Indiana used to be as smart as Arizona, but Mitch Daniels dumbed us down. Or as those of us in Marshall County remember, put us on Heim Time…
Commentary
Accessory Dwelling Units
At the September meeting of the Culver Plan Commission there was a rezoning request for the parcel at 451 North State Street. The request was for a rezoning from R-1 to R-2. The property was originally two lots. Due to one of the Culver Zoning Ordinance restrictions (a lot must have a primary structure before an accessory structure can be built) the lots were combined so that the house on the north lot could have a garage on the south lot. The current owner wanted to add an apartment over the garage for when they had family there. The comments from the board, as well as comments from the neighbors, indicated the use desired wasn’t the problem, but the spot zoning to R-2 and the implications of what could be allowed in the future was at issue. R-2 would allow much denser development including many forms of multi-family residential. Unfortunately for the owner, this was the recommendation from the Building Commissioner and they weren’t given much encouragement to seek a variance as there wasn’t a hardship. Subdividing back to the original two lots would be an option, but there was a concern about the two existing buildings meeting setback requirements. The spot zoning was less of an issue since the Plan Commission spot zoned three different homes that contained 2-3 units to R-2 so they met zoning requirements earlier this year. (See previous post here.)
There was considerable discussion about the issue and it was noted that the current Comprehensive Plan added language that Accessory Dwelling Units should be considered. A work session of the Plan Commission was scheduled and held October 8th to address this issue.
At the work session, the Building Commissioner put forth a proposal to create a new zoning district, R-1.5, to add areas that could have have accessory dwelling units. The counter proposal was, that these should be allowed throughout R-1. What follows are some of the discussion points and my thoughts on them:
- Addressing the Comprehensive Plan directive – The Comp Plan makes recommendations from the consensus of public meetings. It is passed by the Plan Commission and the Town Council. In this case, the latest Comp Plan passed both groups unanimously, so the question is more about how to address the issue rather than whether to address the issue. The Comp Plan isn’t binding, but it does give direction. This is just one of many suggestions in the latest plan that contemplates the Plan Commission reexamining the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Comp Plan recommendations.
- New District vs Subdistrict vs allowable with restrictions – Both the New District and Subdistrict options suggest that the Plan Commission would have to go through some kind of rezoning process to either recategorize an area of R-1 District to the new standards or effectively spot zone each request as it came up. This would be burdensome for the Plan Commission and property owners and create a spot zoning situation every time it came up. The allowable restrictions should be definable and something the Building Commissioner could handle.
- Need for separate water and sewer – This was suggested by the Street Superintendent in case of future lot subdivision. This really should be a moot point though, since this is an accessory use, not a new primary use and most of the lots these would go on would be too small to subdivide. The Comp Plan contemplated this as a way to achieve additional workforce housing on existing infrastructure. This would go against that purpose. (Though I could see requiring a covenant against future subdivision of the lot if an accessory dwelling structure is allowed.)
- Garage Renovations – There was quite a bit of discussion regarding renovating a garage to be an Accessory Dwelling Unit. There were concerns about garages that were too close to property lines and whether a second floor for a dwelling unit would increase non-conformity. While some garages could be renovated this way, the building code overrides zoning, so many older garages would not meet those requirements and those too close to a property line could not be converted and meet the building code setbacks which override zoning setbacks for some conditions. Aside from those building code violations, most of the other concerns could be address through the allowable restrictions. There is also a separate garage height restriction that would have to be addressed.
- Some R-1 Lots are too small – There were concerns about shoe-horning these in on smaller lots. This could easily be handled with a lot size restriction and actually makes the case for making them allowable throughout R-1, but with restrictions. Lots like 451 North State Street would meet the size requirements, but the adjacent lot to the south wouldn’t. Also, this would not eliminate the impervious surface requirements. The need for off-street parking would have to be discussed too.
There were a myriad of other things that were not discussed or were just briefly touched on. Most of these could be handled with a matrix or a Chinese Menu approach. Square Footage of the building could have a minimum and then an increase based on lot size, but still controlled by the base impervious surface requirements. Additional parking requirements could be determined by the number of bedrooms, but still controlled by impervious surface requirements. There could be a requirement that it be smaller than the primary structure. There could be a lesser height allowable than the 35 foot currently allowed in R-1 or even required to be a certain percentage shorter than the primary structure. All of these and others could be check-off items determined by the Building Commissioner rather than having each one appear before the Plan Commission.
A few additional things that should be address:
- Can these be three season dwellings that are shut down and winterized at the end of the season or must they be available for year-round occupancy?
- Can a mobile home or a motor home fit the criteria?
- Must it have a kitchen/cooking facilities or just bathroom facilities?
- Must it be detached?
- The discussion centered around detached units, but that wouldn’t address the R-2 spot zoning discussed previously.
- It would also preclude uses like mother-in-law suites which are currently a gray area.
- It would also preclude larger homes subdivided into apartments, i.e. multi-family use of existing single family structures.
- Is an Accessory Dwelling Unit different from other, possibly existing, accessory structures, i.e. if there is a house and a detached garage, does that mean the detached garage has to be eliminated in favor of the Accessory Dwelling Unit? I don’t think that’s in the spirit of the Comp Plan goal, but it should be defined one way or another. It is another item that might be determined by lot size in the matrix.
There was a lot of concern about spot zoning or even using the idea of allowing it within R-1 with restrictions, because of these things happen without neighbor input. This is one of those things where the Plan Commission will have to be open to thinking outside the box a bit. The Comp Plan goal for this was to provide additional workforce housing by making the best use of existing infrastructure. Based on this, they need to work on making this easy and inexpensive rather than hard and costly. Some will no doubt be full blown vacation spaces like contemplated in the State Street rezoning. But others will be studio and one bedroom spaces suitable for wait staff, teachers and other workers just starting out. Those are the ones we need to encourage as those spaces are in demand and those workers are in demand.
I’m glad to see the Plan Commission taking this up. If you want to follow along, the Building Commissioner has committed to posting updates and additional information here. I know this was pushed by a rezoning request, but it is just one of many Comp Plan recommendations they should be considering. As per a previous post, they are way behind where they were after the 2014 Comp Plan was created. Fingers crossed they build momentum from this start.
IYKYK
For those of you unfamiliar with internet acronyms, IYKYK = If You Know, You Know. It’s generally used as a hashtag for an image with a second meaning, inside joke, or something else often hidden in plain sight. Despite having known Gary Neidig, ITAMCO and many of the Neidig family for decades, I was surprised by some of the things I learned about Gary and Robin at the MUAC (Marian University/Ancilla College) Changing Lives Scholarship Dinner at Swan Lake Resort last Thursday. I was there representing MCCF (Marshall County Community Foundation). I felt like I was out of the loop on the picture to the right. I wasn’t privy to the #iykyk meme, despite knowing Gary and Robin forever!
I’d always know the Neidigs as very family oriented. They are extremely dedicated to their family, their company and their Church. My father and I worked with Gary and his father and uncle for years doing work at the ITAMCO plant (then known as Indiana Tool and Manufacturing) and their Church, the Grace Baptist Church in Plymouth. My father and Gary’s Uncle Don did millions of dollars of work with only handshake contracts. We doubled the size of the Plymouth plant and built their world class office space. We helped them renovate and modernize the Grace Baptist Church, built the Christian School adjacent to the Church and later added the gymnasium to the school. We even did an addition to Gary and Robin’s house!
I knew that Gary had been drawn into some of the regional planning meetings through MCEDC in recent years. I served with him on the Marshall County Crossroads Committee and knew he remained involved and now chaired the next reiteration of Crossroads, One Marshall County. I served with him on the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Committee as we updated the plan for a new decade. But at the dinner last week, I learned that there was much more he was doing behind the scenes in other areas. I was not surprised that Gary would be doing good things… He always has… I was surprised at how much there was in which I didn’t know he was involved. Much the same with Robin. I knew she was involved in the Church and school, but not the other things that came out during the award presentation.
It was a reminder to me that there are unseen layers to people all around us. Who among us hasn’t seen an award going to someone we thought was less deserving than others we knew. Maybe we shouldn’t be too hasty thinking we know everything. Gary & Robin were deserving of this award just for the things I knew they did, and then I learned there was so much more. There are no doubt others in our community involved to greater depths than many of us realize. Maybe some of those other recipients we heard about and questioned had impacts of which we weren’t aware. Maybe we weren’t in their circle of #IYKYK…
Sunny Thoughts on Solar Panels
I’ve been watching/reading about all the Solar Farm controversy in Marshall County with a mixture of amusement and disappointment. While I don’t advocate unlimited rights to a property owner, I would advocate tipping the scale in favor of the owner’s decisions about use of their property. My main thought is how the more things change, the more they stay the same. This is a repeat of what happened when there was the discussion about wind farms in Marshall County a few years back. (Wind Farm Posts here and here.)
In both cases, spurious arguments are put forth, when I believe the real reason for disliking either of them is aesthetics. Those against them don’t like looking at them. As with wind farms, I can understand that and feel it is a valid argument. To each, there own… But it was a much more understandable argument regarding wind farms than solar panels.
The setbacks of 300′, 500′ or more being requested seem ridiculous. Marshall County isn’t a table top, but it is pretty darned flat. The high point in Marshall County is 895 MSL and the low point is 775 MSL with an average of 810 MSL per the Joint Highway Research Project by Purdue University. That’s not a whole lot of topographic relief and I’m suspicious that the low number is actually under water! That tells you that there aren’t many areas where a grove of 20′ to 30′ evergreens or mixed plantings wouldn’t hide what’s in the field from anyone on the ground; even from a distance. This would solve the concern some have expressed about the sun reflecting off the panels too. Large setbacks are usually used to protect against noise or odors, not visual issues that can be hidden by a vegetative buffer. These setbacks requested are meant to make property unbuildable unless it’s an excessively large tract of land. Admittedly, I’m pretty indifferent on the aesthetic issue, but I don’t know that a picked cornfield with an inactive sprinkler system sitting vacant from Fall until Spring is a particularly bucolic landscape view either. It is just one of those things that we live with and allow to the property owner.
There is the argument about chemicals from solar panels leaching into the soil. For the most part, new solar panels are solid state devices composed of silicon and glass, with trace amounts of gold, silver, copper and other valuable materials which people in the industry will be glad to retrieve and recycle. There is also the issue that most farmers are leasing land that is marginally productive as farmland, which requires large chemical applications to make them productive. Some of these properties were potato farms in the past, which required hundreds of pounds of fertilizer per acre. As part of this argument, I’ve heard, “Why not put solar panels up to cover parking lots and buildings first, before threatening farmland!?” If there was any merit to the chemical leaching argument, I would much rather have any bad things filtered through soil, rather than running directly into storm drains and thus, our rivers and streams. There’s enough of that coming off cars and trucks in parking lots and on streets. Not that I don’t see merit in solar panels for covered parking. But I assume it’s the same reason they don’t graze cows in solar farm fields. They would need to greatly beef up (pun intended) the support structures for cows rubbing against them and thus, even more so for cars.
There are those that express concern about the loss of farmland which currently produces food products. I would prefer to see some soil analysis and see solar farms placed only on marginally productive land, but much of the placement is based on access to the electric grid. To some extent this is self regulating with property owners making the economic decision themselves. I am sure, if the payout for farming was greater, the land would remain in crops. At it’s greatest proposed coverage, the proposed solar farms would only cover single digit percentages of the total Marshall County farmland available. Is this any different than allowing subdivisions to be built and lots to be sold for housing or industry? Plus, check out some of the interesting things Purdue University is suggesting for agrivoltaics. There are options to keep farms productive as food sources as well as for harvesting solar. They’re just two different ways of harvesting sunshine.
There are those that say solar is a boondoggle and wouldn’t make it without subsidies. Possibly, but farmers know how subsidies work as they are sometimes paid not to plant, told what to plant and subsidized for planting specific crops. They are well versed in how to play that game and how to achieve the best economic benefit from it. Are solar panels the solution to global warming? Hardly. Nor has much of what’s out there touted to change the weather ever resulted in the the reputed outcome. But let landowners take advantage of the rare opportunity to benefit from this one.
One thing that has come out in this that particularly scares me is the bonding or other means of providing for decommissioning of these installations at the end of their life. If we start down that path, where does it end? Drive around Marshall County and you will see abandoned silos, farm windmills, railroad beds on abandoned rail lines, railroad depots, grain elevators, former school buildings, houses, collapsing barns and unusable commercial buildings. That same argument could be used to say we should prevent any of those things happening again, but can you imagine the cost of construction if you had to plan/pay for end of life removal of EVERYTHING? Most construction puts significant funds at risk when the investment in these these things is made. The increased cost due to this increased risk would undoubtedly stop some expansions and new endeavors from happening. In the case of solar farms, you’re asking the companies involved to plan for the cost of removal 30 years from now. What does that look like and how would labor inflation costs balloon that? Building’s generally have lifespans of 2 to 4 times that. How does that even work!?
Again, I believe all of this amounts to spurious concerns, past the aesthetic issues. I’m not thrilled with the aesthetics of high voltage powerlines crisscrossing Marshall County, Those power lines are largely what makes Marshall County attractive to solar farms. But these things benefit my life. Stopping them means hurting other property owners and limiting their livelihoods. If we collectively care enough about stopping these things, then we should put our money where our mouth is and pool funds to purchase and control the property ourselves. Otherwise, be quiet and let progress move on…
Positive Collaboration
I was pleased to be one of the Marshall County Community Foundation (MCCF) board members to attend a regional meeting of MCCF with the Community Foundation of St. Joseph County (CFSJC) and the Community Foundation of Elkhart County (CFEC). The basis of this was to foster regional collaboration on a Lilly grant that would help create more housing in our respective counties. It was great to see the groups come together and work towards a common goal. MACOG was also there, having stepped up to consider offering their services towards a Land Bank or similar vehicle to help move this forward.
I have been involved with several of these types of collaborative efforts in the past. As a Culver Chamber of Commerce (CCC) board member, I helped John Thompson and Eric Freeman create the Culver Second Century Committee. The Second Century Committee used CCC support to pull various non-profits and governmental bodies together to work towards common goals. It was successful for a brief time, creating collaboration among the various entities and was responsible for the 1998 Community Charrette and the new Comprehensive Plan that was born of the Charrette.
I was a founding member of the Marshall County Economic Development Corp. (MCEDC), which brought representatives from the county and each of the municipalities together to foster a collaborative effort towards economic growth. While chairman of MCEDC, I worked with Roger Umbaugh and Kevin Overmyer to start the County Development for the Future (CDFF) meetings. The CDFF meetings were started to bring the communities of Marshall County together to discuss challenges, successes and ways they could collaborate to learn from each other and make things better. One of the successes of CDFF was the community collaboration that brought about Marshall County Crossroads and Marshall County’s successful bid for Stellar Region designation.
I always have high hopes for these collaborative efforts. They really do bring the strengths of multiple people, agencies and entities together to create something bigger than the individual parts. There does seem to be a limited life span for them though. The Second Century Committee came together and did great things by organizing the participating groups. But then as the second generation of leaders took the reigns, it devolved into an executive committee that met and did most of the tasks themselves. They no longer had meetings to involve the underlying groups so the big initiatives went away. As the members of the exec committee burned out, less got done. They attempted to evolve into a Main Street organization, but that transition was not very successful. Main Street reorganized as Develop Culver. While Develop Culver is creating some successes, it’s not with the same larger collaboration of groups that made the Second Century Committee successful.
CDFF was extremely successful. The collaboration between communities broke down the long standing basketball rivalries and had Marshall County Communities working together. Attendees applauded the successes of their sister communities and networked after the meetings on ways to replicate those successes in the other Marshall County Communities. The other communities were all-in when Culver sought Stellar Community designation and helped make it happen. Because of that, I think CDFF was largely responsible for spawning Marshall County Crossroads and the designation of Marshall County as a Stellar Region. But a transition to a new executive director of MCEDC resulted in meetings that were more about his self-promotion and less about the collaboration. CDFF helped move us into the larger region with St. Joe and Elkhart counties when Regional Cities as launched, but at the cost of lost focus on our local communities and the tending of those new relationships. The meetings have devolved further and no longer list the accomplishments and goals of the communities. While they often bring useful information to those that attend, some communities no longer send representatives and there is no longer accountability or celebration of successes.
I was only peripherally involved with Marshall County Crossroads, serving on the larger committee and a subcommittee without having any leadership role. Crossroads took the base collaboration of CDFF and injected it with new life. It was CDFF on steroids for a while! The number of people that it brought in was amazing and the work that got done by the volunteer group was phenomenal. They accomplished the base goal of obtaining Stellar Region designation for Marshall County and set a follow up goal of continuing the collaboration and moving other issues forward as well. But the huge effort required for Stellar became difficult to sustain with a volunteer group. Crossroads has tried to spawn a new and more formal group, ONE Marshall County, but funding has been difficult and communication has deteriorated. Many of the Crossroads leaders have stepped aside and the new group is struggling to sustain the enthusiasm while also fighting some local politicians that (falsely) accuse them of trying to bypass normal government procedures. This has devolved back to infighting among communities. It’s unclear whether the group will survive Wolfe’s Dilemma.
While I continue to be supportive of collaborative efforts and think it results in outsized returns on investment, I’m coming to think that maybe they could work best as task forces in lieu of standing committees or long term organizations. So much of the initial energy and work is done by the original people starting the collaboration, but that energy and focus can become lost as the initial leaders burnout and others come in who don’t understand or agree with the core mission. Maybe they should be treated like fireworks that explode in a bright frenzy that everyone is excited about, and then everyone applauds at the end and everyone leaves happy as the smoke dissipates… Trying to sustain that frenetic energy isn’t possible and lesser results are seen as disappointing.
For this reason, I’m pleased that the three community foundations seem to be coming together for a common goal, but instead of forming a new group, they’re looking to MACOG to expand their services to sustain this. Combining the excitement and energy that bringing volunteers together generates with the infrastructure of an existing organization makes sense. This could be a new model that works. Only time will tell…