home

It’s back.

The PUD issue.

Earlier this summer the Oriental Planning Board proposed a change of definition: that any development in town could be defined as a Planned Unit Development PUD and by calling it that, the Town Board could grant exceptions to the rules on height, setbacks, lot size, etc. This would be done so that, in exchange, the developer could give the town some ‘amenity’. A gazebo, for instance, or a picnic bench, in two cited examples.

We wrote about it here in June. In early July a public hearing on the issue drew a large crowd, and most of those who spoke expressed the view that the Town Board should not be making exceptions. The Town Board sent it back to the Planning Board.

Now that idea may be revived.

Though not from the Planning Board.

This proposal comes from Pat Herlands, wife of commissioner Al Herlands. It’s included in a larger proposal circulating among Town Commissioners. As always, judge for yourself. Here’s how the PUD-Lite proposal reads:

Section 189
Public Amenities

1) The Board of Commissioners may modify the standards and requirements of this Article as applied to any non-residential, group, cluster or planned unit development on a tract of one (1) acre or more if, in the judgment of the Board of Commissioners:

a. Such development provides adequate public spaces and improvements for the circulation, recreation, light, air and service needs of the development when completed and populated, and which also provides such covenants or other legal provisions as will assure conformity to and achievement of the purpose and intent of this ordinance.

b. Such development provides substantial public amenities (such as extra public parking, public bathrooms, public trails and bike paths, and public access to the waterfront, etc) as to constitute a significant public asset to the Town. Such public amenities must be part of the on-site plan under consideration.

2) Approval of said modification(s) of the standards and requirements of this Article shall be through the Special Use Permit process.

3) Modifications to the standards and requirements shall not exceed 10 percent (10%) of the values set forth in this Article XI

4) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 59 to the contrary, the burden of persuasion on the issue of whether the request for modification merits approval by the Board of Commissioners shall remain at all times on the applicant.

Some might see this and in a generous interpretation, say, well, it’s an improvement on the last PUD proposal because it “quantifies things.” After all, it would apply to projects of an acre or more. And the exceptions to the rules – ‘modifications’ — can’t exceed 10%.

But look closer.

An acre. That’s about half of a block in some parts of the Old Village. It’s not a lot of land.

And a PUD at one acre makes a joke of the label “Planned Unit Development” which typically are much larger. (The regs already on the books, in Oriental’s Growth Management Ordinance, require PUD’s to be 25 acres or more; only then, under the current rules, can the Town Board get in to swapping exceptions for amenities.)

As for the “modifications” not exceeding 10%, this may give the impression that it quantifies something, what with that % symbol and everything. But what does it really mean?

Does it mean that in exchange for some amenity, the Town Board could tell a developer that he can build 10% taller (that would be 53.3 feet above sea level) and he can build that same project 10% closer to his neighbor than the setbacks normally would allow, and he can take up 10% more of the lot with his building footprint than the rules otherwise allow, and that he can cover another 10% of his lot with impervious surface than the rules allow and.... (If so, that must be Some Amenity, eh?)

Or does it mean 2% here, 3% there adding up to 10% of all the standards?

(What is the exchange rate on setback exceptions versus height exceptions, anyway?)

We emailed Mrs. Herlands to ask which 10% number would prevail. Her response was that, “I would hope the Boards would consider the project in it’s totality.”

As such, it’s still unclear what it means. It does make clear, however, the difficulty of being fair in a system where the rules don’t apply to everyone. How do you quantify fairness?

But beyond ‘dickering over price’, the broader question still with us from this summer is:

Why does Oriental need this exceptions-to-the-rules scheme, anyway? Why would the Town Board want to bend the rules for some developers?

The response you get when you ask this is something along the lines of, “we have to be ready for the development that’s coming.” That was the response this summer when the Planning Board was pushing this, and that is what is being said now.

It is a sentiment served up as though a give-away is the only recourse left. Mrs. Herlands cites waterfront development and states that, “without some flexibility, our Planning Board and Town Commissioners have no sway with developers to influence this future development.”

No sway any other way? Really? Not even by, say, strengthening the GMO?

Wouldn’t it be a better use of the Town Board’s time, while we still have a chance, to guide growth in a way in keeping with the small town, single family home nature of Oriental? If the Town Board spent its energy now on getting those standards in place, it could lay down a solid road on which we can all travel. The PUD-Lite road is a mushy one. Mushy in the way standards would be applied and more importantly, mushy in its very concept. The subjectiveness it injects in to the process would mire us all.

In June and July when the Issue Formerly Known As PUD was first afloat, many people contacted their commissioners and showed up for the public hearing and laid out the case against the PUD Proposal. In the face of that strong opposition, the Town Board essentially backed away from the idea then.

Yet here we are, less than four months later and the Still Miquided Idea Formerly Known As PUD may be back before us.

This PUD-Lite “Public Amenities” is not listed as the focus of Monday’s Public Hearing, however it is part of the revisions to the GMO that Mrs. Herlands is proposing. (See story below on condos and density)

Commissioner Herlands says his wife has shared her proposal with other commissioners. Asked if he supported it, he said that he had an “open mind”. Mr. Herlands in the past has spoken favorably of the Town Board having “flexibility”.

Another commissioner speaks in support of that flexibility, too. And there are indications that dangling the promise of ‘amenities’ could sway other commissioners.

That would be unfortunate. It could happen, though, unless the public again makes clear it wants clean lines when it comes to building standards.

As one resident implored the board at a meeting this summer, the Town Board should show us what in the GMO is broken in this regard before they try to ‘fix’ it.

The Town Board should show us. Don’t tell us, show us. Show us what’s wrong with having rules that everyone lives by.

Call it “Public Amenities”. Or call it PUD-Lite. It still should be called off.

Posted Sunday October 22, 2006 by Melinda Penkava

email this story | back to top