home

Here’re two words for you: Reducing density.

What comes to mind?

Fewer condos that can go up on a lot? Tall new buildings set back farther from the street so they don’t dwarf our village’s streets and sense of scale? Preventing too big of a building on too small of a lot?

If any of these are what “reducing density” means to you, you might want to let your town board know. And soon.

Proposed changes to the GMO are up for public comment June 5th and some of them could actually lead to growth that is more dense than before, especially in Oriental’s Old Village MU1 district.

Not less dense.

More dense. As in, allowing more condos on even smaller lots of land. As in, having more buildings tower right over the streets.

How would this reduce density?

The question comes up several times reading over the proposal that the Town Board put together at its May 15 meeting, after it tinkered with the recommendations from the Planning Board and Stakeholders Advisory Group. The Town Board’s proposed changes to the Growth Management Ordinance, Article Eleven, Sections 181-186 (as well as creation of a whole new Section 187) could become law as early as June 5 after a public hearing.

On first glance — and please, do read the document for yourself — some of the changes would reduce density. There are rules in there that would require more land than we did a year ago for building ‘multi-units’ — condos and town homes. There’s a proposal that seems to require new structures be set back further from the neighbors and from the street if your eave is higher than 25 feet. And there’s a proposal that would set a maximum size for structures.

But these common sense changes are overshadowed by a few ill-conceived exceptions to the rules that would make Oriental’s Old Village streetscape more dense and more looming than it was before this effort to “reduce density” began a year ago. .

Two exceptions in particular bring to mind that lovely expression, “bless her heart”. When you say it, it sounds like you’re being nice, but you are doing anything but. Same with this. It’s said to be “reducing density”, but, bless their hearts, it’s the opposite.

Exception One: The Under 9000 Loophole. (or: Density-Schmensity)

The common sense changes being proposed say that if you wanted to build condos in the Old Village MU1 district, you would need 5,000 square feet of land for the first unit and 4,000 for the second. That’s an improvement on the old formula of 5,000/3,000 and is a step toward avoiding the Any Other Coastal Town Condoization of Oriental. Instead of cramming 14 units on an acre as was the case a year ago, this 5,000/4,000 formula would allow 10. Under a new twist in the rules aimed at “encouraging business”, you could also add a business unit to that mix with no additional land requirement.

But then, there’s this:

Section 182-B 3) In MU-1 on any lot under nine thousand (9,000) square feet a multi-use building has no unit density requirements for commercial or residential uses.

We’ll pause here and wait for you if you want to read it again. But yes, it says what you thought it said.

No unit density requirements.

So… while a person with 9,000 square feet of land lives by the 5,000/4,000 rule that says he may put in two units, the smaller lot next door with 8,999 square feet of land or less could put in twice as many.

More condos on less land.

Again, The Question: How does this reduce density?

Simple answer: It won’t. It will increase it. Along with a spate of new 8,999 square foot lots.

This could be sorely abused.

Say you have a 7,500 square foot lot. Under our current regs and without any ‘reducing density’ efforts, that 7,500 square foot lot would allow just one residential unit. With this Under 9000 Loophole though, you could put 3 or 4 condo units on that same piece of land. Plus a business unit.

Here’s how the numbers break down:

The “footprint” rules ( Section 186 if you’d like to look it up) say that your MU1 building can occupy 40% of the land in your lot. On a 7,500 square foot lot 3,000 square feet is your “footprint”.

Your building — picture something roughly 75 × 40 — could have three stories of heated space. Let’s say the top floor — because of a roof slope —- has 2/3rds the liveable space of the other floors. That still adds up to 8,000 square feet of interior space.

For this to qualify as a mixed-use building — a new category the town has made up in a dubious bid to “encourage business””— 30% of it would have to be non-residential. In this building, that works out to 2,400 square feet for non-residential, leaving 5,600 square feet that could be residential.

5,600 square feet is enough space for 3 or 4 condo units. This, on a lot that right now would allow just one residential unit.

All in the name of “reducing density” and “encouraging business”.

Some advocates of this Under 9000 Loophole have suggested that the number of units would be limited by setbacks and the parking requirements. They won’t. In a moment, we’ll talk about setbacks. But right now, if you can stand it, let’s crunch these numbers regarding parking:

For every residential unit, the town requires two 9×20 foot parking spaces –- 360 square feet. Three units would require 1080 square feet. Four units, 1440 square feet. Meanwhile, one parking space is required for every 400 square feet of business. The 2,400 square feet of business in this building would require 6 parking spaces or 1080 sft.

The rules say that 60% of the lot could be impervious. 60% of 7500 is 4500. Subtract the building — 3,000 square feet — and that leaves 1500 square feet for things like a paved driveway and paved parking. Of course, you can have many more parking spaces if they are pervious gravel or if you park under the building; by doing that you could still remain within the 60% impervious surface rule.

So let’s stand back in the street and look — up, cos this will be tall — at this picture. The numbers would allow 2 and 3 and 4 condos — maybe even 5 — AND a business space. On a lot that a year ago would have permitted only one residential unit.

So, tell us again, how is this reducing density?

Is this really what our Town Board wants to see happen? If so, why bother having the 5,000/4,000 formula and just change it to 5,000/833 (4 condos on 7500 square feet of land.)

That would at least be more intellectually honest and upfront about the intent.

Some advocates of this Under 9000 Scheme say that what I’ve laid out above this is to see the worst in human nature, that developers wouldn’t try to put two and three and four condos on such lots. And that we won’t see people trying to carve out lots of under 9,000 square feet to take advantage of this.

To which a logical person can only ask, if you’re saying that would never happen, why have this ill-advised exception in the first place? Why not stick with the simple, straight-forward 5,000/4,000 rule for the MU1?

(Note: Commissioners Warren Johnson and Al Herlands voted against this Under 9000 Loophole at the May 15 meeting. Commissioners Barbara Venturi, Nancy Inger and Candy Bohmert voted for. Commissioner Barbara Venturi asked why this same Under 9000 arrangement might not also apply in the MU districts, which may be of interest to those R1 residents who live near MU lots. )

Exception 2: The An Old Building Near Me Is Closer To the Street Than The Setback Rules Now Require, and I Want To Be Closer To The Street, Too” Gambit

Recent years have taught us as a town that if a building is going to be tall, that building could seem less looming if it were set back further from the street — and the neighbors. This was supposed to be a guiding idea in the 10-month-long effort to reduce density, and it is what led to the proposed new table of setbacks. Under the proposal, the existing setback rules apply if a new building’s roof eave tops out at 25 feet above the ground. If your eave is higher than that, you have to set the building back more. (See Tables at Section 184-1-A/B)

These are not onerous setbacks. They are a compromise really, between those on the SAG and the Planning Board who wanted even greater setbacks and those who did not.

But.. also being proposed is a potentially broad exception to this rule;

Section 184 – 1 ( c ):

© When new construction is located in an existing neighborhood the Town Board, after a public hearing, may grant a reduction to the front setback requirement in this Section 184 where such reductions will improve harmony with the nearest existing buildings. The requested front setback line shall not encroach on any road right-of-way. If a deviation of the front setback line is granted, the number of front feet of reduction shall be added to the rear lot setback. The burden of persuasion for the need of a requested reduction shall fall upon the applicant.

Read it closely.

“Not encroaching on any road right of way” is another way of saying Zero Setback from The Street Right of Way. Or more plainly put, building right up to the front edge of the property.

With this in place, a developer could ask a Town Board to let him build closer to the road than the Coldwell Banker building is. Or the townhomes on Freemason Street. Is this a result we want to see?

Again, The Question. How exactly does this reduce density?

This exception would apply virtually everywhere in town, not just in the MU1 and the oft-cited Hodges Street with its mill houses built close to the street. (Because it is so loosely written, in could apply anywhere there is a “nearest existing building” That is not the same as stipulating, “building in the adjacent lot”.)

It’s perplexing, this exception. Wasn’t the point of these ten months of work to avoid new, tall buildings looming over our streets? Wasn’t the point to set the bulky buildings back, to get a handle – now – so that we could preserve the human scale of Oriental for the future?

This exception to let builders evade the front setback rules started with the Stakeholders, where some said they wanted to be able to look down a street and have all the buildings line up. It was really a silly premise to start with. But at least the SAG — and later the Planning Board — had stipulated that if you built in to the front setback you would be limited by how far your nearest neighbors built in to that setback. In the Town Board’s version, though, there’s no such stipulation. Just that the road right of way is the limit.

The Planning Board, to its credit, also tried to link the new building’s height to that of the neighbors. In other words, if you took advantage of the “my neighbor’s in the front setback area, so I should be too” loophole, you couldn’t then build structures that would tower 15 feet over those neighbors.

But in the Town Board’s version… no such linkage. The Town Board on May 15th, stripped both provisions. No linkage to height, no linkage to your neighbor’s front setback. The proposal as written would simply give the Town Board the power to decide arbitrarily and allow a developer to evade the front setback rules.

Just as the Under-9000 Exemption makes a mockery of the density standards, this exemption sends a signal to developers that the front of the house setback standards are meaningless.

The Question… never mind. We already know that this will not reduce density, so we won’t re-pose that query here. But another question emerges for the residents of Oriental:

Are these exceptions really the kinds of standards we want on the books?

We may have thought our town was working toward tougher standards on density. But really, we’re getting the opposite. Watching this process brings on a feeling that we’ve slipped, like Alice, down the rabbit-hole. With these exceptions we are getting town standards written in Jabberwocky.

In plain English, then, if you care about how Oriental grows, this is the time — between now and the June 5 public hearing — to let your town board know that you had been expecting rules — and not exceptions to the rules.

More than a few people are saying that it’s all so very complex and that they can’t grasp it all. You are not alone. It is needlessly complex, yes. But this part is sadly very simple: the ramifications of this proposal will be more clearly understandable when it’s too late: when we get those buildings closer to the street, and see many more condos being squeezed in to smaller lots in the Old Village.

That will happen because it’s human nature to push the envelope. If the loophole is there in the GMO, the developers will use it. If you don’t want that to happen, if you don’t think those exceptions meet the definition of “reducing density” please speak out. Now, when it matters.

Speaking out does make a difference. Witness what happened at the May 15th meeting: a few people who work in the real estate development industry spoke out about parts of the proposal that they didn’t like. Your Town Board responded by striking several of those provisions from the proposal.

Impervious Surface: Or What’s Ten Percent Among Taxpaying Friends?

One provision in particular that drew opposition from some in the real estate development industry concerned how much impervious surface — asphalt, concrete, roofs — may cover a lot. The Planning Board had recommended that the limit be 50% for any lot in town. At the May 15th meeting, Realtor Missy Baskervill objected to that change and the Town Board then proposed that in the MU and MU1 the regulation remain as it is now, allowing 60% of an MU1 and MU lot to be covered.

50 percent, 60 percent, what’s the difference? Many eyes glaze over before the sixth syllable of “impervious surface” is uttered.

Perhaps a better way to put it is this: not cutting back on that impervious surface now could cost all Oriental residents more in taxes down the road.

Here’s why.

It is often said at town meetings that the state is going to crack down soon on towns that let stormwater run off their streets and carry pollutants in to nearby waters. Such runoff will have to be treated, and retention ponds set up. That will cost money.

As Planning Board member Bob Miller told the Town Board at the May 15th meeting, “At some point the state is not going to allow runoff from this town to go into the river.” The more we can do to reduce runoff now, he added, the better, because “The more runoff we have, the bigger the expense to the town and taxpayers.”

One big way of cutting back on runoff is to preserve as much pervious surface — grass, landscaped areas, open ground that water can seep in to — and to allow less impervious surface such as asphalt and roofs.

Which was why, Bob Miller said, he supported having the newly developed MU and MU1 lots comply with the same limits as all the other lots in town and limit impervious surface to 50%.

(At that same meeting, Planning Board chair, Dee Sage, who generally has not rushed to tighten restrictions on development, told the Town Board of her own encounter with runoff, on Freemason Street, where 10 townhomes and an asphalt parking lot now occupy what was once a grassy field. Coming out of church one rainy day, Dee Sage said, she looked at the townhomes across the way and saw, “sheets of water roll off the doorways and fill up the street. There was no way to get out of church without wading through ankle-deep water.” Dee Sage told the Town Board on May 15th that runoff had not been a problem before, and that what she saw on Freemason Street was, to her, “an actual demonstration of what happens when you take up a lot of land.”

We know that runoff is a problem. We know that tougher state regs will likely be coming. We know it will cost us as taxpayers. So wouldn’t it make sense to have all newly built lots in town abide by a 50% limit on impervious surface? Making the 60% exception for the MU and MU1 lots — many of which will be mainly residential and not business — is hard to justify when everyone has to pay for the cleanup.

In the end, the Town Board voted to keep the exception in. Commissioner Candy Bohmert said that (pervious) gravel lots for businesses in the MU1 distirct wouldn’t do because of, “women who wear heels.” Commissioner Bohmert was in the 3-2 majority (with Commissioners Nancy Inger and Al Herlands) who voted to continue allowing theexception for the MU and MU1 lots to be 60% impervious s.

That proposal is, of course, subject to comment at the public hearing, as are all of the provisions in the revision.

As the May 15 meeting showed, the Town Board responds to public comment. If you think that these three exceptions do not meet the definition of “reducing density” —bless their hearts — this is the time to be heard.

The public hearing is at 7pm on June 5 at Town Hall. As always, contacting your town commissioners ahead of time to lay out your concerns is recommended.

Posted Wednesday May 30, 2007 by Melinda Penkava

email this story | back to top