Community Must Remove Dividing Fence

Barrier Against Less-Affluent Area Is a Planning Violation, Judge Says

The six-foot-high metal fence that a Montgomery Village community erected as a barrier to a less-affluent neighboring development is a violation of county planning rules and must be torn down, a judge said this week.

At a hearing Tuesday, Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge David A. Boynton upheld a ruling by the county's Planning Board that determined that East Village Homes Corp. did not obtain proper permission to build the 1,600-foot fence along its boundary with the Picton neighborhood, which is also in Montgomery Village. Boynton did not set a date for the removal of the fence, and a lawyer for East Village said he expects his clients to fight the order.

"I'm really looking forward to the communities' healing," said Cheryl Watson, an 18-year Picton resident who organized a neighborhood challenge to the fence. "I think an appeal would get in the way of that, but I'm for healing, whether they appeal or not."

East Village built the barrier in August last year, after complaints surfaced about vandalism, loitering and littering by young people from Picton, a neighborhood that has low-income housing and is governed by a different village homeowners association.

Picton residents said they received almost no advance notice about the implementation of the barrier, which cuts across some pedestrian routes to bus stops and the neighborhood recreation center. Many said that walkability was one of the founding principles of Montgomery Village, a planned community.

After a complaint from Picton, the Planning Board ruled unanimously in January that East Village should have sought an amendment to the neighborhood's formal site plan before building the $70,000 fence. East Village appealed the board's order to remove the structure, saying that dozens of fences in Montgomery Village could be considered illegal under the board's reasoning.

"They have allowed many other fences to be built without amendments to the site plans," said Stephen J. Orens, an attorney for East Village. "I'm disappointed that the court did not agree. We are going to file an appeal."