Politics

Dance With The One That Brought You

by

This falls squarely in the Rant column here, so scroll on if that doesn’t interest you.

The other day I posted about the the READI grants we submitted. (here) The Water Street Townhomes project in Plymouth was part of an application that went in with the original READI call for projects in July of 2021. When I found out that Culver only had one small park project to submit, I asked if they would support a small housing project. I suggested 12 townhomes similar to those suggested for Water Street project. I was told a straw poll had 3 council members in favor and, “You be the lead if you don’t mind. I fully trust you.” This all came about last minute and I ended up spending a Saturday putting together a proforma and submitting an application. Spirit Townhomes in Culver was listed as part of the South Bend Elkhart Regional Partnership (SBERP) READI application submitted to IEDC.

I grew up in Culver and even though I live outside of Culver now, I still consider it my home town, since my business is here and my parents still live here. Most of you know my track record for participation and dedication to helping move Culver forward. (I started to make a list, but it seemed self-serving.) That’s why I participated in Stellar and partnered with the Town on Sand Hill Farm Apartments and The Paddocks, when no outside developers would. Both of those projects met or exceeded the goals the Town set for them. In the months leading up to the application deadline, I was told Culver wouldn’t be participating in READI. Then in the last couple weeks before the deadline, I was surprised by the Town of Culver’s decision to pursue a project with a different, out-of-town developer. I suggested submitting a version of the Spirit Townhomes too and was told there wasn’t time…

Dance With The One That Brought You…

This seems to be a pattern that is repeating. I don’t know if this is a conscious decision or just a careless oversight. In any case, it’s a noticeable departure from the stated goals of supporting local businesses. A couple other examples of which I’m aware:

There are two banks in town. The First National Bank of Monterey and First Farmers Bank & Trust have sponsored Town events, participated on committees, supported the Town by purchasing their bonds, cashing their checks and covered all the minor things such as providing change. The Town shopped their services, as they should, but in lieu of keeping the competition local, they went outside the town and ended up moving their money to Plymouth for minor advantages. Was it really worth it? Dance With The One That Brought You…

Good-To-Go brought in plans to the Culver TRC to demolish their existing building and put in a whole new service station which would have brought additional money to the TIF and improved the downtown. During that same time, an outside developer approached the Town about a new service station at the edge of town (outside the Town’s Comprehensive Plans stated goals), which would have damaged Good-To-Go’s business as well as that of the other convenience store in town. Their concerns were met with derision, including one council member chastising them about prices and telling them that they bought their gas in Plymouth. This was while Good-To-Go had a “Cavalier” pump set up with a portion of all sales from that pump going to the Culver Community Schools. Good-To-Go scaled their project back by half. The other developer’s project never came to fruition. Dance With The One That Brought You…

I’m sure some will read this as just “sour grapes” and maybe deservedly so. But with all three examples here, it’s a question of supporting those that support the Town, not with handouts, but yes, maybe with a little favoritism, in recognition of what local businesses do for the town on a day-to-day basis… As the saying goes, Amazon does not sponsor your little league team or have employees coaching it.

Culver Zoning 7/19 Update – Part 3

by

This is a continuation of my thoughts on the 7/19/22 Plan Commission Meeting. You can find the previous posts here and here. This one is more of a whiny rant, so if you’re not up to hearing me complain, it would be best to skip this post!

412 Lake Shore Drive

I own the property at 412 Lake Shore Drive. It is a postage stamp size parcel with a 100 year old kit home on it. The lot would be unbuildable by current standards. According to the Accessor, the lot is 38′ x 120′. There is an alley down one side which makes it a corner lot. 38′ minus 10′ Side Yard Setback, minus 25′ ROW Setback leaves 3′ buildable without some extreme variances. The home also sits well into the 25′ front setback.

Do you know how our lives are divided into pre-pandemic and post-pandemic now? Sometime pre-pandemic (2020), the adjacent property owner at 404 Lake Shore Drive built a fence on the property line. Before I even noticed it, then Plan Commission member, Marty Oosterbaan, pointed out that it was not built per standards. Chapter 6, Section 070, B.1. – Within the limits of a required front yard setback area, no fence shall exceed 5 feet in height and shall have a minimum of 50% of its surface open to permit visibility. The fence as constructed extends into the front yard setback area, thus in that area it is too high and does not provide 50% visibility. The Plan Commission directed Chuck DeWitt, then Building Inspector, to pursue a remedy.

Multiple things happened: 1) Covid and the associated lack of public meetings for the Plan Commission; 2) Mr. DeWitt left his position as Marshall County Building Inspector and took a job as Building Commissioner for Culver; 3) The property changed ownership; 4) Ginny Munroe replaced Jonathan Leist at Culver Town Manager; 5) Marty Oosterbaan stepped down from the Plan Commission (and there were other member changes as well.) Throughout this, I continued to bring this up to the Plan Commission every month or so. At one point, I even drafted a letter for their use citing the violations. When the property was on the market, the Plan Commission directed Mr. DeWitt to let the realtor know about the violation in hopes that it would get corrected as part of a sale. While there was an open building permit on the property, the Plan Commission requested that the Marshall County Building Department not provide a Certificate of Occupancy until the violation was corrected.

412 Lake Shore Drive

At the meeting on the 19th, a status report on this issue was requested by the Plan Commission President. Mr. DeWitt reported that he had inquired about this with the Town’s Attorney handling Plan Commission matters and was told there was no grounds for enforcing this issue. This was a shock to me as well as some of the commissioners!

And here’s the Rant… I’m not the guy that comes in and raises a stink at meetings. I have a lot of respect for volunteers and what they do for the community. I don’t call them out or try and embarrass them in public meetings. But this is part of a string of promises from the Town, that I have waited patiently on, that have not borne results. This happened with Sand Hill Farm Apartments, The Paddocks and most recently the READI Grant applications. I have trusted in the process and been disappointed again and again. While I don’t volunteer with the expectation of returns, it’s frustrating to lose property value and business opportunities to others who have contributed little or nothing to the community. I’ve always been optimistic, but pragmatic. My optimism is waning lately… and my pragmatism is transitioning to cynicism…

A Good summary on Green

by

Often I cruise YouTube when I’m eating lunch at my desk. The other day I found an interesting video from Belinda Carr titled The Hypocrisy of Being GREEN.

As I’ve discussed here before, I strive to sell Green that Saves Green, i.e. I’ll sell you a green option if it saves you money, not just greenwashing. I could very much identify with her comments towards the end about things that are added to projects to get green points on a score sheet that are actually wasteful and don’t advance any value to the building. If you’ve got 10 minutes to take a look, I think it’s worth listening to her explanations. She has some good points.

Happy Constitution Day!

by

Happy Constitution Day!  Congress created Constitution Day in 2004 and chose September 17 as the day to celebrate it based on that being the last day of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.  Check out this link for an article in the Imprimis titled “Reviving a Constitutional Congress” with Christopher Demuth, Sr.‘s take on where our nation has gotten off track with concern to the Constitution and what steps can be taking to put us back on the right path.

From the article’s first paragraph, “Our Constitution is often treated as a reliquary, worthy of reverence but no longer of much practical use. Yet the Constitution reflects, in many deep and subtle ways, the character of the people who established it and have lived and prospered under it for centuries. This is particularly true of its structural features of federalism and separated powers, which vindicate Americans’ democratic nature, our distrust of power, and our taste for open competition.”

Please take a moment today to remember the 39 brave men who signed that document in 1787.  Their courage and commitment should be celebrated.

Interesting Take at the Plan Commission

by

I attended the Culver Plan Commission with a client Tuesday night. I was a little surprised to be called out in front of my client regarding another project, but so these things go.

Some Background: Last month I appeared for the Secondary Plan Review for the PUD (Planned Unit Development) needed for construction of The Paddocks. The project is one of the signature pieces in Culver’s Stellar Strategic Investment Plan and had been before the Plan Commission multiple times. It passed with one dissenting vote. I wondered about that vote, but never questioned it. It was their right to vote against the project. If they had expressed their objections before the vote, I could have provided a rebuttal to their objections, but after the vote it was a moot point.

Tuesday, that commissioner chose to elaborate on their no vote. To paraphrase, their objection was that all ordinances should be treated equal and since the Town had adopted a Complete Streets ordinance, and The Paddocks had agreed to provide a trail connection through The Paddocks property, the developer should have been required to exhaust all options to continue the trail through the adjacent property. The Developer should also be held to a higher standard due to the Tax Abatement awarded to The Paddocks.

A few things bothered me about that, but again, it was water under the bridge so I did not attempt to address it at that meeting. This is my venue to vent though, so here are my thoughts:

  1. I was disappointed that this was brought up after the fact when I was there with a client for another project. I thought that was inappropriate as it put me in an undeserved negative light when the project I was there for had nothing to do with The Paddocks.
  2. Complete Streets aside, this has not been a standard applied in the past. The last PUD developer was asked to provide trail access and as with The Paddocks, they provided access up to their property line. The adjacent property owner was not amenable to a trail through their property, so that was left to be addressed in the future… similar to what was done with The Paddocks. In that case, that development was not even required to provide the future Right-of-Way that was called out in the Comprehensive Plan because adjacent property owners were not supportive. The Paddocks PUD was required to dedicate additional Right-of-Way that wasn’t part of the Comprehensive Plan or part of the current project. The Town will be setting a high bar to hurdle if they choose to start requiring developers to purchase or negotiate rights to additional property outside the initial development.
  3. The Paddocks PUD did receive some matching funds and a tax abatement from the Town, but this was done because incentives were required to get the housing that the Town had made a goal. This also allowed the Town to receive matching funds from the Regional Cities Initiative (RCI) and qualify for the IHCDA LIHTC program. These were very public negotiations. Making one sided changes to those agreements will make developers leery of working with the Town. On a side note, to my knowledge, this is the only RCI funded project where that funding is given to the Town through the Developer. In the awards of which I have knowledge, the RCI funding went to the Developer.
  4. Originally, and in all the Stellar discussion, this property was to connect to the Town via the revitalization of the Jefferson Street corridor. That was to be the “Complete Streets” connection. It was not until later that a request came for a connection to Cass Street. The Paddocks did agree to provide a trail connection to Cass Street, but was required to do so now despite some objections, one of which was the lack of a connection through adjacent properties. The preference would have been to provide the connection at a later date when it would have connected to Academy Road. Connecting to Cass Street was also an option, but it would have made more sense to wait until the Town had worked out a route with adjacent property owners.

As I have said many times in the past, I respect the volunteers that serve on public boards and commissions. They take more slings and arrows than ever gets balanced out with accolades. That doesn’t alleviate their responsibility to know all the facts. In this case, some of the commentary was counter to things previously negotiated with the Town Council and the Plan Commission’s own Technical Review Committee. Speaking from the table at the front of the room gives their voice additional weight. That needs to be used judiciously.

Obviously this commissioner’s take differs from mine. Fortunately for me, the project and the Town, his position wasn’t shared by the other commissioners.