Rants
No Range Cord! Arghhh!!!
6 foot range cord
We’re installing some appliances for a client today. The client purchased the appliances at a reputable appliance store. You would think they would include everything necessary to install the appliances, but nope! No range cord.
Now I understand why they don’t come attached as there are sometimes issues with the type of existing outlet. What I don’t understand is why an appliance store would sell you a range that you can’t install… They sell the cords. Wouldn’t you think they would ask? Wouldn’t you think they would try and sell you a cord so you could do the install?
I KNOW they don’t come with cords and I still forget sometimes. And I’m thoroughly tic’d with my supplier when it happens. They shouldn’t forget. I would be much happier knowing that charge up front and receiving what I need to do the work.
Letter to the Editor
I shared some of my rants regarding the changes to the zoning boundary with Jeff Kenney of the Culver Citizen and he suggested that I send him a letter to the editor on the subject. I am a little freer with my writing here in the blog since I know my audience is different, so I wrote a separate Letter to the Editor and cleaned up my prose a bit. Hopefully it will encourage people to get involved and do some of the research themselves. My earlier piece included all of the links and drawings, so I’ve made it easy for anyone to follow my research. What do you think?
PS – If anyone can tell me why I lose my paragraph breaks on text I cut & paste into a post, let me know! Drives me nuts! It looks right in the editor and then loses the spaces between paragraphs when it posts… I guess I’ll go old-school and add indents…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Two Mile Zoning Boundary (cont.)
Face Palm…
I went home pretty frustrated last night. I had shared my previous post on the Two Mile Zoning Boundary with the Town Council and Plan Commission last week. I am also on the Steering Committee for the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan review and attended that meeting Monday evening. (6:00 until 9:45! Sheesh!) The topic of the Two Mile Zoning Boundary came up and there was a lively discussion. Yesterday I sent the following email to the Town Council and Plan Commission ahead of the Plan Commission meeting last night:
All,I attended last night’s Plymouth Comprehensive Plan review on behalf of MCEDC. One of the items that Jackie Turner with Ratio Architects had in the draft plan was ceding some extra territorial control back to the County. I questioned why this would ever be considered as the extended territorial control was there to allow the municipality to control its destiny. She replied that if Plymouth was looking at the plan as a 10 year document, then they might want to divest themselves of the burden of supervising areas that weren’t planned for annexation in the next 10 years. I asked why a municipality would EVER want to cede control to the county and shouldn’t our vision be for 50 years, not just 10? I then asked about problems with residential development surrounding industrial areas making expansion difficult, the problem with subdivisions just outside the territorial boundary which used services, but did not pay for them (fire, police, parks, etc.) and and the difficulties of leapfrogging areas that had been developed that resisted annexation to serve new development or other older developments that needed services. This started a rather spirited response from Plymouth departmental staff naming specific instances where this is already a problem.Ms. Turner agreed with my points for the most part, saying she was just giving that as an option to be considered as part of the comprehensive planning process. She said there still may be areas of no growth where Plymouth might want to consider this, but all the points I made need to be considered before making that decision.I’m paraphrasing the discussion above, but I double checked it with Brent Martin who was also in attendance. Ralph Booker was there also. One of the big points I think Culver should take from this is that determining the extended territorial boundary is a discussion that should be had as part of the Comprehensive Planning process. There is no reason that we can’t put this off until our planning process is complete.Kevin
Culver Beerfest
I was disappointed to hear that the Culver Beerfest died. It’s always sad when people with enthusiasm for promoting Culver get shut down. Unfortunately the Culver CAVE society wins out.
I think we’re fortunate that the Peseks have been innovative in reinventing the former Marmont Grille as the Evil Czech Brewery. There have no doubt seen some growing pains, but this is the kind of entrepreneurial spirit we need, i.e. if the first effort fails, try again!
There was an article in January/February 2013 issue of Building Indiana titled “Locally Made Brews Brings Dollars to the Community”. It talks about the Shoreline Brewery in Michigan City, Indiana. From the number of employees hired to reuse of abandoned buildings to increased visitors to Michigan City, the brewery has been a boon to the community. The brewery sponsors concerts and events that bring people from across the border in the Chicagoland area. That in turn stimulates the local economy. (I’m going to put Shoreline on the list for Becky and I to visit!) Micro Breweries are on IEDC‘s radar. Recently MCEDC was notified of a seminar that was being put on by IEDC for entrepreneurs interested in starting craft brewing operations.
We’ve attended events in the past at the Round Barn Winery near Baroda, Michigan. While it was started as a winery, it has expanded to include Vodka (from grapes) and a micro brewery. A couple of years ago they attracted us with a one time event with Duke Tumatoe performing. Apparently the success of that and other one time events led them to have outdoor concerts every weekend throughout the summer and fall of 2012. It was apparently successful as Jammin’ in the Vineyard is on their events calendar for late May through October. Becky and I have attended several of these events and thoroughly enjoyed them. They were not drunken free-for-alls. In fact, I don’t recall seeing anyone over indulging, let alone being asked to leave. Did we do anything but visit the vineyard the first time we went there? No. Did we explore Baroda on our last visit? Yes. In fact we actually made a trip up there specifically to buy a Christmas present based on something we’d seen on a previous trip.
I was unable to attend the Park Board meeting where the Park Board voted it down, but I did hear some of the congratulatory comments expressed by the audience at the Town Council meeting on February 19th:
Comment: The Park is for our children and people that can’t otherwise have access to the lake. (Uh, remember Lakefest, Tour de Max and the Corn Roast? Don’t those fundraising events take up parking and limit access to the Park? Doesn’t the park rent the Pavilions on a regular basis?)
Image borrowed from originalhooters.com
Comment: They wanted to use the event for breast cancer fundraising and call it Beer for Boobs! (Really? And that slang is more crass than the nationally recognized Susan G. Komen for the Cure‘s breast cancer events called MargariTa-Ta’s? Beer for Boobs is actually the brewing version that works with the Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Some would like to go back to the past, but in a world where there are restaurants named Big’uns, Hooters and Chi-Chi’s… that ship has sailed…)
Comment: We really didn’t want the kind of people this would draw. (Again, Really? We’ve become alcohol snobs now? A winefest (Chamber event) is okay, but a beerfest is beneath us?)
Comment: Someone volunteered a vacant corn field for the event and it wasn’t considered. (Yes, I want to trek through a furrowed, dusty field rather than have a nice view of the Lake under shade trees. That promotes Culver…)
I’m paraphrasing the above comments. Those are just some that I remember.
At the end of the day, I don’t know whether I would have attended the beerfest. If I didn’t, it wouldn’t have been because I was offended. I had conflicts last year and didn’t attend the winefest, though I heard it was well attended and should grow this year. For that vocal crowd that thinks Culver should concentrate on being a tourist town, we just missed an opportunity.
Read Jeff Kenney’s article in the Culver Citizen reporting on the Park Board meeting where the festival was killed here. His opinion piece on this issue in the Citizen and repeated in the Pilot is spot on as well, but I couldn’t find a link to that. He makes my point better than I do! I guess that’s why he’s a professional writer…
Two Mile Zoning Boundary
The Marshall County Plan Director, Ralph Booker, and Marshall County Building Inspector, Chuck DeWitt, have been working on a system where all of the building permits for the County can be completed through the Marshall County website using the GIS (Graphic Information System). It has been approved by the Culver Plan Commission and was approved by the Culver Town Council at their meeting on February 12th. An issue arose where throughout the County there are multiple properties that are split between a County Zoning District and the various Municipalities’ Zoning Districts. As usual, Culver is the worst case scenario with more split properties than any other Marshall County community. This is a problem since the building permit program would like to address zoning issues in building permit applications via parcel ownership. (You can see a map showing Marshall County and the zoning boundaries of all the communities here.)
By Indiana State Statute IC 36-7-4-205, municipalities are allowed to take in contiguous unincorporated areas outside of their annexed municipal limits as extended Territorial Authority via their Comprehensive Plan. This is often referred to as the “two mile zoning boundary” as that is the maximum allowed by statute. Even though it is often referenced as the Two Mile Zoning Boundary in discussions at the Culver Plan Commission, and it is labeled that way on the map on the wall, Culver has never had the entire allowed area. In the case of municipalities such as Culver which are adjacent to lakes, the municipality is allowed to take in the lake and the property surrounding it. (See comments on the clause regarding lakes excerpted to the right.)
My understanding is the premise of this statute dates back to the growth spurt Indiana and the rest of the nation experienced after World War II. Often that growth occurred in the fringe areas around municipalities in a chaotic manner. In most cases there was no county zoning at the time, so Indiana and other states granted their municipalities the extended territorial authority to apply zoning standards to the fringe areas. This extended authority varied by state and I found examples of it extending from 1 to 4 miles outside municipal boundaries. In the case of Indiana, most counties have zoning ordinances now, but the extended boundary is still used by communities to control the area of imminent growth at their perimeter. Imminent growth around Culver is probably something that I’ll hear arguments about. In this case “imminent” needs to be judged by the life of our community, not by our short personal lifetimes. Imminent for Culver should be looked at through the lens of the future, looking forward 2o or even 50 years.
At the time the current zoning boundary was created, Culver was actually pretty progressive and was one of the first communities in Marshall County to establish a Plan Commission and a Zoning District. According to Pete Trone and Bobbie Ruhnow, my planning and zoning historical references, Culver took partial advantage of the territorial authority allowed and included Lake Maxinkuckee in its zoning district. The Plan Commission did not take in the full two miles at the time because they didn’t want to clash with the farm community. Since there was no County zoning at that time, there were no restrictions placed on the farmers outside the municipal limits. In most areas the lines were drawn along section lines or from intersections without regard for parcel lines. Thus the “problem” with the split parcels. This issue exists mainly on the west and north. Parcels were generally used to draw the line around the lake, so the east and south boundaries are clearer. You can see a detailed map of Culver’s zoning boundaries here.
Culver’s Zoning Boundary
The pink area shows the current extended authority. The loop outside that shows the approximate limits if the Two Mile area was granted.
In meetings with the Culver Plan Commission, it has been presented that the GIS system at the County is based on the parcel lines and since the zoning boundary lines around Culver do not follow parcel lines, the transitions between zoning boundaries are too difficult to determine. Admittedly, I am no expert in the nuts & bolts of the County GIS system. I am confused though how this can be such a difficult issue when the system currently shows soils maps, flood zones, etc. which bisect parcels and cross parcel lines with curvilinear representation. The current plan is being promoted as “fair” because it takes the majority of the split parcels and puts them completely under Culver jurisdiction if more than 50% is currently under Culver jurisdiction. If less than 50% is currently in Culver jurisdiction the entire parcel will be placed under Marshall County jurisdiction. While this is ostensibly “fair”, fairness is not the reason for the two mile boundary. The two mile zoning boundary is provided for by the State so that a municipality can control its destiny. Theoretically municipalities will continue to grow. Culver should plan to grow! In economic terms, communities are either growing or dying. There is no Status Quo!
Potential Culver Zoning Boundary
There area in pink is roughly drawn two miles out from radii at the extents of the Town boundary
Culver currently does not have the full two miles allowed in any direction. So why are we giving up control of any of our current area? Wouldn’t a more prudent solution to the GIS “problem” be to give all of the split parcels over to Culver’s control? While I’m not opposed to following parcel lines for convenience, I don’t think that should mean that we lose any parcel that crosses the current line. With a two mile extended authority our boundary would look more like the drawing to the right. If we take in every parcel that is split by the current boundary, we would still be well within the two mile limit. If that’s not acceptable, then I think the current boundary line should remain as is. As per my reference to the soils and flood plain layers, I think the GIS is versatile enough to illustrate those things. If there’s a discrepancy; bring it to the Plan Commission for a determination.
* Thanks to Pete Trone and Bobbie Ruhnow – both provided historical reference and valuable input to my research.
