home

In the run-up to Tuesday’s Town Board meeting, here’s a look at proposals to reduce density in multi-unit construction from two Town Board members, Al Herlands and Barb Venturi.

Public Dock has already reviewed the changes proposed by Pat Herlands (wife of the commissioner) and the suggestions put forth by Planning Board Chair Dee Sage.

Commissioners Venturi and Herlands submitted proposals that fine-tuned numerous sections of the GMO’s Article XI, but most of those can’t be addressed Tuesday night as reported in the previous article.

However, changes proposed to Section 182 (the formula that currently calls for 5,000 square feet of land for the first unit/3,000 square feet for subsequent units) can be discussed and voted upon as proper process has been followed.

With that in mind, here’s a closer look at Section 182 proposals from Commissioners Venturi and Herlands.

Barb Venturi’s Plan For Lot Size

Barb Venturi’s plan is the most straightforward of the four reviewed here. It comes closest to getting done what needs to be done now: reducing the unhealthy incentive to build multi-units.

This is how it would work:

District Minimum Square Feet Additional Unit Requirement

R2 5,000 square feet for 1 unit, 10,000 for two units, attached or not.
R3 5,000 square feet for each unit up to 8, attached or not. Then, 6,000 square feet for each unit over 8 residential units.
MU MU1 (All residential) same as R3

Under this plan R2 would continue to allow only duplexes and single family homes. For non-residential (read: business) construction in the MU and MU1, Barb Venturi’s plan would keep the current land requirement at 8,000 square feet. She suggests a trade off: allowing more impervious surface for parking at such structures. Additionally, she suggests that ‘residential structures may not exceed 16,000 square feet of living space,’ and that there be no more than eight residential units per structure in the R3, MU and MU1 and greater setbacks for buildings of four units or more. These are efforts to avoid the bulky, blocky buildings. All these ideas have great merit and most might well be addressed in a future round of public hearings and changes to the GMO. But because these fine-tunings weren’t advertised specifically in a public notice they can’t be voted on at Tuesday night’s meeting. Proposed changes to Section 182 however can be voted on Tuesday night. Adjusting that formula as Commissioner Venturi has laid out in the above table would that would be an important step to take to avoid the over-condoization of town.

—

Commissioner Al Herlands’ latest plan for Section 182

District Minimum Square Feet
R-2 6,000 for 1 unit; 6,000 for a second unit*
R-3 5,000 for 1 unit; 4,000 for each additional unit*
MU 5,000 for 1 unit; 4,000 for each additional unit*
MU-1 5,000 for 1 unit; 4,000 for each additional unit*

What likely stands out for most readers in this proposal is that in the R2, Commissioner Herlands’ plan increases the minimum lot size from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet.

That would change the land requirement not just for multi-units but for single family homes as well.

That may seem puzzling to those who thought the density changes were aimed at stemming the tide of multi-units. It brings on the question: Why change the figures for single family homes, too? Have there been many complaints about single family homes on 5,000 square foot lots?

Absent those complaints, the 6,000/6,000 plan has the appearance of addressing a problem that doesn’t exist.

To its credit, though, at least the second number in the 6,000/6,000 formula is the same as the first, which means a developer would need just as much space to build any unit of a multi-unit as he would for a single family home. That takes away the incentive to build multi-units rather than single family homes in the R2. And that is good.

Over in the the R3, MU and MU1 Commissioner Herlands’ 5,000/4,000 is an improvement on the existing 5,000/3,000, but it doesn’t go as far as Commissioner Venturi who would have 5,000 as the figure for any unit, or 8.5 per acre and thus take away all incentive to build multi-units. Commissioner Herlands’ 5,000/4,000 would mean 10 units per acre which, it should be said, is still a healthy improvement on the current 13.5 units per acre.

But another part of Commissioner Herlands’ proposal for the MU and MU1 districts could create a slippery loophole and give us virtually the same density we have now.

He proposes a different formula for those whose MU1 and MU construction would have some “non-residential” component.

(2) Nonresidential Use and Combinations of Residential and Nonresidential Use. Every lot developed for nonresidential use or for combinations of residential and nonresidential purposes shall have the number of square feet per unit indicated in the following table. In determining the number of units permissible on a tract of land, fractions shall be rounded to the nearest whole number.

District Minimum Square Feet
MU 5,000 plus 3,000 for each residential unit*
MU-1 5,000 plus 3,500 for each residential unit*

So, if a developer said the structure was going to have some manner of ‘non-residential” use in the MU or MU1, this would allow more densely packed buidings than if he said the units would be purely residential.

This may be an attempt to encourage more retail and business construction in the Mixed Use districts of Oriental. That’s a worthy goal and it does seem that our current 8,000 square foot requirement for business construction should be changed.

But this goes too far in the other direction. Look at the numbers. The 5,000/3,000 formula for MU means 13.5 units per acre, or what we currently allow for condo construction. For MU1, the mathematical result of 5,000/3,500 would mean 12 units per acre, just 1.5 fewer than we see now for condo construction.

We’d be back to our current problem: too many structures on too small a space.

But beyond that, this arrangement could be subject to abuse. How is the town going to ascertain this “non-residential” status that allows building to the greater density? How would this be enforced?

For instance, once the “non-residential” or combination “non-residential/residential” units are built, what’s to stop someone from converting them to purely residential, i.e. condos? In so doing, they could build to a higher density than if they’d complied with Commissioner Herlands suggested formula for MU or MU1 residential construction.

Would that be fair? No.

Would it happen? I’ll let you answer that. What do you think the odds are that it wouldn’t?

With that loophole dangling out there, what would our town’s response be? Looking the other way is a recipe for both unfairness and distrust. Another option would be a “Usage Cop” but that idea just doesn’t fit with Oriental’s spirit.

A better option is to avoid it altogether. While there are other parts of Commissioner Herlands proposal that the Town Board may find worthy of adopting, this section is not one of them.

(There are, BTW, other ways of encouraging business construction downtown. For example: reducing the 8,000 square foot requirement for business construction in the MU and MU1 to 5,000 square feet. That would dovetail nicely with the rest of COmmissioner Venturi’s plan. It also has the advantage of putting no one in the position of having to play Usage Cop.)

So, here’s to the Town Board taking a vote on a density reduction plan Tuesday. Of all the proposals put forth for changing Section 182, the one from Commissioner Venturi comes closest to putting us on the right road.

It reduces density and the reduces the town’s chances of being over-condoized. That was the initial aim as this debate started almost three months ago

Amid all the delays in recent weeks, a secondary issue has arisen: how to restore public confidence.

The Town Board voting Tuesday night would go a ways toward achieving both.

Posted Monday November 6, 2006 by Melinda Penkava

email this story | back to top