The Plan Commission heard four cases in a long meeting on Tuesday, December 20th. The first case was a rehearing of the PUD (Planned Unit Development) request for 415 Lake Shore Drive. It was approved earlier this year, but vacated by the judge in a lawsuit against it. I’m a little unclear on how this is being handled. PUDs require a primary and secondary plan. Last time they were passed simultaneously, which is common for single phase PUDs. This time, it was presented and passed for the primary plan only, with instructions that they go before the BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals) for a variance before requesting secondary approval. So, is the BZA hearing just for the PUD, which would be unusual and unprecedented, or for the underlying zoning variances such as site distance and storm water control, which generally be handled as part of the PUD? I may have to attend the BZA meeting to find out as the BZA members I spoke to indicated that they have not seen anything on what’s coming before them.
There were three other hearings for rezoning R-1 properties to R-2. I do question the rational for these. In two of the three cases, the use is grandfathered as long as it doesn’t change. The property at 114 Lake Shore Drive was built as a single family residence, but has been a triplex for four decades and has been commercial and multi-family since before there was a zoning ordinance in Culver. While this one received the most opposition from neighbors, this is the one I have the least objection to, since it is actually adjacent to an existing R-2 parcel. It expands that existing zoning district in lieu of “spot zoning” and creating a new district. This one is clearly grandfathered and has minimal affect on the surrounding neighborhood now or in the future due to the new zoning.
The property at 810 South Main Street has a duplex on it, was built as a duplex and has been a duplex for decades. The case for spot zoning here is a little messier, but while their is no R-2 adjacent to it, there is R-2 directly across the street (Culver Garden Court). Spot zoning could be argued here, but a case can be made otherwise. It is clearly grandfathered and should have minimal affect on the surrounding neighborhood now or in the future.
The property at 217 South Ohio is a bit dicier. This property was developed as a single family residence in an R-1 district. At one time in the past, an addition was put on and it was used as a daycare. There was no discussion about whether there was a special use or anything that allowed the daycare. It may have just happened. That would have been in the 70’s or 80’s. After the daycare closed, it was remodeled as a mother-in-law suite. The owner would like to rent it out now, so requested the R-2. There are two reasons I think this one is bit more complicated. 1) It is spot zoning. There is no R-2 adjacent to it. 2) Unlike the other properties, this one is fairly large. Looking towards the future, if this house goes away, there could be a significant R-2 development on that lot… creating an island of multifamily in the middle of a single family district.
In general, I was against the rezonings, but fine with the grandfathered continued use. This is one of those cases where I know all the parties involved. I know those rentals have a place. But a zoning change follows the land, not the owner and the rezoning has opened things up to future issues. That said, if this is to be allowed and encouraged as it was Tuesday night, maybe a definition change would have been the better option. It would make more sense to me to change the R-1 Zoning District to allow multi-family as a Special Use where a variance could be obtained. Then it could be heard by the BZA and it would be a one meeting variance decision, not a multi-meeting rezoning that must also go before the Town Board. The Plan Commission has discussed changes to the zoning ordinance that would allow denser residential and multi-family options in what’s currently the R-1 Single Family District. The rezoning may be a premature response to this. Time will tell. (Plus the Town Council could deny the request.)
I think all of our boards and commissions get caught up in personalities. The concern is, that the current owner, which they know and would like to help, will not always be there, but some of the decisions made about the property live on in perpetuity…