home

The Town Board Monday night October 23 resumes the public hearing on density and condos. It is a window of opportunity that is closing in a village whose human scale has been built mainly by way of single family homes.

This is the effort that started out with the goal of reducing density as a way to curb the influx of multi-units and avoid the over building that has drastically changed other coastal towns. In Oriental in the past year, 200+ units have been built or approved, with another 28 in the pipeline.

Since the October 3rd meeting when the Public Hearing started, a few proposals and ideas have been floated to the Town Board commissioners. Since these proposals may be given consideration by the board, before, at or after the hearing, a short overview seemed in order.

One proposal that has been floated to commissioners in recent days comes from Pat Herlands, who is married to commissioner Al Herlands. She has drafted a proposal that doesn’t just address density (minimum lot size) but that revises several other other sections of the Growth Management Ordinance.

To reduce the bulkiness of some multi-unit buildings the proposal makes some progress. It would limit building size to under 4,000 square feet. It would limit the number of stories above the ground to three, thus getting at some of the height issues. It would rule out flat roofs, requiring a slope between 20 and 70 percent.

These are nice.

But there is a major flaw in the proposal when it comes to the lot sizes.

It would change from our current formula (5,000 square feet of land for the first unit/3,000 feet of land for the subsequent units) to 8,000/3,000 for the first 8 units in a project.

At first glance you may say, “Hey, it increases the lot size requirement. 8,000 is greater than 5,000.” Yes, technically speaking, it reduces density some, but it has a consequence that was perhaps unforeseen: it would more greatly encourage multi-unit construction over single-family home construction than our current 5,000/3,000 rules does.

(Bear with me. I’m trying make this uncomplicated….)

This has to do with the numbers in the formula, XXXX square feet of land for the first unit/ xxxx square feet of land for all subsequent units.

It’s The Second Number
Thing is, it’s not the first number in the formula that we need to be adjusting. It’s the second number that lets condos and town homes multiply like rabbit .. hutches.

In our current formula, that second number is 3,000 square feet. And under Mrs. Herlands plan, once you had 8,000 for your first unit, you’d still only need 3,000 for the subsequent ones.

That flaw is compounded by increasing the first number in the formula to 8,000.

Not only would the 8,000 figure apply to the first unit of a multi-unit project. You would also need 8,000 square feet to build any single family home in the R2, R3, MU and MU1, the parts of town that have traditionally allowed homes on smaller lots of 5,000 square feet.

This change to 8,000 is perplexing. Over the past year, the concerns — and complaints — raised in Oriental have been about multi-units cramming in by way of the 3,000 in the 5,000/3,000 formula.

Those complaints are why the Planning Board began looking at reducing density.

But have you heard anyone complain in that time about single family homes on 5,000 square foot lots?

Under Mrs. Herlands’ proposal, no more 5,000 square foot lots could be created for single-family homes in the neighborhoods that now allow them: the R2, R3, MU and MU1.

(There is talk of grandfathering existing 5,000 square foot lots. Whether that happens or not, the point remains that one could not create 5,000 square foot lots in the future.)

What’s more the 8,000/3,000 plan could have an insidious effect: promoting even more multi-unit construction over single family home construction.

Here’s how:

Say you have 23,000 square feet of land (just over half an acre)

You could build two single family homes. (8,000 × 2 = 16,000.) (You’d need 24,000 for three.)

Or, you could build six multi-units (8,000 for the first, 15,000 for the next five = 23,000.

Which way would you think most developers would go?

For the plan that allowed 2 single family homes? Or the one that allows 6 multi-units?

(Hint: in some minds, “more is more”.)

Is this the effect Oriental wants? Wasn’t the point of this whole exercise for the town to get a handle on the condo-multi-unit construction?

So, why would Oriental want a plan that encourages more multi-unit development over single family homes?

Math Spells It Out
You don’t have to be a math major to grasp the mathematical truth: we will continue to encouarge multi-units if we keep the second number in the XXXX square feet/xxxx square feet forumla so much smaller than the first number.

That’s what’s been happening with our existing 5,000/3,000. It would be worse by making that first number even larger, as is proposed in the 8,000/3,000 plan.

Asked if he supported his wife’s proposal, Commissioner Al Herlands emailed that he would have an ‘open mind’.

Mrs. Herlands’ plan does call for more land per unit in projects of 9 units or more in the R3, MU and MU1 lots. That may help in the outlying parts of town. But still, it’s the projects with 8 units or less that present the problem because of that 8.000/3,000 disincentive to build single family homes.

Credit where it’s due, there are other aspects to the Mrs. Herlands plan that make sense. If you want to prevent more large blocks of condos, yes, by all means put in a limit on the square footage of a building’s footprint. And if you want to avoid blocky condo construction, a ban on flat roofs and minimum roof angle is a good idea. And yes, there’s merit to another change — one which commissioner Barbara Venturi had suggested — to limit the number of stories, which would seem to rule out the four story condos, such as the ones that have been proposed at Whittaker Creek.

But the 8,000/3,000 formula could negate much of that. It tosses out the baby, and keeps the bathwater.

—-

Meanwhile, Dee Sage, who is acting chair of the Planning Board, is floating her own “suggestions” (as her document puts it). These are her own ideas, not those of the Planning Board. There is merit to some of them.

For one, she would recast the language so that instead of multi-units and single-family-homes, residential units would be called:

Attached (town homes, condos, duplexes, apts)
Detached (single family occupancy, single family detached condos)

Then there would be two new categories:

“Live/Work” Units – which she suggests, would combine residential and commercial within a single dwelling unit. The emphasis she writes, would be on the residential.. commercial uses secondary.

“Storefront” building — which her document says, could have a commercial use on the ground floor and be residential on the upper floor. It “can be combined to form a mixed-use neighborhbood center.”

Dee Sage’s suggestion also departs from the formula of XXXX for the first unit/xxxx for the subsequent units.

Rather, she suggests the following, for the four zoning areas in town:

R2 4,840 Square feet/unit Detached Housing and Duplexes. 9 units/acre

R3 6,223 square feet/unit Attached housing 7/acre 4,840 square feet/unit detached housing 9/acre

MU1 6223 square feet/unit Detatched 7/acre 5445 square feet/unit Attached 8/acre 4356 square feet/unit Live/work units 10/acre 3111 square feet/unit Storefront units 14/acre

MU 7260 square feet/unit Detached 6/acre 6223 square feet/unit Attached 7/acre 4356 square feet/unit Live/Work units 10/acre 3111 square feet/unit Storefront units 14/acre

The figures for the detached and attached units are an improvement over the 5,000/3,000 formula we have now, which allows almost 14 units per acre. That is a great step forward and should be applauded as such.

However.. in the new MU and MU1 category, “Storefront”, we would get the same packed-in density we have now, a density which many may have thought we were trying to get away from.

3,111 square feet of land per unit (14/acre) is just too low. The number should be higher.

The impulse behind this “Storefront” idea may stem from the occasional talk at some board meetings of late that the town needs to ‘encourage business downtown’. There’s also been chatter about how nice it would be to have residential units above business, as were found in downtowns in the past. It’s a nice idea. But before we are overcome by visions of this nostalgic downtown, we should keep our eyes open and take a cool look at whether this lends itself to abuse.

For instance:

Say someone builds a “storefront” or even a series of attached “storefront” buildings taking advantage of the smallest lot size requirement — 3,111 square feet of land per unit.

How do we know that the bottom floor will always be used for business? Once built on that tiny lot, what’s to keep a building owner from converting the unit so that it is entirely residential… which has traditionally been more profitable… and which would have required more land to build on in the first place?

Could someone beat the system that way?

Would it be fair to let them get away with it?

And if the answer to that question is “no” then how exactly would the town of Oriental enforce this? Could the town require someone to keep the ground floor as business? What if a business fails? Or a business renter can’t be found? Would we have an empty storefront on the ground floor? Or would there be the impetus to make the entire building residential?

A similar question arises over the “Live/Work” designation. There too, less land is required to build a unit than if it were purely residential. So, how do we know that someone building a “Live/Work” structure would really work out of there? How would we know that they’re not just saying that in order to build on a smaller piece of land?

Both of these potential situations bring up the question: does the town of Oriental really want to get in to policing for use?

It seems unwise to put ourselves as a town, in that position.

These categories — “Storefront” and “Live/Work” are admirable. But they should not be given that large advantage in terms of minimum lot size.

It makes too tempting a loophole. And if you create a loophole, they will come….

——

As mentioned, along with the downsides, there are parts of both these approaches that make sense. Pat Herlands and Dee Sage are acting as citizens may in putting forward a proposal.

Just as I am doing here.

After two months of watching and listening to ideas be bandied about, some clarity comes thru.

We need a change in the formula because 5,000/3,000 isn’t working.

We’ve seen 200+ condos/townhomes approved or built in the past year. 25 more are up for approval at the November 7th meeting alone. At least another three are in the pipeline.

Again, it’s not the first number in 5,000/3,000 that needs tinkering. It’s the second.

So, why not make the second number equal to the first? 5,000/5,000 — or for even more simplicity’s sake, plain old, “5,000 for every unit”.

It presents a number of advantages and addresses several issues.

- You’d need the same amount of land to build a condo unit as you would a single family home.

- Developers could still build condos and multi-units. They just wouldn’t see the same incentive they now see to build multi-units rather than single family homes.

- In the “business’ district’s MU and MU1, if you require 5,000 square feet rather than the 8,000 square feet now required for business buidings, you would improve chances that a building meant for business would be built. (That should appeal to those who say that we need to encourage more businesses.)

- With 5,000 for all uses in the MU you don’t get in to the business of having to police the usage later on. You remove the potential for cheating.

- There’s a clarity to the figure and it’s a fair compromise between what we have now, which allows almost 14 units per acre and what the county regs are, at 4 units per acre. 5,000 per unit works out to 8.5 per acre.

The other tinkerings of the GMO being proposed — regarding flat roofs, number of stories, setbacks — could work well with this reduction in density. But those ideas, while good, are secondary to the original mission of reducing density thru reworking the 5,000/3,000 figure.

We have to keep our eye on that ball.

It would be a pity if we let the ‘mission creep’ of these secondary ideas delay this very necessary change.

There may already be sign of such a threat.

In recent days, a local developer/real estate company owner is said to have circulated an email to town commissioners asking them to not take action on these issues raised in the recent proposals. The email calls on the town board to hold off making a decision and set up a committee that would study the issues instead.

Alas, committees are often where ideas go to die.

Unless a moratorium on multi-unit construction were in place, it’s hard to understand how the town is served by delaying action yet again, at least on the issue of changing that 5,000/3,000 number.

There has been in recent weeks a puzzlement among many here as to why the Town Board has delayed action on changing that lot size requirement. It is like, one letter writer shared recently, “debating the merits of the perfect fire hose while the house burns down.”

As with fires, there is a window of opportunity to get things right. That window is closing.

The Public Hearing Monday night October 23 is your chance to ask the Town Board to do something at its November 7 meeting. If you share the urgency, if you don’t want to see another opportunity wasted, and still more multi-units be approved under our current lenient rules, this is the time to let your Town Board know, either at the hearing and/or by contacting them individually.

Posted Sunday October 22, 2006 by Melinda Penkava

email this story | back to top