[RP TownTalk] Ordinance 2014-OR-01

[James D. Holmes]

Jonathan

Again with the spin.  The first published notice about Ordinance 
2014-OR-01 was contained in the Town Crier which was delivered January 
29, 2014.  The notice was only a Fair Summary, not a full copy of the 
Ordinance.

I was hoping that my Council Member would join in on this discussion, 
but I guess he and the other Council Members want to remain silent.

Your rationalization of correcting a problem with the Town Code to avoid 
a legal battle is lackadaisical.

Your proposed ordinance has no mention about section 36-9(d) of the Town 
Code which allows for the use of chain-link fence for enclosing 
dumpsters.  If you can enclose a dumpster with a chain-link fence, why 
can't the residents use chain-link fence to enclose their back and side 
yards?


Town Code 36-9
(d) All special refuse containers or "dumpsters" (except those 
temporarily placed on a property due to construction, renovation, or 
rehabilitation), whether or not serviced by independent or commercial 
agencies, shall *be screened on up to three sides by an enclosure 
consisting of chain link fence with woven slats*, stockade-type or 
board-on-board fence, or other similar type screening enclosure 
constructed from chain link, painted or treated wood, or other materials 
approved by the Council, and shall be of sufficient height and type so 
as to block or screen the special refuse container or dumpster from 
street-level view. Gates in the fence or enclosure shall be kept closed 
whenever the special refuse container or dumpster is not being loaded or 
unloaded. Waiver of any or all of the requirements of this subsection 
may be approved by the Council upon application for special refuse 
containers or dumpsters that are not visible from public therefore or 
which under the circumstances cannot be practically screened.


*I again ask that a vote on this ordinance be tabled to allow for 
comments from the residents.**
**
*
J. Holmes



On 2/1/2014 1:18 PM, Jonathan Ebbeler wrote:
>
> James --
>
> It is an inaccurate statement to say that the proposed Ordinance was 
> only made public within the last several days.  It, by law, has to and 
> was read into the record at a televised public meeting on 1/6/2014.  
> It was also discussed at length at the next publically broadcasted 
> meeting last Monday.  The record on this Ordinance has been open for 
> comment for a month not for the several days purported.  If changes 
> are requested to how Ordinances are presented, please work with your 
> CM to draft a charter amendment to this end.
>
> As has been illustrated, there is no economic or other burden placed 
> upon any resident through this Ordinance.  The Ordinance does not 
> require any resident to do anything or incur any costs.  The only 
> impact the Ordinance could have is upon allowable material of new side 
> and rear fences.  As has been presented there are numerous materials 
> that are routinely used in town that are at par for cost or actually 
> cheaper -- so what burden precisely does the Ordinance create economic 
> or otherwise?
>
> I understand that you hold an opinion that regulations should be 
> driven by a need or public safety but I believe the current law 
> disagrees with this interpretation. As stated before, a primary role 
> of Council is to minimize risk of lawsuits since the cost is a public 
> burden.  Removing ambiguity in the code and situations where  Council 
> is forced to interpret on a case-by-case and potentially contradictory 
> manner is part of the obligation of being "necessary for the good 
> government of the town."
>
> I do my best to answer your questions in a direct and straightforward 
> manner.  I disagreed with the premise presented for the how/why 
> Ordinances may be introduced and pointed to the section of law that 
> governs the question. I respect that you consider referencing the 
> Charter as spin, but that section and others are what Council swears 
> an oath of office to uphold and I believe contradicts the need/safety 
> premise presented.  Potential conflict of interpretation leaves the 
> town open to litigation, it is not a question of if, but when we end 
> up spending taxpayer money defending a situation that could be 
> administratively addressed through Ordinance.  If you disagree with my 
> premise or opinion, please indicate what part of Section 301 requires 
> the limited interpretation claimed.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TownTalk mailing list
> To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> 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/20140201/4bba14b5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ORDINANCE 2014-OR-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 33173 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20140201/4bba14b5/attachment.pdf>