Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Council committee hears clash over Rising Sun fence encroachment; planning staff opposes bill
Loading...
Summary
The Committee on Streets and Services heard opposing testimony on bill 250606, which would legalize an existing fence at 1338–44 Rising Sun Ave. Department of Streets and the City Planning Commission recommended against the bill under code section 11-604; the owner said the fence stopped repeated nuisance activity.
A Philadelphia City Council committee on Tuesday considered bill 250606, a request to legalize an existing fence encroachment at 1338–44 Rising Sun Avenue.
Noelle Marconi, legislative affairs director for the Department of Streets, told the Committee on Streets and Services the department does not support the ordinance because the installed fence would violate section 11-604 of the city code governing encroachments by reducing the usable sidewalk width at that location. "The street width at this location is 50 feet and the sidewalk is 12 feet and would be in violation of the section of this code," Marconi said.
Sarah Chiu, city planner manager with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, said Planning staff recommended that the commission not approve the bill. Chiu told the committee staff found the fence "privatized portion of the site public sidewalk" and noted commissioners asked staff to conduct more outreach to the applicant and to amend the design. She added the commission observed that the fence had already been installed and that there were outstanding concerns about the nature and location of the encroachment.
The restaurant owner, Howard Forman, who operates Caribbean Feast at the address, disputed the characterization that the fence was inappropriate. Forman said the fence "totally stopped" repeated problems he described at the site — including drug paraphernalia, human and animal feces, theft and illegal use of the building's water — and called the fence a "savior to my business." Forman provided photographs to the committee to illustrate the condition before and after installation.
Committee members questioned whether inspectors visited the site and noted the fence has been in place for a long time without formal complaints. One member emphasized that the sidewalk still allowed ADA-compliant passage. Planning staff responded that the fence was broader than a simple dumpster enclosure and that fencing off a large portion of sidewalk is not the appropriate mechanism to address safety concerns; staff recommended alternative outreach with public-safety officers.
The committee did not vote on bill 250606 in isolation; later in the meeting it voted to report bill 250606 (alongside other bills) from committee with a favorable recommendation to the full council for first reading.
The committee's next step is to send its recommendation and, if scheduled by the Council rules, the bills will appear for first reading at the next City Council session.
