7/19/2005

ARC committee revisits terminology
By Bob Adair

The absence of a couple members of the ad hoc committee charged with the review of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) guidelines from the previous meeting on July 5 created the need to cover some parts of the guidelines terminology again.  Some of the items revisited took the committee back to the introduction of the guidelines itself.  Even though it took some time, reviewing some of the material may prove beneficial in the long run.

At the meeting three weeks ago the committee reviewed some language recommended to alleviate the confusion about “variances.” In general the wording said that a variance is an authorization by the ARC for an owner to deviate from the restriction that is contained in the Declaration of Restrictions (DR) approved for each section of Ocean Pines.  The condition of approval for a variance is proof that the restriction presents practical difficulties and imposed unnecessary hardship on the owner.  The results of a variance cannot be materially detrimental or injurious to the other properties in the neighborhood.

A new term, “exceptions” was introduced. An exception to the guidelines may be authorized by the ARC.  An exception is not a variance in that it is an authorization to deviate from restrictions developed by ARC and approved by the Ocean Pines Association (OPA) Board of Directors. And not those restrictions identified in the DR.  For example limitations relative to height and area coverage do not appear in the DR for any section but they do appear in the guidelines.

The criteria for granting an exception is about the same but the standard of proof is not as high. If the exception will benefit the homeowner and is not detrimental to the neighbors it should be approved.  It is not necessary to prove hardship.

In general the committee liked the approach, however, further discussion indicated a possible need for some kind of standards by which the ARC could measure the homeowner’s stated needs.  Each review would be on a case-by-case basis.  The group decided to look into possible “standards” for exceptions.

As the committee turned its attention to a new chapter in the guidelines a few interesting facts came to light.  In section 300, Specific Design Requirements and Plan Review for New Homes, under design requirements it states, “Repetitive style plans, or plans with only minor variations, located within five lots in any direction of one another will not be permitted.” This statement brings into question the site plans used in sections like The Parke and Colonial Village.

The answer is that such areas do not come under the OPA ARC guidelines.  The guidelines under review deal with single homes in the applicable sections of Ocean Pines.  These later developments have separate sets of rules pertaining to design, density, similarity, etc. and have their own Architectural Review Groups. Further, townhouses within Ocean Pines are not considered single homes; therefore, such areas as Mumford’s Landing come under separate guidelines.

As the meeting wound down it was obvious that topics such as color and material composition in this new section is going to cause further discussion as the committee attempts to remove as much subjectivity from the ARC process.