5/17/2005

ARC guidelines get a defining work over
By Bob Adair
The Ocean Pines Association (OPA) ad hoc committee appointed to review the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) guidelines held two meetings within a six-day period, May 10 and May 16 respectively. The group spent its fifth meeting nailing down definitions and more precise wording for the guidelines.  The sixth meeting picked up on the subject of fences. 

As a result of e-mails circulating among the committee members, the first portion of the meeting was spent clarifying several items dealing with sheds, storage containers, etc.  It was reaffirmed that storage containers and sheds were not one and the same. A shed footprint can range from 20 square feet minimum to a maximum of 120 square feet.  One shed per lot is authorized by the ARC guidelines. Storage containers may have a footprint up to 20 feet and three per lot is authorized.

Some language concerning structures in the OPA Restrictions precipitated the need for a review of shed and storage container terminology.  After some discussion the wording that defines sheds and storage containers was changed slightly to ensure compatibility with the wording found in the Restrictions.

Additional work was required to bring definitions of terms such as detached garage, free-standing car ports, etc found in the applicable paragraphs into line with those found in, or in some cases added to the glossary of the guidelines.

The guidelines pertaining to detached garages and freestanding carports remained unchanged.  Architectural Review Department Director Bill Nelson noted that county and state regulations set the location of these detached structures.  The county requires the structure to be six feet from the primary building and the Critical Bay regulations stipulate it must be 15 feet from the bulkhead.

The committee did agree that storage containers should be allowed on a deck, however, sheds were still prohibited.  In response to a question from Dick Nieman, a resident of Ocean Pines, the committee agreed that storage containers would not be under the purview of the ARC.

The next subject to be reviewed in the guidelines deals with fences. Committee chairman, OPA Director Skip Carey ended the meeting early before the fence topic was addressed because at the previous meeting he had told those residents in attendance that the subject of fences would not be addressed before the meeting to be held on May 16.  Mr. Carey said it would be unfair not to give those individuals a chance to hear all the discussion on fencing.

Although the meeting on May 16 was to concentrate on fencing, the first order of business was a formal vote by the committee members on the recommended changes to the section of sheds, storage containers, detached garages and carports, a protocol set down by Mr. Carey, the committee chairman.

After a review of these changes the committee voted to approve the changes as submitted.  One item concerning carports received additional attention, not over carports per se, but over the term “vehicle.” There appeared to be general consensus about what “vehicles” could be kept in a carport but it was in conflict with the definition of vehicles, especially over-sized vehicles in other parts of the guidelines. It was decided to hold further discussion on this point until the other sections were up for review.

It only took the committee a few moments to realize the magnitude of the problems involved in the subject of fencing in Ocean Pines.  After identifying several “types” of fencing such as privacy, decorative, temporary, etc. and separating those types for material used as an enclosure for children and dog runs it was clear that not much was clear. The committee questioned everything from the fence material itself to height, length, design and positioning. The question of subjectivity was addressed when terms such as “aesthetically pleasing” and “architecturally compatible” were thrown into the equation.

After hearing from two residents about the unfairness in the way some fences are approved and others are denied the committee made the decision to break at that point and review the possible ways to address the fence question.  

Send an Email Letter to Courier Editor - be sure to include your telephone number.

Check out the following stories in this week's print edition of The Courier: