home

The Oriental Planning Board on Thursday laid out a defense of its proposed changes to the town’s Planned Unit Development ordinance, changes which would let developers evade the town’s building ordinances.

Despite just a few days notice, more than two dozen people were in the audience for the Special Meeting of the Planning Board Thursday afternoon. Among them were the five members of the Town Board, who will be hearing from the public at a Public Hearing on the PUD proposal next Tuesday night July 11.

The Chairman of the Planning Board Don Mau took a moment to note that Thursday’s session was not a Public Hearing but a Public Meeting, leaving the impression that the Public would not be recognized to speak at the meeting. (In that there is a consistency; the Planning Board has welcomed no public input on its PUD proposal.)

Instead, the public heard Planning Board Vice Chair Dee Sage read aloud a draft of a five-page letter to the Town Board. Sage read out loud for more than 13 minutes. (Members of the public in the audience were not provided a copy of the letter. Public Dock obtained a copy of the public document after the meeting.)

The letter – and hastily arranged meeting – came after this Public Dock column last week published the first article about the ramifications of this PUD proposal. As I reported then, the proposal that is before the Town Board would allow the Town Board to grant exceptions to our already moderate ordinances on height, setbacks, parking and lot size. As I wrote then, this would be a detriment to our village.

After Thursday’s meeting, I hold that view even more.

I am excerpting some of the main points of the Planning Board Vice Chair Dee Sage’s letter below. This is from the draft circulated among Planning Board members at the meeting.

The Letter of Planning Board Vice Chair Dee Sage

The letter started out defensively, with the words, “Planned Unit Development (PUD) is not a stealth weapon.”

The Planning Board Vice Chair instead characterized it as, “just a small part of the GMO.”

“A PUD gives builders a choice,” she read, “They can either build a structure that the town is assured will be no higher than x feet, no larger than can be fit in to set-backs, minus parking and impervious surface percentages and can have no more units than density ratios allow, etc. Or a developer has the opportunity to be creative and propose a project that is imaginative and appropriate but doesn’t quite fit into the GMO. IF this is the route he takes, the Town can negotiate something that would benefit the public such as green space or water access.”

The Planning Board Vice Chair described the PUD as, “a tool for a community to use to gain amenities that might otherwise be lost if the growth management ordinances were rigidly adhered to.”

(She later gave some examples of what those tradeoffs might be. I’ll provide those in a moment as they will likely make illuminating reading for Oriental citizens trying to decide if their town would come out ahead in the bargaining.)

As news of the PUD proposal spread through town in the past week, many said they saw it as a way for developers to avoid complying with the town’s Growth Management Ordinance limits. The Planning Board Vice Chair tried to address that view:

In her recitation of her letter, the Planning Board Vice Chair set up a rhetorical question, “doesn’t this give the developer the upper hand and permit undesirable development? The answer is NO, if the rest of the GMO is designed with clear and consistent guidelines for development.”

This might be a good place to pause for a breath. Especially to go over that last sentence, which sounded like it was trying to be a guarantee that the town would not be taken advantage of. As I re-read it – and I encourage you to do the same – in order for this to work, in order for the developer to not have the ‘upper hand’, the town would have to first make sure the rest of the GMO has “clear and consistent guidelines”.

And then, this PUD would allow a developer to evade them.

Isn’t that convoluted?

The town of Oriental could have guidelines for development that are as clear as Caribbean water, but then set up a loophole such as this PUD, through which developers could then muddy the water.

It’s just human nature that they would take advantage of the loophole. Of course they would. And then another developer would and another developer. Because that too is human nature. But not in the view of the Planning Board. In discussion after her letter reading, Dee Sage offered the opinion that she “didn’t anticipate that many PUD requests would come in.”

I gape in envy at that trusting view of human nature. As I write this, I am trying for a moment, to adopt that mindset and that claim, for argument’s sake, that “not many PUD requests would come in.” But when I do that, other questions flood in. Such as, if we don’t think there will be ‘many’ then is there really a need? Are we doing this for just a select few? And why?

Some answers may be gleaned from the letter. The Planning Board Vice Chair offered three specific lots in town where this PUD scheme might be put in to place. She also made reference to a fourth.

Here they are:

One of the examples cited was The Inn at Oriental, on Church Street across from Town Hall. Dee Sage said that the owner, Hugh Grady, had gone to the Planning Board wanting to create 9 condos by converting the B&B and putting up more structures on the adjacent land. But the lot was not the required 29,000 square feet (5,000 for the first unit, 3,000 for each additional unit) Also, the Planning Board Vice Chair said, the town’s required “two parking spaces per unit might have been a problem”. As a result the innkeeper did not get approval for those condo plans.

But if there were a PUD arrangement? The Planning Board Vice Chair said that under the proposed PUD option, “the Town might have let him proceed provided he gave the Town something back.”

“In this case,” Dee Sage read, “he might have been asked to put a small gazebo near the sidewalk on Church Street at the corner of his lot for public use.” Or, “the Town might have asked for an easement for a path along the back boundary of his property to start a pedestrian/bike path that would eventually become a safe avenue to shopping and the post office. Negotiations would have to be arranged with other property owners along this proposed route, but if successful, such an avenue would provide an alternative to walking or biking from Church Street to the Post Office along Broad Street, which is dangerous.”

I love bike paths, but wouldn’t this trade-off hinge on a lot? For instance, other landowners — who may have their own deals that they want to strike?

And a gazebo? Is that really a fair exchange for the town looking the other way on parking requirements and lot size? From that gazebo you might be able to get a grand view of the line of cars having to park on Church Street because there wouldn’t be adequate parking on the property. Who wins in that deal?

Exhibit Two

The second example the Planning Board Vice Chair offered were two lots, “approximately 5,000 square feet each along South Water Street near Hodges Street.”

Dee Sage’s letter said that “the owner of these properties has not been approached nor have any of these ideas come from him. However… I would like to use them as an illustration of how the PUD might work.” (Though she did not mention him by name, Henry Frazer bought those lots in an auction last year. In the interests of further disclosure, Public Dock is based across South Water Street from the northeastern edge of those lots.)

In reciting her letter, The Planning Board Vice Chair said, “The current owner, to my knowledge also owns the small lot at the corner of Hodges and Water (sic) Streets which cannot be developed because of size. If he combines the small lot with the adjacent lot, he would probably have enough square footage to erect a duplex and a single family residence according to the current GMO.”

“If the proposed PUD option were available to him, the Town might be interested in easing density by letting him combine the three lots to build three single-family craftsman-style cottages (cottages similar to the one being constructed on the lot behind his) with joint ownership of the land making them condos; or perhaps allowing him to recreate (within reason) ‘Pickles Row’ which once occupied the opposite side of the street. In return the town would require him to give a chunk of the small lot on the corner of South Water and Hodges Streets to be landscaped to provide shade. With the addition of a park bench and/or picnic table this area would make a nice rest area for the public to enjoy and encourage pedestrian movement along Hodges Street.”

I pause for a breath here and confess that yes, I’d prefer Craftsman cottages to a duplex unit. But there is a third way to go on this, an alternative to this horse-trading of a cottage for a picnic bench.

Let’s not lose sight of one fact. The owner of those two lots bought them in an auction last year in which he got the two lots on South Water, and Steve Williams got the two similar sized lots right behind them on Academy Street. The owner of the South Water Street lots could do as Steve Williams is doing and have two cottage homes on two lots. One on each lot. No more.

This gets to a bigger issue in Oriental. Doing the right thing. This particular developer has put up – in the past – buildings that have been admirable. And I have said so publicly.

But it would be wrong to use the threat of slapping up a duplex unit as a cudgel to get this flawed PUD proposal passed.

Third Example

The third site in the Old Village that Dee Sage cited as being PUD-able was “some property on New Street” whose owner “anticipates… building town homes similar to the ones on the lots behind them.” The Planning Board Vice Chair did not mention names, but we understand this to be the property where boats have been stored, which Steve Williams and some partners now own, next to the Old Jail House behind M&M’s.

The Planning Board Vice Chair said that the owner had an “idea to recreate an Oriental streetscape from the early 20th century” with commercial space on the first level and residential units above.

So, how would a PUD come in to play in this case? “To accomplish this as closely to historical accuracy as is reasonable, he would need to bring his buildings closer to the sidewalk and street, into the required setback areas. Buildings might also be closer than the required 14 feet and he may need some flexibility with parking restrictions. If the Town liked this concept, it might, in return for relaxing the setback and parking requirements, ask that access driveways to parking areas behind the buildings be designed to have sufficient space for emergency vehicles to maneuver. In addition, to assure fire safety, the Town might demand incorporation of firewalls, such as those required for condominiums, in the walls of the buildings and, ask him to install sprinkler systems.”

“Can you imagine,” Dee Sage read aloud from her letter to the townspeople in the audience, “a pedestrian-friendly avenue with inviting storefronts and nice residential units above, all wrapped in early 20th-century Oriental architecture.”

I like the idea of the stores on one floor, residences on top. I like the work Steve’s done on the Academy Street cottage. It inspires confidence. This project sounds fine.

But wouldn’t this be in Steve’s best interests to build anyway? Without a PUD deal? Why would the town have to negotiate something away – setbacks, parking spaces – for this project to be built? And help me out a second here… what is it that the town would get in return? Firewalls and sprinklers we can’t see? And if there’s to be “sufficient space for emergency vehicles to maneuver” does that mean giving up more parking spaces? Where will people park? And why is a public safety issue something to negotiate? Shouldn’t that just be done?

Also, couldn’t the developers of this property just go to the Oriental Board of Adjustment — which already exists — and seek a variance for those few feet of setback in question?

What Price Ice Cream Cones on A Board Walk?

The Planning Board Vice Chair also alluded to some other prime real estate in Oriental as she tried to make the comparative case for the PUD proposal.

“You are standing in the hot sun on Hodges Street, next to a privately owned 43.5 foot high condominium… with no view of Raccoon Creek, no access to the waterfront, and no place to get a cold drink; or you could be walking along a boardwalk around the waterfront, looking out over the harbor soaking in the ambiance of boats coming to and going from Raccoon Creek, feeling the waterfront breeze…you stop to buy an ice cream cone at an establishment that abuts the boardwalk before passing through a landscaped pedestrian avenue to Hodges Street, South Avenue or Water Street and your next destination.”

Let me catch my breath for a moment. And together, let’s think coolly and rationally.

The implication here is that the PUD would allow the town to cut a deal for such a boardwalk on the inner harbor (aka Raccoon Creek).

Dee Sage did not mention a property owner by name in this instance, but one property fitting that description – with frontage on both Raccoon Creek and Hodges Street – would be the two acres of harborfront owned by Mayor Sherrill Styron, on which he currently runs Garland Fulcher Seafood. The mayor has spoken of receiving offers to buy the land. One town commissioner has said she had a handshake deal for right of first refusal to purchase it.

“What’s Going to Happen With the Mayor’s Property” is a frequent topic of conversation in town. But timidity seems to set in among town officials when it comes to mentioning it during discussions of growth policy, as in this current discussion about the PUD proposal.

That reticence to speak in upfront terms about the harborfront acreage is especially curious when that land could so clearly be affected by whether this policy – the proposed PUD – is passed or not. The reluctance to talk about it is not healthy.

Please understand my position on this. I would love to see trawlers tie up there for decades longer, and have the ships keep offloading shrimp, crab and fish at the docks. But I also recognize that the mayor has a right to sell his land. And sell it for a price he likes. Still, I am not persuaded that having a PUD in place would make for a better development there. In fact, I worry that our town officials would be out-negotiated, and in the end allow much more dense development — perhaps even much taller development — on those two acres than would be allowed by Oriental’s GMO and CAMA laws otherwise.

A public boardwalk would be great. But the faint prospect of that happening is no justification for setting a town policy — this bad PUD proposal — that would let developers avoid the town’s simple building rules all over the Old Village. And in this particular case, is a boardwalk worth the trade off for more dense and tall development on the land behind it, right in the heart of our town?

If the town really wants a public boardwalk there, a PUD is not the only way to get it. There are alternative routes — one of the more creative and pragmatic would involve a tax break to the seller of that property when it is sold.

Hearing – and then re-reading – the Planning Board Vice Chair’s letter, I remain fearful of what this PUD proposal would do. In exchange for a few trinkets – a gazebo, a picnic bench, a firewall – our little town will just be dickering over price. It’s unseemly. Further, I am not persuaded that our town officials would negotiate well on behalf of our town. What we give in return would be more densely developed land in the Old Village, precisely the part of town that would be most hurt by it.

Let’s Not Be Dense About Density.

Now that the County Commissioners have severely limited dense development in the unincorporated parts of Pamlico County, Oriental will be one of the few places allowing it. We should be making it harder to build more densely in our town now, not easier. If this were a poker game, right now, the town of Oriental would be sitting with a winning hand when it comes to dealing with development and developers. But if this PUD proposal passes, we might as well show them our hands AND push all our chips across the table to them.

Time to call. And have the Town Board vote this down immediately after Tuesday’s Public Hearing.

July 11th.
7pm.
Town Hall.
Seating will be limited.
To be sure your views are on the record, call or email your commissioners in advance.

Posted Saturday July 8, 2006 by Melinda Penkava

email this story | back to top