Culver Zoning Revisions II

I wrote about the current round of revisions to the Culver Zoning Ordinance here. They were discussed and tweaked at the September meeting of the Plan Commission. A public hearing was held at the October Plan Commission meeting and a vote to send them on to the Town Council for approval was passed. As always, before I gently criticize, I want to start by giving kudos to people that volunteer for posts such as the Plan Commission. I appreciate them stepping up to work that is generally thankless. I always want to give them consideration and I will defend them on this, even when I don’t agree with them.

As a person that tends to attend meetings and pay attention to what’s going on, I don’t have a lot of patience for those that complain about things happening without their knowledge, when it has been advertised and presented in public meetings. Culver is above average in asking for input in most cases. In this case I may fault them for some large changes to the Zoning Ordinance that were probably not adequately advertised. As stated in the meeting notice to the right, a public hearing was properly advertised for “…amending the Culver Zoning Ordinance to correct clerical errors and make revisions.” I don’t fault them for thinking that what they added/changed were minor improvements, but not everyone will see them that way. That agenda item sounds pretty innocuous and for the most part it is, but there are a few things included that may end up causing some controversy:

1. The first, which I mentioned in a previous post, is the change in accessory structure height for the S-1 District. This was a specific request from the farm community that has been carried forward. It allowed a 50′ accessory structure height without need for a variance. This was to accommodate grain legs on silos. Since that time, Culver created a specific AG district, but there is still some farmland within the S-1 district. Interestingly, the AG district only has a 35′ height allowed, but I’m pretty sure both should be at 50′ per previous conversations. This is a minor issue for these districts and are an easy accommodation to the farm community. Since a future goal in the Comp Plan is to expand our extraterritorial boundary, it just makes sense to play nice with that community. Slipping in a change is not playing nice. The Town Manager has been having meetings with the farm community, so a heads up on this would have been good.
2. Another that may cause a stir with the extraterritorial land owners is eliminating the average setback requirement on lake frontage. This sentence being eliminated is, “Where property immediately adjacent on either side of the lot is already developed with principal structures, the required setback shall be determined by a line drawn between the farthest extension of the adjacent structures including any decks or raised patios.” Admittedly, this has been a controversial requirement and has spawned many BZA hearings, but it has been in place for decades. Many houses have been forced back from the lake because of this rule. House shapes have been changed to meet this rule. Where variances were requested, neighbors howled and called foul!!! I would be extremely upset if I had been forced to follow this rule sometime recently only to find out that it had been eliminated on a whim…
3. Under the Development Standards and under Definitions, a new “Institutional” category was created and defined. This has been discussed for years and under the previous building commissioner, there was a subcommittee of the Plan Commission formed to work on this. At that time, the thought was that it affected both the private school and the public schools so representatives of both were included in the discussions. The new definition excludes the public schools, stating it is “Specifically for Culver Educational Foundation…” I don’t know if the public schools were consulted before being excluded, but it would seem they should be part of this.
4. Under Intent, the language that set a minimum front yard setback of 10′ has been removed in favor of allowing the Building Commissioner to determine an “average” and allow that as the setback. This seems loosely defined and a potential issue. I understand the intent, which mostly refers to the average setback on a block and realistically one side of the block. But lawyers will be lawyers, i.e. block, neighborhood or zoning district? Both sides of the street? What if there’s an alley breaking up the block? Average implies the mathematical definition, but the intent is when 4 of 5 houses are 5′ off the sidewalk, the 6th one can be 5′ off the sidewalk too, but that’s not the “average” if one of the original five is setback 25’…
5. Under definitions: Nuisance Building – Includes structures with appearances that detract from the neighborhood (such as properties that are not properly maintained, abandoned, structures covered with graffiti, or vacant buildings), as well as properties that present safety issues (such as fire-damaged buildings or structures that remain partially built or partially demolished). Nuisance Real Property – IC 32-30-6-6 While it references Indiana Code, this definition goes farther than the code definition. While I don’t particularly have a problem with the definition, I have to question why it is being added and how it is intended to be used. My concern is that it portends an expansion of the duties of the Unsafe Building Committee, which already often ventures into aesthetics verses safety. First off, area of aesthetics slippery slope, extremely subjective, and being fair with them is tough. Second, for some reason, this seems to be an area where Culver is all stick and no carrot… It would seem to be more productive to help find tenants for vacant commercial buildings and with our shortage of houses, help find new residents for vacant homes.

There were only a few people at the hearing in on Tuesday. For those of us that did attend, they didn’t have copies of the proposed changes for us to review. They also voted to waive reading them aloud at the meeting. When the notice leads by saying, “…correct clerical errors…” it’s not too surprising that there was no one there to listen, even if it had been read aloud. I had already commented on 1 & 2 at the September meeting and they said there was no agenda on 4. In the spirit of Culver seeking input, it would seem that some notice should have been given to the Township Trustees, the school superintendents, the Lake Maxinkuckee Environmental Council and the Lake Maxinkuckee Association. That would have allowed information to be circulated to those affected. My sense is that may well have increased the attendance and audience participation!

The list of changes is 9 pages long… The five I listed above are the ones that jumped out at me as potentially controversial or difficult to administer, but that doesn’t mean others aren’t affected by more of them and might have comments on them. Because this is a change to an ordinance, the Plan Commission is only sending on a recommendation to the Town Council. The council then adopts, rejects or sends the changes back to the Plan Commission. I believe that requires another public hearing, so there’s still time. We’ll see how it goes.

Finally, I want to reiterate my commendations to Mr. Gorski for tackling this. My commentary here is in no way meant to diminish the work he put in. Sometimes you can’t know or glean the history and the historical reasons may or may not be pertinent, but should be explored never the less. He is on his way out, leaving the Building Commissioner position after three years. I want to wish him the best in his future endeavors.