home

A warning. This is a bit wonky.

It’s a story about process. But if you attend Tuesday night’s meeting of the Town Board this saga may provide some necessry background and help keep confusion at bay.

Through it all, the important thing to keep in mind is this:

Tuesday night the Oriental Town Board can take a vote on changing the formulas for what size lots are needed for multi-unit construction in Town.

It is the hope of many that the board will finally take action and significantly amend Section 182 of the GMO. That would mean changing from the current 5,000/3,000 formula (5,000 for the first unit/3,000 for the subsequent units) which allow too many multi-units on too-little land, and adopt a formula that would curb, but not cut off, condo and town home development.

As you’ve read here, the effort to reduce density has taken a number of twists since it was first proposed by the Planning Board in August.

It started as a simple approach to change the numbers in that 5,000/3,000 formula. But it became more complicated when the Town Board sought to incorporate other changes in the GMO. Some of these more wideranging GMO changes that emerged had laudable elements — increasing setbacks, putting a limit on building size and number of stories, for instance. These are ideas worthy of being passed… someday. But it seemed that trying to mix all of that in to the simple business of changing the 5,000/3,000 formula was a recipe for delay.

And sure enough, that’s what happened. At the second Public Hearing session on October 23 some commissioners professed that the proposals were too confusing and that they couldn’t act on them. One commissioner said she didn’t feel “qualified” to make such a decision.

Meanwhile, the clock ticked on. And many in the public expressed exasperation that the board’s failure to take action could mean more condo/townhome projects planned on too little land.

Then, a few days ago, a legal hitch arose.

And thankfully so… because it brings some clarity to the situation.

Here’s how:

Rewind to the Town Board’s Public Hearing in early October. This hearing was held to gather public views on a Planning Board proposal to change the 5,000/3,000 formula to one that would require more land — 9,000/8,000 in the R2 district for instance.

Now, take a seat in the cold, hard, metal folding chairs in the audience and listen as some commissioners press for making other changes to other parts of the GMO’s Article XI.

Article XI is the guts of the GMO when it comes to building in town. Its few pages are the ones that spell out setbacks, roof height, eave height, the footprint maximum, impervious surface and lot size. In essence it’s Everything You Need To Know About Building In Oriental.

In order to make other changes to other sections of Article XI of the GMO, the Town Board had to hold a public hearing on the matter.

Now, when the town holds a public hearing on making changes to the GMO, it’s supposed to give Public Notice in a print newspaper and spell out precisely what the proposed change would be, as it did for that change to Section 182. But no ad ran in advance of the October 23 continuation of the public hearing and so technically, it couldn’t be held. So they tried again to put out public notice for a hearing to be held this coming Tuesday night, November 7.

Thing is, the ad that ran in local papers didn’t speak of any specfic changes.

One reason for this may be that the proposals put forth on widely changing Article XI didn’t come from the planning board, but from several individuals, among them two board members, a board member’s wife, and the chair of the planning board (writing as an individual).

Also as reported here, Town Board member Al Herlands’ proposal went beyond tinkering with existing tables and included new language that would let commissioners make exceptions to the rules for some developments.

But if you’d read the public notice in the newspaper ads, you wouldn’t have seen any of that. No specifics. No mention of wholly new proposals to the GMO.

According to the Town’s Attorney, that means the process wasn’t followed. Which puts the public hearing Tuesday in doubt. Which means no vote can be taken Tuesday night on the more wide-ranging proposals for changing bigger portions of Article XI of the GMO.

That is a wise decision. Mind you, I think some wider changes to the GMO are in order. But the public — and by that I mean both those who want tighter regulations and those who resist any change — has a right to know exactly what is being proposed. And that didn’t happen.

But wait… there is a vote that can be taken Tuesday night.

The good news in all of this is that the Town Board can now focus its attention on Section 182, and change the 5,000/3,000 formula to one requiring more land for condos.

That’s the spirit of the originally proposed change to the GMO. The public notice ads were very specific about what was being considered in changing Section 182 and what the Planning Board’s recommended changes were. The Town Board held the public hearing October 3 and continued it on October 23. The public spoke. The board heard from those wanting them to change the numbers. The board heard from those who said they didn’t want the board to change the numbers.

And now the Town Board can vote on changing Section 182. It can amend the proposal. That’s within the Board’s rights.

But the take-away notion here is that the board can vote.

And should.

The process has been followed.

It needn’t go before that ill-conceived “Capital S Stakeholders” group as at least one Commissioner is still claiming.

It’s a simpler matter now. This is just about the formula and changing it from 5,000/3,000 to something with a higher second number.

The time has come to vote.

When this process started, the issue was about reducing density in order to avoid being overrun by the multi-unit construction of other coastal towns. A second issue has arisen since then: restoring the public’s faith and trust in the process by delaying no longer.

A vote Tuesday night would accomplish both. Here’s to it finally happening.

Coming shortly: comparison of two commissioner’s formulas for changing the minimum lot size.

Also: Capital S Stakeholders update. Six appointees now tapped: Chris Fulcher, George Smith, Kathy Enzerink, Yvonne Jones, Sally Belangia, Henry Frazer. Why no representation from people actually living in the Old Village MU1 and R2? Why not meet in public? Developing…

Posted Sunday November 5, 2006 by Melinda Penkava

email this story | back to top