|
July 3, 2003
Mr. Lars Etzkorn, Associate Director
Public Space Management Administration
District Department of Transportation
2000 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009
RE: Application of Edwin and Penelope
Peskowitz (To be submitted to PSMA)
4801 Indian Lane, NW, Washington, DC 20016
Dear Mr. Etzkorn:
Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3D held its regularly scheduled monthly
meeting on July 2, 2003, at Sibley Memorial Hospital's Ernst Auditorium.
Proper notice of this meeting was given in the Northwest Current newspaper,
on the Commission's web site and by postings throughout the neighborhoods. A
quorum (4) was present at all times. One of the items on our agenda was the
public space landscaping plan for 4801 Indian Lane, NW, owned by Edwin and
Emily Peskowitz which will be submitted to the Public Space Management
Administration in the near future. The Commission reviewed in great depth
the landscaping plans drawn and presented by landscape architect Allan
Garnaas and property photographs shown by permit consultant Trish Cooper. A
lengthy and open discussion ensued between the Commission and aforementioned
parties. The Commission raised questions about the height and need of the
proposed seven-foot “security fence,” with some commissioners making the
point that such a high fence may be required around embassy properties but
were out of character for residential homes in the neighborhood. Mr.
Perkowitz explained that there had been two recent robberies on the
construction site and that his security expert had suggested the high
security fence.
It is not for the ANC, of course, to pass judgment on the need for a high
security fence. But it is the commission’s responsibility to pass judgment
on the location of the security fence on public space. As presented in the
plans, the security fence would be 17 feet from the street curb on three
sides of the house. That would place the fence clearly on public space on
the Glenbrook Road and Rockwood Parkway side of the home and within the
building restriction line on Indian Lane. On Glenbrook , measured from the
curb, there is 10 feet of public space for sidewalk, 20 for parking and 15
feet for building restriction. On Rockwood, there is 10 feet of public space
for sidewalk, 18 feet for parking and 15 feet for building restriction. On
Indian Lane, there is 10 feet of public space for sidewalk, two feet for
parking and 15 feet of building restriction. That means that the proposed
fence, particularly on the Glenbrook and Rockwood sides, would be several
feet into public space.
It is at this point that the nature of the proposed fence comes into
consideration. What is proposed is no low, ornamental fence. Rather, it is a
high security fence, which by its very nature carries the message: “Stay
Out–No Trespassing.” In effect, the security fence says that the land behind
the fence is private property. Of course, it is not all private property;
some of it is public property belonging to the city. The commission found
this very troublesome. By locating the security fence on public space, the
owner, it seemed to the commission, was expropriating public space and
making it part of his private property. This seemed to the commission to be
a land grab at public expense. The Commission determined that the
Peskowitz's own sufficient property for placement of the entire 7-foot
perimeter fence within their property line. It voted, therefore, to propose
that the security fence be located on the property line of the Peskowitz
estate. The commission agreed that the proposed plantings may be placed in
public space, providing a buffer hiding the fence and so planted as to
provide room for public use of the sidewalks. Based on the proposed location
of the security fence, ANC 3D voted 5-1-0 to deny the landscaping proposal
presented on behalf of Edwin and Emily Peskowitz and asks that the
Commission’s views be accorded the great weight to which they are entitled
under District law.
Sincerely,
John W. Finney Chair, ANC 3D |
