government

Culver Zoning 7/19 Update – Part 2

by

This is a continuation of my previous post regarding Culver’s July Plan Commission Meeting, regarding proposed changed to the Culver Zoning Ordinance.

L-1 Setbacks

The L-1 zoning district considers the lake side of property the front yard. There is a front yard minimum setback of 25′, but there is an additional clause that only applies in this district: Where property immediately adjacent on either side of the lot is already developed with principal structures, the required setback shall be determined by a line drawn between the farthest extension of the adjacent structures, including any decks or raised patios. In no case shall the setback be less than 25 feet from the normal high water mark. (Culver Zoning Ordinance, pg 24)

This is part of the 2017 ordinance (current) and goes back through several earlier versions of the ordinance. Discussion was initiated last year to consider eliminating this restriction and going to just the 25′ minimum setback like any other district. What’s interesting about this is, that while restrictive, this isn’t an issue that comes before the BZA often. In general, if the property owner is not already familiar with the restriction from the ordinance, the Building Commissioner explains it and it is just a given. In most cases, the property owners see how this would benefit them, if there is future development on neighboring lots.

I know this can be restrictive at times. As pointed out in the meetings, there are some lots that are larger and because they were originally developed with large front yards, they become a controlling factor on their neighbors. There is also the issue of how this affects lot development based on the curvature of the lake. I don’t know of any cases where a lot has been rendered unbuildable by this restriction and I can’t imagine the BZA not granting a variance where the enforcement of this restriction was an issue.

Some of the discussion was regarding the restriction of “views”. There is no doubt that this was set up to preserve views, but some of the current thinking is that a property owner’s view is only guaranteed directly in front of the property. This is true, since there is no restriction on landscaping in the front yard, so trees and other herbaceous obstructions are allowed. I don’t know of any cases where neighbors have pursued this spitefully though, since in reality, it would obstruct their views as well.

I have several thoughts regarding this change:

This restriction is no different than the height restrictions or any other restrictions put on lots that are meant to control growth and maintain orderly development. These are all arbitrary values that have been determined and codified with the best intentions for all. These vary from community to community based on each communities values.

Removing this restriction at this time is extremely unfair to those that have been subjected to this restriction in the past. When all are subject to it, then it’s fair. If a home constructed last year was designed to meet this requirement, set windows to take advantage of it, etc., they should have some sense of comfort that their neighbor’s future development will follow the same rules. Many lake residences are $1MM+ and their design decisions are affected by these rules. Consistency in the rules is important.

This change should not be considered in a vacuum. This has been discussed over the last year amongst the Plan Commission members. Only one of those members is a lake resident. Realizing that there will be an advertised Public Hearing before this can be passed, it would still make sense to get input from the residents affected as the change is crafted. My thought is that it should have been out for discussion in the community over this summer, while more lake residents are here. This will be a hot issue! Why not preempt some of that by getting input from those affected?

In the end, I think the Plan Commission is setting themselves up for some unnecessary heartburn on this issue. I may be wrong and as always, I cut them a lot of slack as volunteers. I just see this as a bees nest that they don’t need to kick…

One more post regarding this meeting is coming. This one definitely falls into the category of a rant! Ha!

Culver Zoning 7/19 Update – Part 1

by

The Culver Plan Commission is looking into some changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Some of this is prompted by what is coming before the BZA for Variances and some of it is based on recommendations from the Building Commissioner and various commission members.

R-1 Setbacks

The first issue under discussion is rear yard setbacks in the R-1 district. The two things being discussed regarding this are:

  1. Single Family Rear Yard Setback: 25′ (page 26)
  2. Accessory Structure Setback: no less than 10′ from the rear lot line (page 82)

Regarding #1, some of the members on the Plan Commission also serve on the BZA. They referenced this as one of the issues that comes up constantly. This is particularly an issue in the areas of town where the Lot of Record is non-conforming by size, i.e. too small. The discussion initially centered around reducing the R-1 Rear Setback requirement from 25′ to 10′, which is apparently a commonly granted variance request. There was pushback on this from some members that felt that this needed BZA review and shouldn’t be the default.

I made the suggestion that the ordinance be modified to allow the 25′ setback to remain in place for conforming lots and allow the reduction for the smaller non-conforming lots. This seemed palatable to the majority of the members, but it was tabled for further thought and discussion at the next meeting. One additional thought I had is how this change would affect the R-1 impervious surface limitations in the ordinance. (Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage: 50%) Many of the lots requesting setback variance may still be coming to the BZA due to this limitation. This becomes a trickier issue as it not only affects the adjacent neighbors, but the entire storm water system and Lake Maxinkuckee. This should be considered as well.

On a side note, I was pleased to hear one of the members bring up the affordable housing issue and how zoning restrictions often stymie creative solutions. I hope he carries this forward into the ongoing Comprehensive Plan meetings. Some allowances for creativity and New Urbanism would put Culver ahead of most of our neighboring communities and the County.

Regarding #2, some members thought there was a discrepancy, since accessory structures were allowed within 10′ of the rear property line. I would argue that there is a big difference between the an accessory structure and a main structure within 10′ of the rear property line. An accessory structure, such as a garage, gazebo or yard barn, which is limited to a height of 16′ and generally will have a smaller footprint. The main structure is allowed to be 35′ in height and often has a footprint that fills the lot from side setback to side setback. This could be quite imposing for the neighboring property, particularly in cases where there isn’t an alley or other additional open space. Personally, I think this should stand as is, though I might suggest tweaking it to address garages that access rear yard alleys. When they are constructed 10′ off the alley, general access can create issues and often trespass on the neighbors.

The other issue that was discussed was the line of site setback requirement for L-1 properties, but I’ll address that in a separate post.

Destination 2040 – Culver Comp Plan

by

If you recall from some of my past posts here and on Twitter, I have been encouraging Culver to update the Comprehensive Plan. I began pushing for this as we were finishing up Stellar as I thought Stellar had put in motion so much of the 2014 plan, that it was time to consider what was next. I had thought 2020 Vision for Culver was an excellent name for the Comprehensive Plan at that time. Then the pandemic disrupted all of our lives. There would have been no reasonable way to hold public input session and other things needed to move a new Comp Plan forward.

Over the past year, Culver’s Town Manager, Ginny Munroe, has created Culver Crossroads, mimicking the model of Marshall County Crossroads which successfully garnered the county Stellar designation. One of the goals with this is to keep the people in Culver that made Stellar happen, together. They are resources that can help Culver do more great things. Since planning is a big part of this, the idea of updating the Comp Plan resurfaced and is now underway with the guidance of MACOG.

One of the first things they are doing as part of public outreach is to ask community members to send a post card from the future. “Imagine you’re living in Culver in 2040, and you would like to send a post card from the future to yourself today. Use this template postcard to write a brief message or draw your vision describing what Culver looks like in 2040, what’s changed from today, and what you like to do for fun or highlight a destination places in Culver.” The postcard format is a little limiting, but it’s a good way to start people thinking and there will be plenty of opportunities to give additional input in the future. I’m more of a planning guy, so that’s where my comments went. For those of you that are interested, this is my card:

Nothing new here and some of this falls under things yet to accomplish from the 2014 Comp Plan, but they are things that I think are important and would move Culver forward with more connectivity and a more diverse economy. (Lately I’ve been accused of being negative. Others will judge that, but my intention is to be pragmatic. That said, you don’t see a lot of pragmatic cheerleaders. Ha!)

If you are interested in filling out a card, they are available at the Town Hall. I’m sure Ginny is gathering any email input she receives, so that would be another way to be heard.

Comprehensive Plans are generally updated every 5 to 15 years. Active and forward thinking communities are doing them at the low end of that scale because they’re moving things forward. Less active communities complete plans when they have to and then shelve them, never acting on them. The more participation the Town gets, the more likely they are to follow through with the plans. Be sure to step up and provide your input. This is probably only second to elections in how you are able to influence the direction of Culver for the Future. Keep an eye on the Town of Culver website as I’m sure there will be more information there soon.

Culver Crossroads

by

Last year Culver started a new initiative to replicate the positive steps taken by Marshall County Crossroads with a local version, Culver Crossroads. I have agreed to be involved in several capacities, serving on the Steering Committee & Business Development Committee. There’s the possibility that there will also be a Housing Committee that I would serve on as well. Housing has initially been put under Quality of Life. I’m not sure if that’s going to work or not. I agree the goals are similar, but housing may take some specific focus. In any case, another year, another committee! Lets see if we can make things better.

Audiologist’s Husband Rant

by
Rebecca L. Berger, AuD (Dr. Becky)
Doctor of Audiology

Just felt like venting a bit on Becky’s behalf. Becky has always loved helping people with their hearing. Her initial degree was in Deaf Education with a minor in Audiology from Ball State University. After several years of teaching, she found that it wasn’t right for her. She loved helping the children, but the administration and bureaucracy was too much. At that point we were living in Georgia. (Did you know that most teachers prepare a lesson plan for their class, while teachers of special needs students, such as deaf students, are required to fill out IEP‘s for each individual student?) We discussed it and she ended up quitting teaching and going to the University of Georgia and getting a Masters Degree in Audiology. Shortly after that we moved back to Indiana and she began practicing Audiology with a group of Doctors. While working with them, she went back to school again, obtaining her Doctorate in Audiology. She studied and understands the theory behind hearing aid technology and the anatomical parts of the ear, how they interact with the brain and how they all are affected by hearing loss.

With all Becky’s education came additional responsibility. As a Doctor of Audiology, she is under different regulations than hearing aid dispensers. She is governed by HIPAA regulations, Medicaid & Medicare regulations and other requirements; things dispensers don’t have to follow.( To be a hearing aid dispenser, there is a test you must pass with the State, but the minimum education is a GED, not a degree, let alone a Doctorate degree.)

The Doctors Becky worked for retired and she decided to go on her own. That was in 2015 when she started Berger Audiology. Less money, but more autonomy and more time to help patients. She invested in the latest technology. She is now the only full time Audiologist in Marshall County. She operates a satellite office in Winamac. But she struggles with the competition. She wrote a 2019 blog post about it here.

Since that time, things have progressively gotten worse. The government has been slowly chipping away at what differentiates an Audiology from a dispenser. On top of that, they are pushing a trend towards Over-The-Counter (OTC) hearing aide sales or even worse, over the internet. You’ve probably seen the ads by Lively which advertise a telephone consultation with an audiologist or worse, My Power Ear, which cites “no need to see an Audiologist” as a positive selling point. She’s seen patients that have bought hearing aids from big box stores, having been sold that they were getting “the latest technology”. In some cases that has turned out to be a generation or two old. Honestly she’s a bit depressed and upset every time one of those ads.

We’re all thrilled with the convenience of the internet and the ability to buy nearly anything you want from Amazon. But is this what we want for healthcare providers? Telemedicine may work for some things like getting a prescription refilled, but does it really replace hands on care? Or in the case of Becky, an Audiologist, how is a phone conversation prescribing a hearing aid equal to her, a trained professional, doing a complete physical examination and doing a hearing test in a calibrated sound booth, using the latest technology? Can they look in your ear an determine that your hearing loss is actually due to wax? Or that the type of hearing loss indicates that you need to see an ENT because there’s the potential for serious issues where hearing loss is just a symptom? Food for thought… or just my rant…