7/13/2005

ARC review targets redundancy and superfluous parts
By Bob Adair

The Ocean Pines Association (OPA) ad hoc committee to review the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) guidelines continued its line-by line review of the document on July 5, 2005.

At the previous session the committee recognized the need to recommend some title changes in order to make it clear to the public that the organization known as the ARC has different parts. The Architectural Review Committee is a three-member volunteer board.  The personnel found in the ARC office within the OPA administration building are another entity of the organization. These are the inspectors and the administrative support group that supports the actual review committee. The volunteer committee handles requests for variances and other issues that are beyond the purview of the administrative section.  Last week the group created the title of Architectural Review Administrator to identify the support group.

After a week of additional reflection the members of the committee all agreed the word “administrator” was not appropriate. The group changed the recommendation to “department” rather than administrator, thus bringing the title in line with the terminology used by OPA to identify other agencies within the organization.

After some discussion about alternative ways to set the height of structures in the Pines it was decided to recommend 40 feet as the height limitation measured from the average grade around the structure foundation to the highest point of the roof.

The committee reviewed the section of the guidelines that deals with information required by the ARC when a review of a new house plan or a review of plans for additions/alteration to existing houses is requested.  This section provides the list of items the owner or licensed builder must produce before the plans can be reviewed. The list includes the plan application, filing and inspection fees, floor plan and elevation drawings, site plans, landscape plans, completion agreement and a request for color samples for several elements of the house material to be used.

Local builder and committee member Jim Walter pointed out the need for more proof of a contractor’s license other than having a number written on the application. He said the actual license should be presented and a copy made of the document.  The committee agreed.

The review of the paragraph dealing with material colors raised the subject of how this impacts on the construction of the house and how it is evaluated. Bill Nelson, chief inspector for the ARC said an inspection of the site is made by looking at the three houses across the street, the two houses on each side of the site and the house behind that location to determine if the colors for the new house are acceptable. The committee thought this should be spelled out in the guidelines rather than words such as “homes nearby.”

Part of the section dealing with the ARC requirements for new or renovated houses listed all the county permits, what they cover and where to obtain them. It was recommended that all this information be reduced to a six or seven line list with a phone number to call if additional information is desired.

Lastly, the committee recognized the redundancy in the two parts of the section, the one for new house plans and the other for renovated buildings. It was decided to reword the one part and eliminate the other.

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