[RP TownTalk] Ordinance 2014-OR-01

Sat Feb 1 06:20:24 UTC 2014

Stan -

I am unsure as to why my post was interpreted as condescending - I was merely outlining facts that can be well supported through meeting minutes and emails.  Is there something in my post other than that the Council would not support your application for a 6' chain link fence that you disagree with?  If you recall, multiple options were offered that you refused to consider and again in your post here are telling us that we are wrong and only chain link is appropriate?  OSHA and DHS guidelines do not specify chain link be used only that the enclosure be well ventilated.  You could have used Steel picket instead of Aluminum (we left you the option in the approval - this obviates your 'melting point' argument although I would again point out that if temperatures reach the melting point of aluminum we have significantly greater public safety issues than what material was used).  Multiple fencing types and materials can accomplish those goals for ventilation and security, and given how easy chain link is to cut it was argued in a much more secure manner.

I am really unclear as to the comments about common courtesy.  I included this point in my last post but again for future reference, permits, especially fence permits, typically are always heard twice, once at a Worksession (where they CANNOT be voted upon) and once at a Legislative meeting (where they CAN be voted upon).  This is a point you may want to communicate to future clients; items are not tabled at meetings - we just do not vote at Worksessions.

While I appreciate that it is not pleasant to wait an hour or two, your items were not the only business before us.  The July 1 agenda for example had 18 legislative action items we voted on, in addition to two presentations, staff, Ward/committee, and agency reports.  Staff cannot predict if Mayor and/or Council will change orders of the agenda (due to items being added/deleted/or to try to accommodate guests first) prior to approving it, so unfortunately it is imperative you show up to meetings if you are being paid to represent clients.

Typically, and certainly the case for both applications you advocated for, there were outstanding questions raised upon the application being presented.  This is the precise reason why we do not ask applicants to only present at a Legislative meeting - if we did you would incur at least an one-month delay vs. the one-week delay between a Worksession and Legislative meeting.  The key and most critical part that is missing in most applications is how neighbors feel about such a permit, a question that CM are left to ponder and ascertain on our own since evidence illustrating support or opinion is rarely included with an initial application.  In the case of 4609 Oliver Street, the application was placed on the consent agenda for the July 1 Legislative meeting and you and your client had the application approved well before many of the other 18 other items.

It would be much more instructive if you quoted the entire exchange vs. parsing comments out of context.  In response to your inability or unwillingness to negotiate I did inform you that legislatively there were two choices or paths forward - to either deny the application outright (a possibility other CMs were leaning towards) or to approve but with conditions, that outright approval of what you were asking for, approval of a 6' Chain Link fence was not going to be supportable.

This entire exchange forgets a key and critical component - every CM has one, and only one vote.  What power over one another are you surmising any of us have?  We don't always agree but we do try to work as effectively as possible together as a team.  In this case, Council voted unanimously towards support with conditions.

Best,

Jonathan Ebbeler (not 'Ebberler')

From: Stan Wilson [mailto:swilson at rapidpermits.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 11:42 PM
To: Jonathan Ebbeler
Cc: towntalk at riverdale-park.org
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Ordinance 2014-OR-01

Mr Ebberler,

Your response is self serving and your attitude is condescending. My frustration with the Council and you stems from two permits I have submitted to the Town this year. The first was in June for a fence at 4609 Oliver Street in your ward. The homeowner and I attended the hearing and ultimately after all other public business was addressed were informed that since you weren't present there was no need to be there and we would have to come back. I am of the opinion that since we were on the agenda weren't going to be heard, a common courtesy would have been to announced that at the beginning of the hearing and not wait an hour or two. When I knew we had another hearing for the fence in question coming up, I instructed my client, Patrick McCarthy the CEO of Professional Healthcare Services, to call the day of the hearing to make sure you were in attendance. He was coming from Baltimore County and surely did not want to waste his time. You have stated you had alerted the mayor well in advance that you were going to be out of state. If this is the case why were we not notified in advance. Again, this seems like a common curtesy, especially when the Town was called the day of the hearing to see if you would be present.  At the hearing that night the Town representative from Public Works testified that he had been to the site and the location of the fence and wall could not be seen from any streets. You have to go down a driveway behind the building to see the loading dock that has an existing 6' high chain link fence on it. The new fence & wall, with materials you finally approved, is inside the existing chain link fence. The fence was necessitated because the Crescent City Health & Rehabilitation Center is locating oxygen containers from inside the building to the loading dock. You insisted that you wanted aluminum or custom welded steel. Mr. McCarthy, who's company specializes in this type of installation pointed out that oxygen can be volatile and steel has a melting point of 2,500F and aluminum 1,218F. He also noted that in their industry, chain link is the common material used for safety, durability. strength and cost to be placed around any cylinder manifold system. You answered back that "As a pilot who owns and has flown many a plane that have a 60+ year old aluminum frames/components and sit outside 24/7, I and the FAA are perfectly comfortable with the strength and reliability of it versus steel." Really? That makes you an expert on enclosures for oxygen tanks at medical facilities and you can speak for the FAA. Your argument how my client kept changing his argument until you got to the real argument "cost" is quite condescending. The end of your response below points out that chain link and aluminum cost the same per 100 linear feet at Home Depot. So perhaps not using aluminum had nothing to do with cost. I do remember Riversdale Mansion when it had no fence and my children loved to sled down the hill. I have mixed feeling about the fence but it is attractive. Bringing it into this discussion is one of the areas you are disingenuous . The fence and wall we are talking about serves a completely different purpose and can't be seen. Your last quote I will note is "I'm looking for something that is visually high quality. If the application is presented with chain link of any material of that ilk my motion will be either for disapproval or approval with conditions of a welded architectural solid steel gate with a minimum of 14 or 16 gauge tubing. I'll likely also include in the motion for additional facade improvements for the CMU block such as stucco." This was a threat that you followed through on. New Jersey has a bully for a governor that abuses his authority and we, who live in Riverdale, have one on our council. I fear the mayor and council will push thru your ban on chain link without consideration of the impact on many of our citizens.

 Stan Wilson

 www.RapidPermits.com<http://www.RapidPermits.com>
 swilson at rapidpermits.com<mailto:swilson at rapidpermits.com>

On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Jonathan Ebbeler <jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com<mailto:jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com>> wrote:

All -

I would like to address and correct the inaccuracies in Mr. Wilson's post as well as the ordinance in general.  My apologies in advanced for this being long-winded.

There is not a current ban on chain link fences, only a prohibition of front-yard chain link.  To this point, a chain link fence for the side and rear was approved in Ward 3 within the last six months.  The application that Mr. Wilson spoke of was a commercial, not a residential application, that is surrounded by commercial properties that are prohibited from erecting a 6-foot chain link fence desired by the applicant.  The property in question is one of the only properties in the entire Route 1 corridor in Riverdale Park that the M-U-TC zoning was not extended to.  The zoning the building had however required a variance in their zoning - i.e. what was proposed is not guaranteed as a matter of right.  Chain-link is a prohibited material for the rest of the commercial corridor and would not be a compatible variance.  Fences that are 3.5' or less do not require Council permission (there is pending legislation to change this to 4'), Mr. Wilson's application required Council support due to it being a commercial application, County-required variance processing, and the fence height requested.

While it was true that I was not at the worksession (out-of-state trip known well in advance and excused by the Mayor), I was in attendance at the legislative meeting the following week (where we actually vote on the matter), the applicant made a decision not to show up to the meeting to defend the application.  At the worksession the applicant informed the Council that he needed chain link due to its melting point.  The argument was later changed to a safety/terrorism argument, which was then later changed to what we all knew was the real argument - 'cost.'  However, even that was specious when it was pointed out to the applicant that the cost differential was de minimis.

Mr. Wilson is incorrect is stating that a vote was tabled.  Votes are not taken at worksession meetings that the application was presented at; worksessions are opportunities for Council to explore the question while leaving a week to work out the objections and details prior to the vote that occurs at a Legislative meeting.  In the following week, we attempted to negotiate with Mr. Wilson and suggested many alternatives that Council found a satisfactory compromise when the prior arguments of melting point/safety/terrorism were pointed out to be suspect, but the applicant steadfastly decided to take a chain-link only approach and refused to budge.   Mr. Wilson although not in attendance at the Legislative meeting, should have been informed that the application that approved the fence with conditions was unanimous.  Since Mr. Wilson neglected to negotiate in good faith towards resolution of those conditions and/or attend the meeting where those conditions could be voted upon, the outcome was predictable.  It is important to point out that the Council did vote to support the application, just not the 6 foot chain link fence desired.  Conditions were placed to use aluminum pickets instead.

As Mr. Wilson indicates, it was pointed out during the initial discussions that existing chain link fences although non-conforming are grandfathered in.  This point came about due to an early argument made by Mr. Wilson that he drove around the neighborhood and saw many chain-link fences ergo we should approve his application for a 6 foot chain link fence.  This ordinance does not in any way shape or form change the grandfathering of fences.  If you have a chain link fence it does not need to come down; this ordinance only prohibits future side and rear chain link fences from being erected.

Again, there is not an informal ban on chain link as other applications have been approved at recent meetings.  They were split votes however and at those meetings and on Mr. Wilson's application the Mayor rightfully suggested that the Council take a policy position on the matter.  Chain link in prior years was a preferred material due to cost and longevity of material; that is no longer the case.  Also, when fences are erected they impact not just the property they are on, but their immediate neighbors and the overall neighborhood.

I realize there are those that will disagree with me on this point and want individual land rights to be absolute.  I will boil down the crux of the ordinance to one situation - imagine for a moment that the fence surrounding the Riversdale Mansion was chain link vs. the attractive black aluminum fence that exists today.

For comparison an average fence of 100 linear feet with one gate and 4' high has the following costs from Home Depot:

Chain Link:                          535
Round/Split Rail:               334-565
Vinyl:                                     566-1197 (depending on style)
Composite:                         688-1593 (depending on style)
Aluminum:                          535
Wood Picket:                     561

As always, respectfully,

Jonathan

Jonathan Ebbeler
Councilman - Ward 1, Town of Riverdale Park

_______________________________________________
TownTalk mailing list
To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org<mailto:TownTalk at riverdale-park.org>
TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org<mailto:TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org> is for automated subscription processing only
http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk

For more information about Riverdale Park, visit http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20140201/961c92ed/attachment.html>