home

If you don’t want Oriental overrun by condos, the next few days could be very important.

This Tuesday, the Town Board holds a public hearing on whether to reduce allowable density in town as a way of stemming the tide of condos. It’s at 7pm, October 3, at Town Hall

In the past month, the Planning Board has come up with several different proposals that would require condos and town homes to have more square footage of land than the current regulations require.

At the moment, Oriental’s GMO calls for 5,000 square feet for the first condo unitand only 3,000 for the subsequent ones. That standard allows 14 units per acre, which is more than three times as many condos per acre than the new Pamlico County regulations permit. Because of that disparity, developers could be targetting Oriental even more, unless something is done.

For many, it is the Old Village in particular — and its R2 and MU1 zones — that should be protected from an overrun of condos. But given the disparity in the numbers between the county and Oriental at large, the town has also been looking at density reduction numbers for the other two zones — R3 and MU — where many condos have been proposed of late. (The R1 neighborhoods are out of the picture in all of this as they don’t currently permit multi-units.

We first wrote about this a few weeks ago. A lot has been happening since then as two members of the Planning Board have been trying to come up with a formula that works. It has been challenging.

If you agree that the first step toward limiting condos is to reduce the density, then please contact your Town Board members and let them know — right now, over the weekend, and leading up to and at the hearing. More about that and a simple proposal to achieve lower density, in a moment.

First, though, an update from the Density Front.

When we last left off… at the August Planning Board meeting, Planning Board member Bob Miller’s proposal was approved. It would have drastically changed minimum lot size requirements for building multi-units.

Instead of the current 5,000 for the first unit/3,000 for the subsequent ones,
Bob Miller’s initial proposal would have made it:

R-2 9,000 for 1 unit; 8,000 for each additional unit R-3 8,000 for 1 unit; 7,000 for each additional unit MU 6,000 for 1 unit; 5,000 for each additional unit MU-1 6,000 for 1 unit; 5,000 for each additional unit

Thing is, by requiring 9,000 square feet for the first unit, 9,000 square feet would also have been the minimum lot size for single family homes. That would have been unfair to those who had 5,000 square foot lots on which they could not build anything.

While the over-condo-ization of Oriental has many concerned, no one has a quarrel with single family homes, especially small ones, being built on 5,000 square foot lots. A big part of the character and scale of the Old Village rests among those streets with the not-so-big houses.

So, even though the Planning Board had approved Bob Miller’s first plan and even though the Town Board then scheduled a public hearing based on it for this coming Tuesday October 3, the idea was for Bob to rework the formula.

Which he did.

His second proposal had 5,000 square feet required for the first unit on any lot — and then, a larger number of square feet for the subsequent units.

We’ll admit, it does take a moment to absorb this approach of a ‘higher second number’. Perhaps it’s because the existing GMO 5,000/3,000 rule has conditioned us to the opposite. But when you stop and think about it, exactly why have we been “rewarding” developers for not having enough land for multiple single family homes? Why do we say to a developer with say, 14,000 square feet, “‘don’t worry about it if you don’t have the 15,000 square feet for three small single family homes? We’ll just let you cram in four townhomes instead!” Even if it may have had a purpose in the past, is there any good reason to keep enabling such behavior?

Bob’s proposal would have changed that. Here’s what he brought to the table at the September 18 joint meeting of the Town Board and Planning Board:
R2 5,000 for 1 unit/ 8,000 for each additional unit R3 5,000 for 1 unit/ 7,000 for each additional unit MU/MU1 5,000 for 1 unit/5,000 for each additional unit.

(in terms of units per acre, this would mean 5.5 units per acre in the R2, 6.5 in the R3 and 8.5 in the MU and MU1.)

Reisistance

There was some resistance at the joint meeting.

Commissioner Candy Bohmert said she thought the matter had not been researched enough by the Planning Board.

Mayor Sherrill Styron, said that he thought the effort to reduce density was ‘jumping the gun’ because the real estate market was flat and that condos were not currently selling well in Belhaven.

In an interview after the meeting, the Mayor said that he did not want to see something ‘destroy the value of waterfront property’. (The mayor owns two acres on the Oriental harborfront. If the 5,000/5,000 proposal for the MU1 were adopted, the mayor’s 2 acres could no longer hold 28 condos as under current 14 per acre rule but would be down to 17 condos.)

Meanwhile, Town Board member Barb Venturi lamented that in the MU1 district, which allows commercial and residential development, all the construction of late had been condos rather than businesses. She said she wanted to encourage more business. (However, there is some quesiton about why part of the MU1 distict, a few blocks of mainly residential Midyette Street with its single family homes, are zoned for business in the first place.)

If They Can’t Build As Many, Maybe They’ll Build Something Else

Putting aside the save-for-another day discussion about how much the town can do to encourage business, it does appear that the current density rules are what are contributing to condo growth in the MU1. Businesses need 8,000 square feet to build, residences 5,000 and as we’ve seen, the current regs allow subsequent residences to be built on a mere 3,000 square feet. With our current 14-units-per-acre standard developers can make more money slapping up condos than they could building a business structure. It’s woven in to the system.

Thing is, there in front of the town and planning boards at that joint meeting was a solution .. or at least a road to one. It was in Bob Miller’s proposal.

If the town adopted his proposed standard of 5,000/5,000 in the MU and MU1, a developer would need as much land to build a condo as he would need to build a single family house. At minimum, that will remove some of the incentive to build condos. In the long run, by no longer enabling condo construction with the antiquated 5,000/3,000 rule, developers might even be encouraged to build commercial space.

But none of that can happen unless the town first says, “You need 5,000 square feet per unit for any residential construction in the MUs from now on. “

It’s an important stepping stone.

But the indication from the Town Board was that it wanted still more work on the plan. At that joint meeting, there was talk — and a computer listing offered up —- of how many empty lots remained in all those districts. Attention turned to what impact changing the density requirements would have on them.

A week later, at the September 27 Planning Board meeting, Planning Board member Katy Pugh put forth yet another proposal for reducing density. She had taken the empty lot listings in the R2, R3, MU and MU1 districts and she said, created a spread sheet. It was based on the desire, she said, “to reduce density… and keep lots buildable.”

Her plan called for:

R2: 5,000 for the first unit/4,000 for the second (With the current limit allowing no more than two units per lot that equals almost 10 units per acre) R3 5,000 for the first unit/7,000 for subsequent units (6.5 per acre) MU/MU1 5,000 for the first unit/5,000 for subsequent units (8.5 per acre) The four planning board members approved the R2 and R3 plans. They split on the MU-MU1 5,000/5,000 rule, with Bob Miller and Katy Pugh in favor and Dee Sage and Paul Olson opposed.

Drawing Lots?

But for those who are concerned about over-condoization in the Old Village, it’s the R2 part of this plan that jumps out and is of greatest concern. In effect, under this scheme, the R2, the residential part of the Old Village, the very part of town that is most associated with Oriental’s character, would become the area that could be most densely built compared to the other districts.

It brings to mind Whack-A-Mole. Doesn’t our life experience tell us that when developers look at a map of town, they’ll search out the places that allowed the most density and seek to build there? So why would we now want to make the R2 — which is supposed to be more restrictive than the R3, MU and MU1 — the one neighborhood that would be most vulnerable to multi-unit development?

This turned-on-its head formulation seems to have evolved because the Town Board gave the Planning Board that list of empty lots to consider.

While we see the wisdom in assuring that 5,000 acre lots were still buildable for a single family home, it seems far less wise to pore over the lists of 9,000 and 10,000 square foot lots, for example, to determine a policy. If our goal is to reduce the condo-ization in town, why would we want the tail to wag the dog?

Focus On Empty Lots Takes Eye Away From The Ball
What’s more, this focus on empty lots is blindingly misleading. It doesn’t take in to account the now-occupied lots and the phenomena of tear-downs. An hour with a bulldozer could make a house disappear from a lot, thus opening that lot up to multi-unit development. Adjacent lots can merge. Everything eventually is for sale. It can happen. And that’s why it is simply folly to base policy on only empty lots.

It’s unclear exactly what the Town Board wanted when it offered up that map of the empty lots.

Something Has To Be Done
But to Katy Pugh and Bob Miller’s credit in all of this, they did have clarity on one thing: something has to be done to reduce density and get a handle on condo construction. They, more than anyone else, grasped that the public wants density reduced. They held their ground in the face of some resistance from their Planning Board acting Chair.

At the meeting September 26th, Acting Chair Dee Sage suggested that reducing density might be better taken up as part of a comprehensive plan. That could be months off. Dee Sage said that she didn’t ‘sense the panic’ of having to act right away.

To that, Katy Pugh noted that the Planning Board earlier that evening had approved several condo projects (Whittaker Creek – 12 units, Sea Harbour – 9 units, Oriental Inn – 4 units) She noted the number of projects proposed or built in the past year. (213 by our count) and she said there was yet another project in the pipeline (A 3-condo project on New Street, a block away from the harbor; those plans were submitted the day before.)

Clearly, the condos are coming. The condos are here.

Bob Miller said that in the proposals to reduce density, “we don’t have all the answers” but that “developers are at the door.” The proposals being put forward to reduce density, said Katy Pugh, are a ‘moderate change’.

“It’s a stopgap,” Miller said. If the town left the 5,000/3,000 regs in place, Miller warned, it would see even “more condo projects dropping in to neighborhoods and people unhappy with it.”

It’s not clear that enough of the Town Board yet shares that anxiousness.

Will The Town Board Delay Action To Check With Developers?
For those under the impression that the Town Board might vote for density reduction at the meeting this coming Tuesday night, the Town Board sent a different message at its Thursday agenda-setting meeting.

At that meeting, commissioner Nancy Inger suggested that since it was ‘such a hot topic’ the board might hold off on a decision for thirty days.

She suggested that in that time, the board might seek the opinion of developers in town ..“just to find out where they are and what they would like to see.. or not see .. so they aren’t stymied.”

Pause.

Developers of course have a right to be heard. They can come to the public hearing just as the non-developer types in town do. They can write a letter. Or call their town board members just as you can.

But making a special effort to guage their feelings? And if a developer says, “Oh, I won’t be able to make money. This proposal will stymie me.” what does the Town Board do then? Will the Board stick with the out-dated 5,000/3,000 build-all-you-want rule we have now?

Effort to Call Off Hearings

Also, at Thursday’s meeting, Town Manager Wyatt Cutler suggested that the Public Hearing be called off. He noted that he had not been present at the Planning Board meeting two days earlier but that he understood that the Planning Board did not reach a ‘consensus on what the density should be.”

To the Town Board’s credit, it said that it would proceed with the public hearing.

As for that other point about ‘consensus not being reached’... it is not quite true. A majority of the Planning Board voted to change at least the R2 and R3. (They split on the MU/MU1) And besides, Town Boards have always had the option of making changes to whatever proposal comes before them from the planning board after hearing the public’s opinion at the public hearings.

However, given some of the comments made Thursday, the Town Board may be reluctant to cobble together something at the Public Hearing Tuesday.

One fears though, that if the Town Board delays action, it could let yet more too-densely-packed condo projects come in.

A Suggestion: Require 5,000 Square Feet. Period.

So… in the face of the possible confusion over what to do, a suggestion. An alternative proposal. It comes from having watched this process for more than a month now.

And it is simple.

5,000 square feet per unit. Period.

In the R2, R3, MU and MU1 neighborhoods, make 5,000 square feet the minimum land area needed for any unit. 5,000 for a single family home. 5,000 for a condo unit. 5,000 for a town home. 5,000 for the first unit. 5,000 for each of the subsequent units.

Here are the benefits:

With this plan, you are no longer rewarding developers with the ability to slap up four condos on land that isn’t even big enough for three single family homes. (14,000 square feet is all that’s now required for four condos under the 5,000/3,000 rules while each single family home needs 5,000 square feet.) With this plan, we as a town get out of the enabling business.

By making 5,000 square feet the land requirement for condos and single family homes alike, we increase the chances of more single family homes being built, which is more in keeping with our Old Village neighborhoods.

Also, it strikes a happy medium. Given the county’s new tougher regs (4 units per acre) developers will be thronging to Oriental and our more lax 5,000/3,000 formula which allows 14 per acre. Because of our traditional 5,000 square foot minimum for single family houses (8.5 per acre) we cannot, outside of the R1 neighborhoods, match the county’s 4 per acre (approx 11,000 square foot minimum). A 5,000/5,000 standard however, would give you 8.5 units per acre and be the cleanest compromise. It’s fair.

Another advantage comes in the MU and MU1 neighborhoods where there would no longer be an incentive to build condos instead of single family homes or even business buildings. If we as a town really want to encourage more of the latter.. we have to discourage the condos first. Getting a 5,000 square foot across the board rule in place is the right step in that direction.

Other Considerations

Reducing the density is crucial. But it alone may not chip away at the hulking size of condos. (Density addresses the size of a lot and the number of units on it but by itself does not address how much of the lot the structure can occupy.) It may take more finetuning of the GMO — reducing the allowable impervious surface areas on lots, for instance. At this same public hearing there is also, thanks to Katy Pugh, a proposal before the board to do that. It deserves attention.

Also, in the R2 district there is currently a rule that says no more than two units per lot. That has limited the multi-unit development here to duplexes. The town might consider whether it should take that approach in the other districts too.

Don’t Dither

This is just one citizen’s suggestion, but the reduction to 5,000/5,000 density is Oriental’s best way right now to avoid the onslaught of the condos that have erased the soul from other coastal communities.

At the very least, the 5,000 per unit rule buys our town the breathing room it needs. Perhaps there is a more elegant solution. But right now, we need this in place.

There are some who will say it ‘needs more study’. It doesn’t. This is not brain surgery. It’s not rocket science. It’s common sense.

5,000/5,000 puts us on a good path to guiding Oriental’s future and hanging on to the character by not allowing the crammed in condos — 213 — built or approved in the past year alone.

It is urgent that we do something now, Tuesday night.

But for all this to happen, the Town Board members need to hear from you. Literally right now. Drop them an email, give them a call. Right now, before the meeting. Suggest a simple 5,000 square foot per unit rule. To give us the breathing room.

Posted Friday September 29, 2006 by Melinda Penkava

email this story | back to top