8/3/2005

More than ARC guidelines impact on Ocean Pines homeowners
By Bob Adair

The ad hoc committee reviewing the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) guidelines touched on several associated subjects while putting the final touches on two more sections of the Architectural Review Committee guidelines.  Despite a thorough scrub of these two sections over the last two meetings it was still necessary to re-tool certain paragraphs. Especially in section 300, which deals with design requirements and plan reviews for new homes.

It was decided to drop the paragraph dealing with window design because county building codes really dictate the requirements about windows, doors, openings, etc. 

However, part of that paragraph also dealt with awnings, which is a separate subject.  Awnings need to be approved either as part of the initial building plan or as add-on features that changes the external look of the house.  After a discussion about the various types, from the old canvas awnings to the new motorized covers that close into containers on the wall, the committee agreed the main interest here was that a wooden or metal frame would be covered and screened, thus creating a closed-in deck area. Bill Nelson, chief ARC inspector provided wording the inspectors have used to evaluate “awnings.” After some editing, the wording was incorporated into the draft document.

Colors are truly in the eye of the beholder, which makes it difficult to establish limits within the spectrum to govern colors allowed on homes within the community.  The new wording will call for soft natural colors for siding and allow non-natural bright colors on trim and panels, which will still be considered subjective by some.  However, the committee will recommend the elimination of strident wording in the present document, which says, “Colors shall be restricted to those which in the opinion of ARC harmonize with the surrounding area.”  The group agreed the current language suggested a rather capricious methodology for approving colors.

The paragraph dealing with the 15-foot bulkhead maintenance easement has been reduced by eliminating all the wording about decks located in that strip along the bulkheads because such construction is prohibited, not by the Ocean Pines Association (OPA) By-laws, the Declaration of Restrictions or the guidelines, but by the Coastal Bay law passed by the Maryland legislature in 2002 and passed into law in Worcester County in 2003.  All development within 1,000 feet of tidal water is affected by this law.  Bill Rakow, a local builder and resident who attends the review committee meetings pointed out that a walkway four feet wide from the house to the dock is allowed.  He went on to say that it appears many homeowners within the affected area ignored the law and built ground-level decks. Apparently the county and/or the Chesapeake Bay Commission, who oversees the implementation of the law concerning the coastal bays, have pictures taken at the time the bill was signed and can obtain satellite photos of the same area today, which allows a visual identification of violations.

Although the bulkhead easement paragraph was approved as part of the minutes from the last meeting the section references OPA policy resolution 1-86-22, which in essence states that the cost involved with removing “decks” or replacing them in this area is at the expense of the owner, not the OPA.  Wording may have to be changed to have the resolution applicable to the walkways to the dock.

Only one issue in section 400, Landscape Plans, was raised for reconsideration. That dealt with the height of plants required in the plan.

Committee member and local builder Dave Walter said it was impossible to buy certain plants that were 18 inches high at certain times of the year. After discussion about some alternatives it was decided to add the words “18 inches at maturity.

During that part of the meeting where the public can offer comments Mr. Rakow apprised the committee that OPA legal counsel, Joe Moore has issued an oral determination that the ARC cannot allow any increase in the buidable area of a lot unless it can be proved that such an increase would overcome a hardship.  This includes the five percent increase the ARC has been approving for some time.  He continued on the subject by referring to an article in the Real Estate section of the July 23, 2005 Washington Post.  This article described some of the pitfalls associated with community and association architectural review committees. He specifically pointed out the part about setting precedence and then changing the findings for others. Because this finding could affect some plans Mr. Rakow said such a determination should be in writing.

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