New homes under construction in Fortville were subject to the town’s architectural standards, which would be severely curtailed under terms of a bill being considered in the Indiana House of Representatives. (File photo)
New homes under construction in Fortville were subject to the town’s architectural standards, which would be severely curtailed under terms of a bill being considered in the Indiana House of Representatives. (File photo)
HANCOCK COUNTY — Indiana lawmakers are considering a bill that would no longer allow local governments to regulate much of a residence’s external appearance.

The bill’s author says it would help keep housing affordable across the state, but planners in Hancock County say it would keep leaders and residents from creating the kinds of communities they’re striving for.

Authored by Indiana Rep. Doug Miller, R-Elkhart, House Bill 1114 would prohibit local governments from regulating design elements of residences. Those elements include exterior building color; type or style of exterior materials; style or material of roof structures, roof pitches or porches; architectural ornamentation; location, design, placement or architectural styling of windows and doors; number and types of rooms; and the minimum square footage of a structure.

Elements not addressed by the bill include height, bulk, orientation or location of a structure or lot; and buffering or screening used to minimize visual impacts, mitigate impacts of light and noise and protect privacy of neighbors.

The bill would not apply to structures located in historic districts and structures designated as historic, homes in areas governed by homeowners’ associations, or properties owned by municipalities. It would also not apply to regulations established as conditions for participation in housing programs and regulations adopted under fire safety and building laws.

A similar bill that Miller, managing partner with Tailor Made Homes, authored last year passed out of committee but never came before the full House.

This session’s attempt received an 8-5 approval from the House Committee on Government and Regulatory Reform earlier this month.

“We like to think that the choice is ours, not someone else’s, when it comes to what we want, what we want to spend our hard-earned money on,” Miller said at that hearing. “Only it’s not our choice when we have local mandates, especially in the form of design elements, to tell us what the outside of our homes need to look like.”

The bill strikes a balance between local control and restoring private property rights, he continued, adding it’s critical to upholding the state’s reputation as one of the most affordable housing markets in the country as more manufacturing jobs are created.

Miller, who’s spent his entire career building homes, said if manufacturing jobs are moving into a community, home builders are likely aiming for a $200,000 price point. If the community mandates design standards like brick, steeper roof pitches, garage door locations and exterior materials, it could add $15,000 to the cost of a home.

When applied to a mortgage, it could add more than $23,000 cumulatively over the life of the loan, he continued.

“That’s something that our Hoosier families could be spending on something other than the outside of their home, which they may or may not be worried about how it looks,” Miller said.

The bill would make local government more transparent by allowing the market to operate and decisions to be made by those willing to invest in their communities, he also said.

Planners push back

Leaders in McCordsville, the county’s fastest-growing community, oppose the proposal.

“I think it’s one of the worst bills I’ve ever seen,” town manager Tonya Galbraith said.

If passed, it would represent the state exerting control over a power that should remain with towns, cities and counties, she said.

“Why does somebody else need to control how we control our own communities?” she added.

Ryan Crum, McCordsville’s director of planning and building, agreed.

“We’re of the opinion that the government that’s the closest to the people is the best positioned to serve the people when we’re talking about things that intimately involve them and their properties,” he said.

Crum said architectural design elements have impacts on municipalities’ property values and tax revenue while also allowing residents to go to their local leaders when having issues with neighbors.

The town sent a memo voicing officials’ opposition to the bill to Reps. Bob Cherry (R-Greenfield) and Chris Jeter (R-Fishers), whose districts include parts of Hancock County. That memo recalls how almost every housing development approved by the town is a planned unit development, through which officials and developers can negotiate the standards of a neighborhood.

“This bill would remove that flexibility,” the memo states.

Planned unit developments also require public hearings, giving residents the opportunity to weigh in.

“There would be no public participation on what subdivisions look like if this bill goes through,” Galbraith said.

The memo relays officials’ understanding for the need for affordable workforce housing and that there are areas of town where that could logically go.

“We know that people who will soon be coming to work at the Amazon or Walmart distribution centers located near McCordsville will need affordable housing, and it should be up to town officials to work together with the builders on where that housing should be,” the memo states.

Wrong kind of housing

Stripping standards would encourage high-density, cookie-cutter housing at a time when the area’s Mt. Vernon school district is already experiencing and preparing for growth, officials maintain.

“You put high-density homes in areas where they don’t belong, that’s just going to flood the school corporation,” Galbraith said.

Adam Zaklikowski, Fortville’s planning director, takes a similar stance on the proposed legislation.

“It’s a terrible bill,” he said. “I can understand the impetus to reduce housing costs, but this takes away local control and is absolutely the wrong way to go about it.”

Zaklikowski feels affordable housing exists in the town’s market and is achievable through local rules.

“Our challenge is that we want to ensure that our housing can stand the test of time, and so it really is a balancing act overall between affordability and architectural standards,” he said.

Last year, the town rejected a housing proposal after officials and residents expressed concerns, one of which was over the developer’s proposal to use vinyl siding. When the developer offered to do away with vinyl, issues remained over the proposed size of the homes. Were Miller’s bill law at the time, the town wouldn’t have been able to reject the proposal on either of those grounds.

Ultimately the bill would affect the town’s ability to have high-quality housing, Zaklikowski said.

“Affordability’s one thing, but we also want good quality,” he said.

Christine Owens, director of planning and development for Cumberland, opposes the bill as well.

“We try really hard to balance what our communities want and our residents want with what it takes to make sure that we’re protecting property values and working with builders and developers,” Owens said. “And to see what this bill could do that could take away a lot of the authority that local communities have over building design, it’s just very frustrating.”

Finding balance

Joan Fitzwater, Greenfield planning director, said she understands both sides of the issue. Existing property owners are concerned new houses near theirs will be compatible in order to maintain their property values, and architectural standards are one way to ensure that. She also thinks there are companies that would want to improve their bottom lines by taking advantage of cheaper materials and a lack of required aesthetics.

Fitzwater said there needs to be a system in place that allows for affordable housing while protecting property values.

“And at this point in time, architectural standards appear to be a tool we have to do that,” she said.

She feels affordable housing is achievable under Greenfield’s current framework, and that city staff have spent a lot of time communicating with builders and the Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis as local standards were developed. The city sought understanding on the cost of architectural standards and made an effort to ensure rules wouldn’t be a burdensome expense, she added.

“We don’t want to put them out of business by any means and we do need housing for all economic income levels,” Fitzwater said. “Hopefully we have a set of standards that’s not onerous and will also help provide security for existing homeowners.”

Mike Dale, executive director of the Hancock County planning and building departments, also sees the issue from both sides.

“That ability to regulate design is a helpful tool for attracting housing projects that can be higher end, or lower end; so it takes away a pretty significant tool,” he said of the bill. “I will admit there are times when local government may exercise its ability to regulate design and in some cases, can unintentionally raise and artificially raise the cost of housing, thereby creating a demand for lower-income housing in an area that can’t meet these higher standards or higher design elements.”

The bill wold also hinder local governments’ abilities to compete with one another for higher quality housing, Dale said.

Belief in local control

Cherry, R-Greenfield, said he’d vote against the bill if it comes before the House and that he hasn’t heard from anyone asking him to support it.

“I believe in local control, and I don’t want to take that away,” Cherry said. “If officials abuse it, then they’re subject to the voters. We need less government instead of more government.”

Several home builders who do business in Hancock County did not return requests for comment, but the Indiana Builders Association testified in support of the bill. Carlie Hopper, government affairs director for the association, said it would help alleviate the state’s “affordable housing crisis.”

“The areas of the state that typically face the greatest housing challenges are also the ones where the jobs are going,” Hopper said. “And so often those are the same places that have architectural standards in place. So to the extent that we are able to either curb the ordinances where they’re currently being proposed, or simply halt the adoption of new ordinances, we’ll be able to build housing at that price point that Hoosiers need.”

Also in support of the bill are Habitat for Humanity, Indiana Association of Realtors, National Federation of Independent Business, Indiana Manufacturers Association and the Indiana Apartment Association.

Opposing are Accelerate Indiana Municipalities, Citizens Action Coalition, Indiana’s Building Trade Unions, Fire Inspectors Association of Indiana, Indiana Fire Chiefs Association and American Institute of Architects.

If the bill goes up for a vote in the House, its third reading must be by Feb. 22.
© 2024 Daily Reporter