home

The Town Board holds a public hearing Tuesday night August 1 on whether to grant a Special Use Permit (SUP) for what could be Oriental’s biggest development project ever.

The Pierce Creek Landing project is also providing several big lessons about how Oriental handles — or should handle — development.

Pierce Creek Landing, As Proposed

Developers Wayne Yetman and Roy Stefanoski of Florida’s Red Mast Ventures propose building 144 units on 31 acres of land on White Farm Road. (If you travel down White Farm Road from Straight Road, this property is on your left – on the Pierce Creek side – between the Catholic Church and Falcon Road. A strip of pine trees runs parallel to White Farm Road.)

There are ultimately 17 buildings planned to house those 144 units. A lake will be dug and according to current plans, would be just on the other side of those rows of pine trees. The project would be built in phases; new buildings would go up as sewer permits and commitments from buyers come in.

The Pierce Creek Landing project has drawn criticism from a number of nearby residents. A chief issue is the sheer size of the project. Some also raised concerns about runoff in to Pierce Creek.

Town Board Commissioner Al Herlands says that of the people who contacted him, “most have thought that having an additional 144 units occupied within a period of a few years will result in a massive change in our population and the need for municipal, commercial, cultural, etc., services and institutions.” One comment he says that he heard was that the project “is a poster child for requiring impact fees.”

“The other fairly current theme,” Al Herlands says in an email, is that, “a gated, private development seems inconsistent with the open, small, bike-riding, people-friendly village atmosphere many residents see as an important part of the character of Oriental.”

The Planning Board gave its consent to the project, finding that it complied with the town’s Growth Management Ordinance. That means, for example, that the buildings would be set back the proper number of feet from the lot lines, and its height would be under 48-1/2 feet (While the town’s height limit is 43-1/2 feet, it allows for buildings to be another five feet higher if, for every foot of height up, the building is another 2 feet in from the lot lines.)

At its June meeting the Planning Board sent the application for the project to the Town Board on a 4-1 vote. The dissenting vote was cast by Planning Board member Bob Miller, who lives on the road right behind the project.

Lesson One To Take From This: Getting Things In Writing

At the July Town Board meeting, Commissioner Al Herlands said that in attending a few public presentations by the Pierce Creek Landing developers he heard them make statements about the project and its features — the man-made lake that would be created, the berm planned along White Farm Road, a nature trail, among others. Herlands also noted that the project developers had said that they’d contribute money towards a bike path on the other side of White Farm Road that might one day link the two sides of town now separated by Whittaker Creek.

Herlands said he wanted the developers to put those representations — and answers to other questions raised by Planning Board member Bob Miller — in writing before the public hearing.

Commissioner Nancy Inger said she too wanted those items in writing.

This sounds perfectly reasonable. If a developer is saying his project will have this or that feature, why not have those statements and promises in writing before the Town Board makes a decision on his permit request? That way, all sides can be clear on intent.

Yet as common-sensical as Al Herlands’ request seemed, it ran in to some push-back.

Planning Board Vice Chair Dee Sage objected.

“It’s not in the GMO,” said Dee Sage, “The GMO does not require it.”

Al Herlands persisted, saying he wanted the developers’ representations in writing in advance of the SUP public hearing. “I would think things like that should be required as part of the application.”

The exchanges between the Town Commissioner and Planning Board Vice Chair on this issue were at times tense, and showed two different approaches in the town’s dealings with developers.

The Planning Board Vice Chair Dee Sage may have been resistant to requiring the developers to put things in writing, but as it turned out, the developers complied. The first letter was dated the next day, July 12.

The Developers Put It In Writing

The letters from Red Mast developers Wayne Yetman and Roy Stefanowski provided responses to the questions that Bob Miller had asked, and spelled out in writing, as Al Herlands asked for, some of the things that the developers had said about the project in their meetings with residents and officials.

Their two letters, totalling 7 pages, were not available to PublicDock in electronic form so we can’t link to them. Here, though, are some of the highlights:

- The lake, they say, will recieve the stormwater runoff from the property instead of it going into Pierce Creek. – The lake, however, will not be built until they construct the 5th of the 17 buildings. – The berm between the project and White Farm Road would be built when the lake is built. – The developers did say that the live oaks between the berm are and White Farm Road would remain standing; many of the pines along that way will likely be removed. – As for lighting and concerns about light pollution, the developers say that “all site lighting will utilize full cutoff fixtures to assure that all lighting stays below the horizontal plane of the fixture.” – The clubhouse and pool will be built once the fourth building is finished.

In answer to Al Herlands’ request that things be put in writing, they wrote that:

- They met with fire authorities. (Who are to be on hand for the public hearing Tuesday night) – The berm will be 5 feet high at its tallest. – The road through the property will be a private road, not a public one. – There will be a bike path between the planned berm and White Farm Road along the length of the property. It will be built at the outset of the project. – Another bike trail will go thru the interior of the project. – A boardwalk will be constructed across the wetlands to Pierce Creek, with a gazebo, kayak launch and potential boat slips. – There will not be a boat ramp on the property. – Aside from the boardwalk, gazebo, kayak launch, boat slips and bike paths/walking trails, there is no other development planned for the property (aside from a tennis court that we may add at a later date.) – The developers say they “committed to a $15,000 contribution to the city upon commencement of our first phase of construction.” (That money would go toward the proposed bike path along the edge Sea Horse Landing subdivision — which may one day be part of a path that links both sides of Whittaker Creek.)
— In addition, the developers said, “we will also contribute $100 from every unit closing, amounting to an additional $14,400 over the course of the project. In the event that the bike path is never constructed, we only ask that the dollars we contribute be used for recreational related projects.” – And as to the question of whether this would be a gated community, the developers noted that it would be a private community. They wrote, “It is not our intent to gate the private driveway in and out of the development, nor is it our intention to prevent people from walking or biking throughout the community. However, those decisions will ultimately be made by the homeowners through their association. There currently is no public access to the water, and the waterfront amenities that will provide access to Pierce Creek will not be designed for public acccess.”

It’s rather helpful to have that in writing in advance of the public hearing. It can give the public and the Town Board a clearer grasp of the proposal.

As Oriental enters a phase when there will be a lot more development than ever, having things in writing before the Town Board weighs in on a decision should be the norm. It should not be something that a Town Board member has to argue for, let alone with a Planning Board member.

A Really Important Lesson: No Rubber Stamping The SUP

As mentioned, the developers of Pierce Creek Landing are seeking a Special Use Permit. Anyone building a multi-unit project (condos, townhomes) in Oriental needs an SUP before they can build.

Planning Board Vice Chair Dee Sage had noted that the Pierce Creek Landing developers complied with the GMO. But that alone does not — and should not — guarantee that the Special Use Permit would automatically be granted.

If that were the case we’d call it an Automatically Granted Use Permit. It’s called a Special Use Permit for a reason. It’s special.

The town’s attorney has in the past described the SUP’s as a tool the town could use to get a developer to lessen the impact of his development. The town board could for example, decide that a project should have more of a buffer from its next door neighbor, and write that in as a condition. Or that a business would generate a lot of traffic and as such an additional parking space, above and beyond the GMO requirement, was in order. Lots of towns have such arrangements where they attach conditions to the permit.

What’s more, the part of Oriental’s Growth Managment Ordinance that covers SUP’s, says that even if a project complies with the GMO, the town board may still deny the Special Use Permit, if the Board concludes that the development falls in to one of these four categories:

(a) Will materially endanger the public health or safety; or

(b) Will substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property; or

(c) Will not be in harmony with existing development and uses within the area in which it is to be located; or

(d) Will not be in general conformity with the land use plan, thoroughfare plan, or other plan, officially adopted by the Town Commissioners.

That fourth clause came up at the July Town Board meeting, when Commissioner Al Herlands noted that the CAMA plan approved by the town in 1994, spoke of seeking development that increased access to the water. If the Pierce Creek Landing project did not allow the public access to the water, Herlands suggested, it might not be in compliance with the CAMA plan the town agreed to a dozen years ago. As a result, the project’s SUP might be in jeopardy.

When Al Herlands suggested that possibility at the July Town Board meeting, Planning Board Vice Chair Dee Sage protested, saying, “That’s a legal opinion, Al.”

Herlands countered that while he was not in fact an attorney, it was within his bounds as a Town Board commissioner to ask the questions and weigh those matters before voting on the SUP.

He’s right on that. ‘Due diligence’ is not something only lawyers can do; giving that kind of attention to detail in an SUP process is something the entire Town Board should embrace.

When considering an SUP application, the Town Board should pay close attention to those four clauses listed above, which might be summarized, “Does this project adversely affect the neighbors or the town of Oriental?’

The SUP is a lovely tool that the Board has not made great use of in the past in guiding development in Oriental. The time has come to start using it.

As for Pierce Creek Landing, the developers may be granted that Special Use Permit. Perhaps there will be some conditions attached. On the other hand, their SUP may be rejected altogether. Whatever the decision, let it come as the result of the logic of the SUP process, not the result of a rubberstamp.

That’s the big lesson to take from this process.

Another Takeaway Lesson: How Dense Should We Be?

This Pierce Creek Landing project, Oriental’s biggest ever, sheds light on two other aspects of development in town.

One concerns density.

When the developers first approached the town this spring, they said they had more than 200 condos in mind. They have since scaled it back to 144. And that is laudable.

Thing is, the town’s rules allow as many as 14 units per acre. (5,000 sq ft for the first unit, 3,000 sq. ft for the subsequent ones) With that formula, the Pierce Creek Landing developers could have squeezed in more than 430 units on that 31 acre lot. Instead, with 144 they are putting in roughly 5 per acre. Again, relatively speaking, that’s a good thing.

But it leaves an uneasiness that some day a developer on another site could cram as many as the law would allow.

In fact…that is happening already when developers build in the Old Village.

In the Old Village four condos are going up where in the past 2 homes might have stood. It’s incremental, this density packing: one lot here, one lot there. Pretty soon though that’ll be a lot of lots packed with multi-units. And as overwhelming as the Pierce Creek Landing project may appear to some today, it may seem a model of restraint compared to the put-as-many-condos-on-the-land-as-you-can mindset elsewhere in the village.

Which brings us to the question:

Could it be that our GMO allows too many condos per acre? Could it be that it needs to change?

There is an effort by Planning Board commissioner Bob Miller to study density. Here’s hoping that this goes beyond just study and that Oriental follows the county’s recent lead and scales things back so that you need more land per condo than currently required.

Finally, one more lesson out of all this…

Lesson # 4: The Town Gets An Amenity. Without The PUD!

As noted above, the developers at Pierce Creek Landing are offering an amenity — between $15,000 and $29,400 toward a public bike path on the other side of White Farm Road. What’s remarkable about this is that the developers are doing so without asking the town to make exceptions to the building ordinances of the GMO.

(Under the recently proposed “PUD” plan, the town would have made exceptions to the building ordinances — height limits, setback rules — in exchange for the develoepr giving the town an ‘amenity’.

That the developers of Pierce Creek Landing offered money for the bike trail without asking the town to compromise its standards, is the latest piece of evidence for why Oriental does not need the PUD amenities-for-exceptions scheme. It is one more reason why the PUD proposal should just be put down.

—-

The Town Board meeting starts at 7 Tuesday and the public hearing over Pierce Creek Landing is the first item of business.

Posted Sunday July 30, 2006 by Melinda Penkava

email this story | back to top