexation requirements. (Culver would be unable to deny a permit for a house on that property per current zoning.) It would appear the nearest utilities at 4/10ths of a mile away… as the crow flies… There are no easement provisions to get utilities to this property. Right-of-way access would require INDOT cooperation, which can be tedious at best and require nearly a mile of utility extensions without even considering the need for a water loop.
I have not seen or heard anything about this in public meetings, but this seems to be a potentially large budget item. One potential solution, would be to de-annex the property, but I would suggest that’s not best for Culver either. Having control of that area is important. That was discussed extensively with the Comprehensive Plan Committee. (There was also extensive discussion about increasing our extra territorial boundary.) Getting together a new fiscal plan for the area would seem to be another important step. Culver can’t be completely distracted by the growth on the south side of town and ignore this 86 acre area on the north. That could come back to bite us.
Starting with a disclaimer on this. I’m not taking sides on any of the “I’m with Esmie” debacle, because I don’t know the facts of the matter. That said, I work with three other libraries and I’m friends with 4 other librarians. I thought some of their comments were worth sharing:
I’m probably writing this a bit late. I don’t know the current status of the Library Director search, but my impression is it will be a challenge to fill the position. I’m not throwing shade on anyone involved, just noting that the eyes of the library world are on us, and in not the best light.
After the last Culver Town Council meeting, John Mellencamp‘s Pink Houses song was in my head… “Little Pink Houses… for you and me!” Though on reflection, a couple of Talking Heads‘ more angry song lyrics might have been more appropriate, i.e. “Burning Down the House!” or “This is not my beautiful house!”
A local resident rose to speak during public input. Apparently just recently finding out about The Dunes (seriously!?), she had many concerns, not the least of these being aesthetics. She wanted to see what the buildings were going to look like. She didn’t want a bunch of cookie cutter houses looking all the same. (What, like The Riggings, Chadwick Shores, The Harbour or The Cove?) Paraphrasing here, she used a line similar to what has been used from multiple perspectives and variations against The Dunes, “That isn’t Culver!” Really? What is Culver? She made reference to living on South Street. The last lake home on South Street, the Shaffer house, was demolished within the last month as it is about to be replaced by something new. In many ways, THAT is what Culver has become. A continuing renaissance of demolition and replacement.
Back in 1998, Culver hosted a Charrette, where some themes were identified. Recommendations were made on things that should be highlighted. One of these was the use of field stone, which prompted the pillars for the Welcome to Culver sign at 10 & 17 and covering the wall at the Lake Shore Drive curve with stone. Even recently, this theme has been continued in the developments at Sand Hill Farm (Stone facades at The Paddocks & Sand Hill Farm entrance sign) and with the wall replacement completed by Boo Marshall & Paul De Benedictis on Lake Shore Drive. But there was never a directive or ordinance requiring compliance. Thus within a year or so of the Charrette, Bob & Mary Tanguy built Mary’s Shoppe, now the Culver Academies Museum, on the southeast corner of Main Street and Jefferson Street. (As another recommendation, the Charrette discussed the need to follow the existing downtown character with infill development, but Tanguys were allowed to do what they wanted.)
Where do we draw the line on such things? Culver has very few zoning requirements that apply to aesthetics. The first two that come to mind are the height restrictions (no, it’s not a fire department requirement) and side yard requirements that mostly are there to keep similar aesthetics in similar neighborhoods. On the lake, there is currently a line-of-sight front setback restriction which is mostly aesthetic. (And is currently under review for removal from the ordinance.) Culver has a grass ordinance and the unsafe building ordinance has been stretched to cover aesthetics, but other than that, residents are mostly free to do as they please. Much to some people’s chagrin, there used to be a pink restaurant building on Lake Shore Drive, a yellow house on the south side of the lake, a yellow & orange house on the east side of the lake and now there are a few that are nearly completely black. To each their own!
As it has been discussed so far, The Dunes will be built out by the developer, so all decisions on construction styles will start there. It will have a Home Owners Association (HOA), which would control such things as colors and landscaping, if they want. (In reality, the developer plans to hold ownership on the majority of the properties and thus would have control of the HOA decisions.) All those decisions will be made based on their ability to wring the most profit from rentals and sales. I personally don’t agree with their decision to face all of the houses inward to the property with no front doors on South Main Street, but it’s their property, so they can do as they please. The decision to make the project self-contained makes the complaints about cookie cutter houses even less salient. As with all HOA style developments, buyers and renters know what they are getting when they move in. Some people like every property the same and under control, thinking that makes their neighborhood better. Isn’t that what the local ‘Walking Ladies’ hoped for when they would call out properties that didn’t meet those elusive Culver standards?
Due to the comments of this resident, the Town Council suggested asking for some renderings of buildings (reasonable) and maybe asking for a model of the property (totally unreasonable!). But before going too far with this, the council and residents need to ask how far they really want to go? Is this standard going to be the new one throughout Culver? Much like an HOA, is the council going to dictate paint colors, shingle colors, roof materials, siding types, etc. throughout Culver? Would the resident complaining about this, want that standard applied to her home?
Burning Down the House contains another line that might be salient here: “Ah watch out… you might get what you’re after.”
It always comes as a bit of a surprise when I meet a Lurker in real life (IRL): “So, I’ve been meaning to ask, are you the one that writes the Easterday Construction Blog?” Why yes I am!
So few people actually comment, I generally assume I’m talking to myself. This was the second one in the last few months that said they ran across my blog and ended up going down the rabbit hole of Culver commentaries I’ve posted. So far, all of them have been complimentary of my insight and my writing. Since I’m often sitting here banging something out that I have bit my tongue about in some meeting… that’s positive! I think they even used the term “thoughtful analysis” too. That’s flattering and makes sense. That’s often why I don’t say it at the meeting, i.e. I’m more organized in writing and definitely able to put thoughts together better if I have time to let them simmer. For this reason, I don’t think I ever could be a successful politician. It’s not that I can’t think on my feet, it’s more that I have so many thoughts that pulling together a cogent response takes some time. Whatever comes out of my mouth, spur of the moment, probably isn’t the best answer and definitely isn’t properly fleshed out.
It was good to get some feedback and have a back and forth discussion on some things. Culver politics, Esmie, One Marshall County and, of course, The Dunes, where the main topics of conversation. I learned some things from another perspective and shared a few things that I know better than to put in writing! Ha!
Along with this Lurker/new friend, I was talking to some old friends and they were quizzing me about The Dunes. I was a little surprised about some of the misinformation they had. As a follow up, I sent them a couple of blog links. They obviously went down the rabbit hole as well, since they responded back that Culver should hire me for the Czar position. What’s funny about that is I would (and occasionally do) do that for free. But Culver often doesn’t use the resources it has. There are lots of talented and knowledgeable people in the Culver Community that are not residents. I served on the Culver Chamber of Commerce board for years and it was a joke that of the 10 board members at that time, only 3 of them could actually vote in a Town election. The same thing could be said for a large portion of the Chamber membership in those years. Yet we were people with a passion for moving Culver forward. (During that time, the Chamber spearheaded the Charrette, a new Comp Plan and spawned the Second Century Committee.)
Non-resident Culver talent has been called to participate in things like Culver Crossroads and the Comprehensive Plan Committee. These are great uses of that talent and knowledge, but most of those people that stepped up for those one-time committees, are just a phone call away when Culver is looking at the one-off projects too. The one-offs often have large impacts. Sometimes it seems we fall into the fallacy that you have to be located at least an hour away to be an expert. Culver has paid good money to out-of-town consultants, mostly with good results, but they rarely have the whole picture. They are called in for the one-off project without much understanding of how that project will weave into Culver’s tapestry of history, culture and goals for the future.
Winning an election is a form of a popularity contest. The ability to get elected doesn’t make you an expert in all the things you’ll need to make important decisions on as an elected official. But as a politician, you have shown a talent for rallying people. I would suggest that council members put that political talent to work and surround themselves with a cadre of people that fill the gaps in their expertise. If all the council members pooled their individual cadre of human capital resources, their individual advisory committees so to speak, there would be a standing taskforce of diverse talents that could be called on to help the council move Culver forward. But then, I’m mostly talking to myself…
SCOTUS, Ambiguous Laws and Bureaucratic Rule Making…
January 29, 2024
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Politics
Community, government, Trends
A recent article from Kiplinger.com, “Will a Supreme Court Case About Fishing Water Down the IRS?”, intrigued me. The case has to do with the IRS. Kiplinger is a financial website, so their article concentrated on the obvious tax implications of IRS interpretations of obscure laws. The following two paragraphs caught my eye:
0 comments