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…
On Thursday we had the Ribbon Cutting for Riverside Commons Apartments in Plymouth and LaPaz Commons Apartments in LaPaz. This project resulted from Marshall County Crossroads‘ Stellar Designation. Matthew Celmer spoke on behalf of the Crossroads committee. Gary Neidig spoke on behalf of One Marshall County, the new reiteration of Crossroads. Mayor Listenberger spoke on behalf of the City of Plymouth. Alan Rakowski, Director of Real Estate Acquisition, for IHCDA spoke as well. It was also nice to see Don Ecker there representing the Plymouth Common Council, Lynn Gorski, Clerk Treasurer, representing the Plymouth Clerks’ office and Ralph Booker representing the Plymouth Plan Commission. All of them praised the new development and the what it would do for the City of Plymouth. (Marty Oosterbaan was there as a former Crossroads’ leader. He was also responsible for a lot of help in pulling the Ribbon Cutting together.) Thanks also to Easterday Construction Co., Inc. Project Superintendent, Bob Cooper, and Office Manager, Julie Heise for their help throughout the project and at the Ribbon Cutting.
The juxtaposition occurred later that day when a letter began circulating around Plymouth, on Facebook, and in other venues, condemning the Mayor and others such as myself involved with the proposed GC Horizons project – a project very similar to Riverside Commons. That was followed by a negative Letter to the Editor in the Pilot News. It was odd, being praised for doing something good for the community at the Ribbon Cutting and then later the same day, being attacked on Facebook for wanting to do more of the same.
Riverside Commons and the proposed GC Horizons are both IHCDA RHTC (Rental Housing Tax Credit) projects. The only difference is that GC Horizons will include 8 PSH (Permanent Supportive Housing) units similar to those at Serenity Place – 8 of the 34 total units. The “GC” in GC Horizons stands for Garden Court. Garden Count has been a respected not-for-profit entity providing affordable housing to the community for decades. They were also denigrated for attempting to do more good in the community.
While I know it’s unwise to feed the trolls by attempting to rebut their falsehoods online, I thought it worthwhile to present some of the facts here:
There were other specious Facebook comments that were just mean spirited and unworthy of responses. Few of them suggested alternate solutions, though at least one’s solution advocated violence and destruction of property. The negativity is hard to shake off. That said, one thing stood out from the Riverside Commons Ribbon Cutting on Thursday… We had a two story townhouse unit open after the ribbon cutting for guests to tour. Everyone was complimentary. As I was walking out with a couple of guests, there were two women sitting and talking on a neighboring porch. One of the women asked if we liked the unit? She then asked if we would like to see one of the flats, since she lived in a flat. I smiled and thanked her, saying I was familiar since I was part of the construction team. She smiled broadly and proceeded to tell me how happy she was with her new apartment, how she had made new friends there and how there was a sense of community. She ended it saying thank you for making the apartments available to her. She is one of the reasons for doing this and her heartfelt, unsolicited gratitude helps as some of the negativity comes my way.
A lurker asked me about shipping container homes and the PUD Container Home project planned by Voodoo Dream Work LLC at 3919 North Michigan Road between Plymouth and LaPaz. I don’t generally comment on other developer’s projects, but I cannot imagine that this isn’t an improvement on what’s existing. I wish Mr. Landgrebe and Voodoo the best and hope their project is successful.
My lurker asked what I thought of the shipping container home concept. I actually looked into this before and was given some drawings by Brent Martin, SRKM Architecture, to consider. I hadn’t considered container homes for a whole subdivision as Mr. Landgrebe is proposing, but I thought they would be interesting to consider for infill lots. There are many small lots that were platted when standards were looser, that would be difficult to develop now due to setbacks and other restrictions.
There are several lots in Culver that are virtually undevelopable due to their size and setback restrictions. The former Community Garden parcel owned by the Wesley United Methodist Church at the NE corner of Slate Street and Lewis Street comes to mind. Another is the parcel at the SE corner of Clymax Street and Jefferson Street. Not only does the second one have streets on two sides, but it has issues with utility poles and an alley.
An interesting side note: Culver’s current Building Commissioner has a different interpretation of setbacks for corner lots than was enforced in the past. In the past, a lot that fronted two streets was considered to have two front yards and consequently two rear yards. The current interpretation is that the front yard is the side with the street address making the rear yard the opposite from that. This will help some of these difficult small lots.
The biggest positive for shipping container construction is that modular construction can be highly efficient. Parts and pieces that can be manufactured in a controlled, factory setting can speed up construction in the field. Sand Hill Farm Apartments were based on modular construction, with each apartment based on a standardized two bedroom layout. The three bedroom units are the same two bedroom unit layout with stairs to a third bedroom above. The one bedroom units are the same two bedroom unit layout with the second bedroom truncated to allow space for the office in one case and a maintenance room in the other. I spent a lot of time working with Hi Tech Housing, Inc. out of Bristol, hoping to use them and their version of modular construction. In the end, that just didn’t work out.
The main problem I found when I looked into shipping containers was their rigidity; ironically, one of the positives their proponents tout. 1) The module that they create is limiting. To make them into a home, they need to be framed out to allow space for insulation and space for infrastructure like plumbing and electrical to run throughout the space. This reduces the living space. 2) Their steel frames mean that any modifications require a cutting torch. 3) Any attempts to combine them are made difficult by the deep corrugations, which are designed to give them strength, but create additional space issues. 4) Cuts made for doors, windows and larger openings between them take away some of the strength inherent to the modular unit. 5) The Building Inspectors I’ve talked to are uncomfortable inspecting them with the modifications, and would require an Architect or Engineer to sign off on them. This creates a problem in finding an Architect or Engineer comfortable in doing this.
The shipping container home shown in the picture to the right is what I envisioned for some of the above infill sites in Culver, but if would have had Building Inspector issues and would still have required local variances as it would have been below Culver’s required square footage standards. Check out the site for the home to the right here. They have some other interesting pictures, but most of them are single container homes, making the square footage requirement harder to meet. But picture how much floor space stairs between floors would require and how that would subtract from your usable space when you add a second floor.
I don’t feel like shipping containers as homes follow the axiom of “everything to its highest & best use”. The best use for a shipping container is for shipping material. (Much as I said about the best use of West High School would have been its original designed use as a school.) Architect Belinda Carr does a great job of breaking it down in the video below:
I’m not sure I’m ready to say they’re a scam, but they just didn’t make sense to me. To each their own. I just don’t see them as a panacea to the housing crisis.
Modular construction does make a lot of sense. Sand Hill Farm Apartments, The Paddocks and Riverside Commons were all framed using factory produced wall panels. They’re delivered en masse and then carpenters stand them up on site. We did this with most of the Garden Court projects we built as well. It just makes sense when there are repetitive room shapes and sizes. A big difference is that we can work towards other modular sizes when we build this way. Drywall comes in lengths and widths in multiples of 4′. This makes rooms with dimensions based on 2′ increments more efficient. Carpet comes in 12′ widths. We design for that efficiency. Wood studs have easily determined bearing capacities based on 16″ and 24″ centers… which works out with the 4′ drywall increments. Those same 4′ increments work out for OSB and plywood which is used for exterior wall sheathing and roof decking. Studs come in standard length, which can help determine the most efficient ceiling heights. Considerations of these increments helps reduce waste.
I’ll be watching Mr. Landgrebe’s project with interest. It should be interesting visually and his vacation voucher rental model is novel. I wish him the best and who knows; he may cause me to rethink my views on container housing…
One of my lurkers saw my instagram post about meeting the LaPaz Fire Department at LaPaz Commons Apartments last week. We always offer the local fire department the opportunity to walk through once the framing is in place. This gives them a better understanding of the structure in that worst case scenario of fighting a fire there. One of the things we discussed with the firemen was the location of the Knox Box. My Lurker sent me this picture of a Knox Box he had seen in Grand Rapids, MI. (See right)
Yes, that’s a Knox Box somewhere around 12′ above the ground above the awning. Pretty much inaccessible… I’m guessing this is a case where the City required a Knox Box, but didn’t include location specifications and the building owner didn’t want one and put it there out of spite. But I’m just projecting that scenario. Who knows?
Most communities set up standards for placement of Knox Boxes. These have to be carefully considered so they have some flexibility. All buildings are different. But as much as possible, you want the box placed in a location that is immediately recognizable and found by emergency personnel, else its intention is defeated. Firefighters in particularly are notorious for bringing their universal key (fire axe) and not hesitating to use it.
Easterday Construction Co., Inc. was responsible for introducing and writing the Key Box requirement in Culver’s Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 6, Section 100. Enforcement has been pretty limited though. We haven’t actually seen one installed on any projects completed by others. (That doesn’t mean there aren’t some out there.) Even with a pretty clear definition, we ended up getting cross-ways with the building commissioner on a project where he chose to interpret the requirements differently than they were written. (He lost. We don’t argue unless we’re right.)
There is more than one benefit to these systems, i.e. 1) limiting property damage from emergency personnel accessing the building by any means possible, 2) speeding up access when the building is extremely secure and 3) giving emergency personnel a place to find pertinent information such as building plans, electrical shutoffs, among others. But the system has to be set up for the municipality to make the Knox Box keying universal and the program must be understood by the emergency personnel it benefits.
We have promoted the use of these systems, but with limited success. We’ll continue to sing their praises, as they are a benefit to public safety.
IYKYK
October 8, 2024
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Personal, Plymouth, Tips
Community, Tips, Trends, Volunteering
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…
0 comments