Ocean Beach, Building Architectural Board, Still
Volume 49, Issue 10
By David Crohn

Like a slug making its way through a puddle of molasses toward some distant cup of beer, the Ocean Beach Board of Trustees is gradually establishing an architectural review board, designed to maintain aesthetic “cohesion” in the town’s commercial district.

The establishment of an architectural review board still hasn’t become law—it was tabled for the second time this summer after being discussed—but one significant inroad has been made: documents have been released to the public, containing lawyer-approved language waiting for official approval.

But besides procedural guidelines and other legalese, the documents contain no specifics relating to what materials can and can’t be used by a building permit applicant.

The review board’s formation was discussed in a public forum at Saturday’s trustees meeting. The public hearing will continue at the Sept. 10 trustees meeting in Ocean Beach.

“We just don’t want to be knee jerk; we want to get this right the first time,” said Trustee Joe Loeffler.

“After five years you can’t say this is knee jerk,” joked Mayor Natalie Rogers, referring to the first time this issue was raised.

She added, “No, I’m just joking, we all know I’m in complete agreement with you.”

The planning board has been acting as the de facto committee in charge of approving building permits; the town hasn’t decided whether it would rename the board or simply have it adopt a dual role. “We can trust the planning board; they’re the ones who have always done this,” said Trustee Steve Einig.

The purpose of “Local Law No. __”, as it’s currently known, “is to preserve and promote the character and appearance and conserve the property values of the Village of Ocean Beach, the attractiveness of whose residential and business areas is the mainstay of the community, by providing procedures for an architectural review of structures henceforth erected, reconstructed or altered.”

During the discussion the lack of specific building guidelines emerged as a concern of residents such as Judy Steinman.

While many of the standards will be objective, many will be subjective, and “What if we get a board with bad taste?” she asked.

Einig echoed that point. “We are talking about cosmetics, [so] it’s important that specific guidelines be set by a cross section of the village,” he said.

Planning board head Joel Silverberg said specifics wouldn’t be a possibility, and that the board can only be subjective. “We’d have a list two pages long. Every planning board in America is subjective.” he said.

He added: “We’re just a review board to ensure cohesion. There can be different interpretations [of the building codes] while staying within certain characteristic confines.”

Although taste will inevitably play a part, he said, the board would continue to do what it has always done, to review building permits and, as Joel said, work with people, not against them in their effort to comply with village mandates.

A typical scenario, discussed in the meeting, looks like this: an applicant would present a proposal, complete with details such as colors to be used, materials, dimensions, etc., and the board would make its yea-or-nay recommendation to the village board, which would then approve or deny the permit. Most likely, Silverberg said, if the architectural review board sees something it doesn’t like—hot pink, for example—it would suggest alternatives rather than rejecting the plan outright.