[RP TownTalk] Ordinance 2014-OR-01

[Jonathan Ebbeler]

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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20140131/8d79cd8a/attachment.html>