Allen Chesser
Easterday Construction Co., Inc. lost a friend last week. Allen Chesser passed away Wednesday. (Obituary) Allen was our primary banking contact with First National Bank of Monterey (FNBM). We’ve followed and worked with him from his time as a loan officer to his last position as Bank President. There was no real change in the way he treated us. Last year, when it was time for our Line of Credit to renew, he personally delivered the documents and inquired about my parents. That is service you don’t find anymore. FNBM has been our go to bank because of that service, but there are cases where they actually send us elsewhere when our need is outside their niche. We’ve never gotten the same service as we received from Allen.
I helped recruit Allen to join the Lake Maxinkuckee Environmental Council (LMEC) back in the 90’s. Allen wasn’t sure if it was what he wanted to do and he said he wouldn’t be able to do more than one term as a council member. He was still on the council doing great work to advance the mission when he passed, far surpassing my 20 year tenure. He is even the voice of LMEC in one of the survey videos. Not only was Allen an advocate, he was out getting his hands dirty as necessary. I left things in good hands and he advanced the group significantly. He’ll be missed there too.
Personally, Allen has been a friend of the family. My father, Larry Berger, serves on the FNBM board and has often spoke about his trust in Allen. Allen’s son-in-law, Andrew Schouten, worked for Easterday Construction for several years, increasing our ties to the family. We can always count of a Christmas Card from Andrew and Emily, and have watched the growth of their children, Adrian, Katie and Nicholas. I had the opportunity to meet Adrian last year when he had volunteered for one of the committees for Culver Crossroads. It was easy to see Allen’s legacy of having a servant’s heart was passed on.
Last year I asked Allen for a lead on someone that could create the sustainable log bike racks I wanted to install at The Paddocks. Instead of a making a connection for me, he made the racks. And then argued about taking compensation.
Allen was a friend, confidant and business partner. I don’t know that I know anyone else as genuinely nice as Allen Chesser was. His passing is a loss on a personal level to many like me, but I know it will also be felt throughout our region. Allen left a legacy of which he and his family can be proud.
Thoughts on the 12/20 Plan Commission Meeting
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…
Thoughts on the 12/13 Culver TC Meeting
I’ve had hand surgery, so I’m behind on completing my blog entries. Sorry Lurkers! 🙂 I did have a few thoughts on the last Culver Town Council meeting. I’m not going to get into the controversial things, but I am disappointed in some of the procedural things and thought I would comment on those here.
The first one I found odd involved the approval of a PUD request. The request was approved without issue, but later in the meeting, Culver Fire Chief, Terry Wakefield, circled back to it. All of the buildings included in this PUD are going to have fire sprinkler systems, so due to the location, this will require a fire pump. The designers have been in discussions with Chief Wakefield regarding this and he had requested a hydrant be placed on the property. This would have improved the fire rating at this site and the surrounding area. He said the request was denied. A couple of questions I would pose regarding this:
- Was this part of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) discussion? Is the Fire Chief consulted in the TRC review?
- On the PUD for The Paddocks, tens of thousands of dollars in additional requirements were added, including infrastructure and easements. Why wasn’t Chief Wakefield’s request made a requirement? This seems like a minor request, considering the infrastructure already being placed. Any liability concerns could have been handled.
This seems like a missed opportunity here, but maybe one that can be corrected in the future…
The second issue involved the rescinding of matching dollars for Blue Zones. That match was contingent on other funding which hasn’t come through, so the use of the dollars is pretty much moot at this point, but my concern now is the methodology employed here.
Blue Zones was discussed at multiple meetings before the funding was approved. Presentations were made, public input was allowed and the allocation was passed. Then it was added to the 2023 budget. Once again there were opportunities for discussion and input. Throughout the past year, the Town Manager, Ginny Munroe, has promoted the project with the Council’s blessing. Reports on it were intermittently included in her Town Manager’s reports to the Council.
On the 13th, at the end of the meeting, after all of the agenda items were finished, including Citizen Input, it was brought up under Council Members Issues. The rescinding of support was voted on with minimal supporting information, a split 3:2 vote, and no public input. Was there anything illegal about it? Not that I know of… Was it completely out of line with Culver’s stated values for open communication? Undoubtedly. In my opinion, anything that has gone through as much preliminary discussion and input before being voted in should at least be an agenda item before being voted out.
Culver has done this in the past and I believe there should be some kind of resolution to change this. Projects that are supported and fostered by the Council shouldn’t get dropped without at least minimal conversations with those affected. I don’t think this usurps the Council’s prerogative to change their mind, but citizens that invest time and money into projects with the Council’s support shouldn’t be cast aside without due respect and consideration.
Both of these items are “water under the bridge” at this point. But they should be opportunities for reflection and, hopefully, opportunities for new rules and procedures to do better in the future.
Reflecting on today’s Pilot News
Did it seem to anyone else that the Michael Hicks commentary in today’s Pilot News was directed at Marshall County? It highlighted the successes of the Regional Cities Initiative and the Stellar Communities Initiatives and how those should reflect success in the READI applications.
Marshall County’s collaboration with St Joseph County and Elkhart County created a successful Regional Cities Initiative bid. While the other two counties took the Lion’s Share of the money due to the differences in population, Marshall County still benefited from this group effort. Some of the Regional Cities money came to Culver and helped Culver’s Stellar Initiative.
Marshall County had great success in the Stellar program. The County came together to support Culver in their Stellar application which resulted in Culver being designated a Stellar Community. This success was rolled into Marshall County’s Stellar application, which resulted in Marshall County being designated a Stellar Region. Building on the successes, Marshall County again collaborated with St Joseph County and Elkhart County to make a READI application. The region’s past success working together help them achieve the maximum READI award ($50MM) for our region.
Mr. Hicks reflex on the holistic approach of these initiatives and how the community collaboration and community planning creates additional opportunities… much more so than just spending money on basic infrastructure such as roads. Particularly in the case of READI, these initiatives create the opportunity to multiply the effect of scarce public dollars by combining them with private funds.
For better or worse, the incoming County Council has telegraphed that they will have a laser focus on cost control and infrastructure (roads) projects. While I cannot find fault in their intent or honesty in stating their position, I have concerns regarding their plan to ignore other opportunities. They seem to feel the READI projects are outside the scope of county government, despite the fact that the State has made local government partition a requirement. They will be missing an opportunity to multiply the return on County tax dollars if they don’t participate.
I will confess that I do not know all the intricacies of County government. If the County Council members are doing their job, they should know those things much better than I do. My view is from the outside and I have to say I am concerned…
Latest Blog Posts
Our Customers Say…
MacKenzie Ledley - Executive Director, Pulaski County Public Library
12/27 Culver Town Council Meeting
December 30, 2022
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Culver, Politics
Community, Culver, government, Volunteering
After the quickie Blue Zones vote at the last council meeting (See Earlier Post), councilman Rich West requested that it be added back to the agenda for this meeting. Six people spoke for the program including myself. Other than two councilmen, no one spoke against it. After the discussion, one of the councilmen reversed themselves and it was funded at a lesser level, $15k, in a 3:2 vote. It was made clear that this did not change the pledge of $25k in each of the following years.
Though it’s good that they changed their position, there were still repercussions. Ginny Munroe tendered her resignation as Town Manager due how this was handled. Not only was the public, the Crossroads Committee and the Blue Zones groups blindsided by this decision, Ginny was as well. The town will struggle to replace her and is unlikely to find an “employee” that has the passion for Culver that Ginny has exhibited through her tenure as Town Council President and then Town Manager. None of the past town managers have and it’s unlikely that the next one will. I’ve told Ginny several times that good leaders leave a legacy and there is no doubt she has left her mark on Culver. In the past couple of years, that has extended to all of Marshall County. I think I am just a one person among a multitude that wishes her the best of luck in her next endeavor. I have little doubt that she will do well with whatever she decides to tackle next. (Here is her Linkedin profile in case you want her on your team. She has my endorsement.)
There was one other person that spoke to the way the decision was made. He expressed how that vote damages trust in the Council. It resonated with me as I have been in the position described a couple of times. Town Council Attorney, Jim Clevenger, has said on occasion that the Town never “partners” with others on projects. No matter the term used, it is how it is perceived. By pledging money and supporting Ginny as she worked on Blue Zones and told others that Culver supported Blue Zones, they had encouraged the Blue Zones committee. They were considered a partner. It would have been assumed that they could be counted on to follow through. That trust has been shaken. Despite the reversal Tuesday, the Blue Zones committee has to understand that they’re one vote away from losing funding again.
There are three major development projects working towards breaking ground in 2023 that I know have been working closely with the Town. Likewise, there are other civic groups like Blue Zones that receive pledges of funding and backing from the Town. There have been commitments made. Those commitments should not be taken lightly or these things that should move the Town forward will dry up. I would assume all of them are looking at that vote and are weighing the value of their investments in time and money to date.
Trust is a hard earned commodity. When damaged, it isn’t easily rebuilt. It should always be guarded jealously…
0 comments