SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Meeting was held on April 25, 2006, at 5:00 p.m. with Chairman Hogan presiding. Members present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Lakeman, and Mr. Link. Members of Council present were Mr. Ruane, Mr. Slavin, and Mrs. Russell.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously carried.
Authorization to Purchase - Reverse 911 Telephone System (Police)
During their Regular Meeting of April 25, 2005, members of Council were provided a report outlining the best and most effective uses of various public notification systems, including the Reverse 911 Telephone System.
The Police Department researched different methods of mass telephone notifications available to public safety agencies and found that there are two different types of systems available. The first type is owned and operated by the company contracted for services and there is a charge for each call every time the system is used to make a mass notification. With the second type, Reverse 911, the user buys access to a block of phone lines, and makes calls using a computer mapping program that interfaces with an extensive address/phone directory. This system would be owned/operated by the Police Department and would be used to notify citizens of emergency situations, non-emergency situations and other items of public interest.
The concept of mass telephone notifications appeals to the Police Department because it will provide the Department the ability to notify a large number of citizens in a relatively short period of time regarding specific situations and will improve the Sex Offender Notification process. The mass telephone notifications will eliminate the necessity for officers to go door to door to notify the residents and businesses. Using the new system, the officers will select the area to be notified using the mapping program; tape the audio recording to be used for the notification, and send it out through the system. For those citizens who do not have access to telephones or do not wish to participate in the program, their notification will be completed as before. Staff believes most residents will want to participate based on the convenience, ease, and reliability of the system. The system can also be used by city government during brown-water notifications, power outages, and other incidents of importance to our citizens.
Staff recommended approval of the purchase of a Reverse 911 telephone system capable of making twenty-four hundred (2,400), thirty (30) second calls per minute. The Department is requesting to sole source this expenditure since Reverse 911 was the original company to offer this type of product. As the founder of this type of system, it holds several patents on the product and is the industry leader/standard. In addition, it makes sense to purchase Reverse 911 since there are several other agencies within the state already using the system, including the United States House of Representatives, as well as the Wilmington and New Castle Police Departments. The Rehoboth Beach Police Department is purchasing the system in the near future, and the Seaford Police Department has been inquiring about purchasing the system. This system is capable of interconnecting with other agencies using the same system, utilizing their phone lines for an even larger call volume. There is an annual fee for this module which could be jointly purchased and shared with the other agencies involved. Another vendor's product cannot offer nearly the same degree of capability or flexibility.
The Police Department obtained funding from a Criminal Justice Council grant program and federal funding to cover the cost of this system and was justified as an improvement for our Sex Offender Notification System. The only initial cost to the City is for one dedicated telephone line for the system. After the warranty period expires (after the third year), there will be a fixed price service contract ($4,728) that will never increase unless the number of ports on the system is increased.
Mr. Carey moved to recommend authorizing staff to purchase the Reverse 911 Telephone System in the amount of $53,584, using the Criminal Justice Council grant and federal funding, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lakeman and unanimously carried.
Public Hearing - Parking of Boats, Motorhomes, Trailers, etc. in Residential Neighborhoods
During the Open Forum Segment of the Regular Council Meeting of April 10, 2006, many residents expressed concerns regarding enforcement of ordinances related to the parking of boats, motorhomes, trailers, etc. in residential neighborhoods. As a result, a public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to determine if any ordinance amendments are warranted.
Mr. DePrima, City Manager, advised members that Article 6 - Off-street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities of the zoning ordinance regulates the parking of boats, motorhomes, trailers, etc. in residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Ritter expressed concern that there was not a clear definition for “screened” with reference to screening these vehicles from view. He also noted that lot size should be taken into consideration when developing screening requirements.
Mr. Ruane suggested that the Planning Department make a presentation on this issue and make a pro-active effort to educate the citizens on the ordinances and the availability of off-site storage for travel trailers.
Chairman Hogan declared the Public Hearing open.
Mr. James Fogell, 360 Nimitz Road, advised members that he moved into the City in 1968 and specifically asked, prior to purchasing his home, if there were any restrictions for maintaining a camper or boat. At that time, he was advised that the only requirement was that they be kept back from the front of the house. Although it was not required, Mr. Fogell stated that he installed a slab to park his camper and boat on and enclosed his yard with a fence. He noted that, in addition to it being inconvenient, there are insurance and security issues with keeping campers in storage facilities. Mr. Fogell noted that his property is well maintained; however, there are junk cars, loud motorcycles, and dog odors in his neighborhood which should be remedied.
Ms. Sandy Kinkus, 365 Fiddlers Green, addressed members as Vice-President of the MCWMII Civic Association and relayed concern with the vagueness or absence of the requirements for screening, setbacks, parking foundations or pads, and length, height, and weight limitations related to the parking of RV’s, campers, boats, etc. on residential properties. Ms. Kinkus stated that she was willing to meet with the committee to clarify the ordinance and reach a workable agreement.
Ms. Janice Sibbald, President of the MCWMII Civic Association, stated that the residents requested assistance to have the City enforce the Code related to the parking of RV’s and boats in residential neighborhoods. She noted that there appeared to be an influx of RV’s and boats which were too large and inappropriately parked in their neighborhood. Ms. Sibbald noted that, upon inspection, 23 homes were cited; however, the Inspector stated that he did not want to cite them and was doing so only because the neighborhood association insisted upon it. She felt that his attitude made it appear that the RV and boat owners were being unfairly singled out and that the same standards were not being applied to other areas of the City. Ms. Sibbald suggested that the ordinance be re-written with definitions in plain English so that residents can comply with it or realize that their boat or RV cannot be stored on their property. She did not feel that the City should liberalize the Code to accommodate less than 10% of its residents. Ms. Sibbald felt that the City should have been consistent in enforcing the ordinance and if there are not enough Inspectors to do so, more should be hired.
Ms. Ginny Bessette, 399 Fiddlers Green, stated that she has resided at this location since 1974 and feels that it is a beautiful area of the City. She noted that there were previously issues of drug dealing and dogs running at large, which the City immediately corrected. Unfortunately, she stated that the neighborhood is becoming unsightly. It is her desire for the neighborhood to remain beautiful and to preserve their property values. If this means enforcement of the City Code, then residents should meet these requirements.
Ms. Renee Hobayan, 370 Mimosa Avenue, stated that because the law has not been enforced for over 20 years, residents are not familiar with the ordinance requirements. She noted that, due to their lot sizes, most of the residents in her neighborhood are unable to comply with the setback requirements. Ms. Hobayan advised members that storage facilities are lacking and create an added expense that most cannot afford. They have been forced to either sell their RV’s or store them at friends or family’s homes, some many miles from their residences. Ms. Hobayan stated that this issue has caused neighbors to turn against neighbors and she requested that the ordinance be changed to reflect the way families live today to bring their families together.
Mr. Walter D. Johnson, Jr., 1507 Fawn Street, stated that he has been a City of Dover resident for the past 18 years, 17 of which he has stored a boat on his property without any complaints from his neighbors. He recently sold his boat and bought a travel trailer. Prior to buying it, he contacted his neighbors to see if they would mind and they indicated that they would not. When he checked on the screening requirements, he was verbally advised that a six (6) foot fence would be required, which the neighbors are opposed to. Mr. Johnson stated that he received a letter from the City advising him that he was in violation of the Code and the corrective action required was to “remove or relocate vehicle to approved location”. He noted that the letter did not indicate that screening was also an option. Mr. Johnson felt that residents should be “grand fathered” with regard to the definition for screening which was provided by the Planning staff on December 21, 2005.
Mr. Barry Larkin, 2472 Chance Road, Clayton, State Director of the Delaware Good Sam Club, advised members that the Good Sam Club is a nationwide camping organization with approximately one (1) million member families. He stated that he locally represents 2,300 member families in the state, with approximately 400 member families in the Dover area. Mr. Larkin noted that he has checked the Codes for other towns and was unable to find any requirements for screening; however, most Codes deal with parking in side yards and the prohibition of RV’s occupied as residences. He stated that, last fall, New Castle County voted to put a stay on any citations issued until they could review and possibly arrive at reasonable solutions to deal with this, and other issues. Mr. Larkin did not feel it was reasonable or fair to require residents to screen their RV’s from view, allowing only 30 days to comply with a 20-year old ordinance that has not been enforced. He noted that inconsistency with current Codes that have too many areas that need to be interpreted several different ways by Code Enforcement Officers leaves owners confused about what they are to do.
Mr. Tony Hummel, 476 Fiddlers Green, stated that he was forced to move his camper to a storage facility. He stated that, if they are precluded from parking their travel trailers, boats, and RV’s on their property, then they should have reasonable access to parking on City streets for loading, unloading, and maintenance of the vehicles.
Mr. Hummel advised members that the Code requirements on this issue are conflicting, confusing, and inadequate. He noted that Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing, and Parking, Division I - Generally, Section 106-123 - Vehicle parking time limited where carrying capacity is in excess of one ton, and trailer and motor home parking, Subsection (a) of the Dover Code states “It shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle with a carrying capacity of more than one ton, any trailer, which includes, but is not limited to, boat, utility, construction or one that is used to carry goods regardless of weight capacity and is designed to be towed or pulled by another vehicle, or any vehicle or trailer on the city streets for a period longer than two consecutive hours”. Subsection (b) states “It shall be unlawful for any person to park any commercial vehicle with a carrying capacity of more than one ton, any trailer, which includes, but is not limited to, utility, construction or one that is used to carry goods regardless of weight capacity and is designed to be towed or pulled by another vehicle, or any vehicle or trailer combination thereof, or any travel trailer in any residential zone in the city except for temporary parking for immediate deliveries, pickups, and/or service calls to residences or for construction work on residential properties. A commercial vehicle shall be one which is used or maintained for the transportation of persons or property for hire, compensation or profit, except taxicabs”. Subsection (c) states that “It shall be unlawful for any person to park a trailered boat under 25 feet on the streets of Dover for a period longer than 12 consecutive hours. For any trailered boat 25 or greater, refer to subsection (a)”. Subsection (d) states that “It shall be unlawful for any motor home to park on any residential street for a period longer than 12 consecutive hours without a permit. A resident owner of a motor home may request a parking permit from the city to park on a residential street in the vicinity of their residence for a period not to exceed 72 hours. The permit would be made available at no cost to the resident. The parking permit shall be displayed in the front window of the vehicle visible from the street. A resident may only request such a permit three times in any 12-month period”.
Mr. Hummel felt that the screening requirement has been changed to a standard that cannot be met. He noted that prior to purchasing his travel trailer, he was told that it needed to be behind the setback and screened with a six (6) foot fence. Mr. Hummel stated that it was disturbing that the homeowner’s association and Council district representatives appear to be unwilling to reach a compromise with the RV and boat owners. He also felt that the City is enforcing this regulation in his neighborhood because one of their residents is a member of Council.
State Representative Bruce Ennis stated that he represents residents on the east side of Dover and he has been contacted by several RV, boat, and travel trailer owners in the Dover area regarding the City of Dover ordinance. Representative Ennis indicated that a number of residents were advised in the past that if they provided a paved surface for their recreational vehicles, they would be in compliance with the ordinance. As a result of recent enforcement, locating storage space has become very difficult and is a costly addition at a time of rising fuel, energy, and cooling costs. He stated that most of the vehicles are not unsightly; they are well kept and maintained by their owners. Representative Ennis stated that he trusted the Committee to draft a reasonable ordinance that considers the investment these residents, who represent a large section of the local economy, have made in their recreational vehicles.
Mr. Jim Stahley, 409 Alder Road, advised members that on December 21, 2005, Grant Prichard, Chief Building Inspector for the City of Dover, wrote a Standard Operating Procedure which defined, in his words, the details of how the vehicles in Article 6, Section 1.12 should be screened. To the definition of screening, the words “shielded from view to their full height” were added and to the definition of adjacent, the words “right-of-way” were added. Mr. Stahley stated that the additional language does not appear anywhere Article 6, Section 1.12, as it is currently written. He felt the terminology was fabricated to make screening of the units impossible, which forced them to remove their units from their property. Mr. Stahley stated that installing fences or gates for screening purposes is not an option for some of them due to the height restrictions on fencing that are very well defined in the Dover Code and the extended height of the boats, RV’s, or trailers. By planting shrubbery and trees up to 12 feet high and visually shielding the boats, RV’s or trailers to their full height, they would satisfy the screening requirement; however, in years to come, a problem of foliage encroachment will become an issue. Mr. Stahley cited Article 3, Section 24-63, which states that “landscaping shall be undertaken to enhance the appearance of the development.” He felt that having both an RV and vegetation 12 feet high at planting would eventually turn into an overgrown eyesore. Mr. Stahley made reference to several other sections of the Code that give clear, reasonable standards to screening with height restrictions. He felt that imposing a $1,000 a day fine for a violation that does not exist in a published ordinance of the City, nor has been properly legislated, is gross misconduct.
Mr. Doug Miller, 313 Post Boulevard, advised members of the issues associated with parking RV’s at storage facilities or other locations. He noted that the cost of insurance increases if the RV is stored outside of the residents calling area, the facilities are not very secure and there have been a number of thefts, it is difficult to keep the battery charged and the RV is not conveniently available. Mr. Miller advised members that he contacted 22 local storage facilities and only 10 had outside storage. Of those 10, six (6) were completely full, leaving only four (4) facilities in the Dover area with storage available. Of those four (4) facilities, three (3) had a total of 10 spaces, with possible future expansion resulting in another five (5) spaces. The fourth storage facility had approximately 50 open spaces in a muddy field.
Mr. Rick Horsey, 148 Hickory Dale Drive, stated that he has an RV business which has provided RV’s for the track officials at Dover Downs, an office trailer for President Clinton when he visited Dover Air Force Base, a motorhome for President Bush and Vice President Cheney during their inauguration, and four (4) RV’s for the victims of hurricane Katrina. Mr. Horsey noted that 1 in 12 vehicle owning households now owns an RV, or 8 million households in the U.S. As ownership costs increase, fewer households will be able to afford RV’s, resulting in lost jobs in the dealerships, reduced contributions to schools, churches, and businesses from the dealerships, reduced revenue from RV registration, reduced payroll taxes and gross receipts.
Mr. Fred Tolbert, President of the homeowners committee at Persimmon Park Place, stated that they have serious problems with boat and motorhome parking because the lots are very small and the streets are very narrow. He requested that lot and street size be considered and that any allowances made will not adversely impact developments.
Mr. Baxter Weber stated that they have a good system in the Towne Point/Whiteoak area because of enforcement. He suggested that all interested parties meet to amend the ordinance so that everyone can understand it.
Mrs. Fran Hettinger, 63 Sackarackin Avenue, stated that they own an RV and the motorhome is parked 67 feet from the edge of their driveway. She noted that they recently purchased $1,000 worth of stone for parking their RV. Mrs. Hettinger felt that, as taxpayers, if their property can accommodate a motorhome, they should be permitted to. She noted that people pay between $30,000 and $200,000 for their RV’s and she wants hers parked where she can watch it.
Mr. Simon Lowe, 140 Blue Beach Drive, felt that the requirements should be clear and concise and that all the laws should be enforced without singling out one specific ordinance.
Mr. William Miller, 373 Nimitz Road, stated that he bought a boat in 2000 and initially he stored it off-site. He said even though the facility was completely fenced and had adequate lighting, his $10,000 boat engine was stolen from the facility.
Mr. Bernie Greenfield, 901 Wilson Drive, stated that he has lived in Dover since 1963 and moved to Woodcrest in 1968. He advised members that he had a 20-foot boat on a trailer and he built a pad to park it on. Mr. Greenfield noted that none of his neighbors ever complained about his boat.
Mr. John Fabryka, 311 Bradley Road, stated that he has lived in Dover for 42 years. He advised members that he keeps his yard and flower garden in good condition and he has his boat parked in the back of his yard. Mr. Fabryka stated that his boat is helping to conceal his neighbor’s pile of debris. It was his feeling that the law should be written to address residents that do not properly maintain their property, not those who do take care of their homes and property.
Mr. Paul McNamire, 429 Fiddlers Green, stated that he has been a resident of Dover for 56 years and is a boat owner. He advised members that camping and boating are a means of spending one on one time with children without competing with televisions and computers.
Ms. Joanne Dorman, 906 McDowell Drive, stated that she likes to have her RV nearby so that she can keep an eye on it, keep the battery charged, and start the engine periodically.
Mr. Don Evans, 366 Mimosa Avenue, stated that when he purchased his house in 1972, he was not told of any restrictions. He noted that a house was recently sold in his neighborhood and the realtor did not explain the restrictions on RV’s and boats to the prospective buyers.
Chairman Hogan declared the Public Hearing closed.
Chairman Hogan stated that it was apparent that a difficult situation has developed and proposed that a committee be formed, consisting of Council members, City Staff, and six (6) interested citizens, to review the ordinance and make recommendations for amendments that most residents can agree upon. Chairman Hogan requested interested volunteers to contact the City Clerk’s Office.
Mr. Slavin noted that the apparent issues for consideration are length, height, width, and gross weight of the vehicle, the difference between “screening” and “shielded from view”, whether the vehicle is properly registered, whether the vehicle should be parked on a paved or gravel surface, the use of variances, conditional use, or deed restrictions, how the setback line is defined, grand fathering existing properties, defining the right-of-way line and property lines, and consideration of the lot size.
Mr. Carey moved to recommend the creation of an ad-hoc committee to gather information and define an ordinance that will work for everyone. The motion was seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously carried.
Mr. Carey moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:58 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth L. Hogan
Chairman
KLH/tm
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20064-25-2006 SA&T.wpd