[RP TownTalk] Ordinance 2014-OR-01
James D. Holmes
jdholmes at comcast.net
Fri Jan 31 17:43:16 UTC 2014
Jonathan
Thank you for your long-winded response. But you failed to answer the
most important question,
Who introduced ordinance 2014-OR-01 and why is this change necessary
for the public need/safety.
J. Holmes
On 1/31/2014 12:11 PM, Jonathan Ebbeler 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
> 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/20140131/d8cc7b3a/attachment.html>
More information about the TownTalk
mailing list