Do good fences make good neighbors?
They haven’t for Thirsty Turtle part-owner Alan Wanuck or Hollins Renfrew, who’s constructed a fence in an alley he owns behind Wanuck’s business. The two men are in the midst of an increasingly heated dispute over the fence that has kept Wanuck from opening the former Lupo’s property as a sports bar, music venue and restaurant concept.
A small chicken wire fence was constructed behind The Thirsty Turtle in September so that Renfrew’s tenants on Lehigh Road can get through the alley to Sterling Place, but tenants from The Thirsty Turtle and The Mark cannot. The fence was constructed to keep those two businesses from putting their trash there, Willoner said.
Wanuck said the fence is a fire code violation, and hoped fire marshals would agree and issue a citation when they visited his establishment on Friday. A citation for either party could mean the issue would go before an appeals board, and the fence could be ordered taken down.
“We’re stagnant right now,” Wanuck said in an interview last week. “[The county] needs to enforce their code. They need to cite him or cite us, I don’t care. If they don’t cite someone, we can’t take this to the appeals board and resolve this.”
Wanuck, who also owns Alario’s in North College Park and is a former city councilman, declined to comment on the fire marshal’s decision, so it is unclear what would take place next. But Ronald Willoner, Renfrew’s attorney, said if Wanuck files suit, he will “defend it vigorously.”
Wanuck has said he prefers a county board of appeals hearing, saying he could better present the problems created by the new fence, an act he hopes would force the county to enforce the code. But Willoner said Renfrew is justified in no longer allowing businesses to use the alley, because the city cites Renfrew for trash produced by business owners and their employees.
“Without the fire marshal’s decision, they’re determining our building useless,” Wanuck said. “And I can’t see that. Neither can my landlords, because [the building has] been around for 75 years.”
Court documents show that a legal battle ensued over the right to use the property after Santa Fe Café’s landlord stopped paying rent for the alley. According to documents, Willoner admitted that in the event of a fire, the fence could prove hazardous and “bodies [would] pile up,” but the circuit court decided they couldn’t force Renfrew to allow the restaurant to use his property.
The dispute was settled with the installation of an emergency push bar that would open the gate if needed, but Wanuck said no one has taken action against the new fence. He added that the county likely assumes the situation is similar to the 2003 case regarding use of the alley. The disputes are completely different, Wanuck said, as Santa Fe had three exits, meaning the obstruction of one exit did not prevent them from staying in business.
Willoner said, however, that a court decision should be the same as the 2003 case. Wanuck can put in another exit to the building, Willoner said, but is opting instead to take the “cheap way out.”
“His argument is that he has the right to take your car and use it,” Willoner said. “That’s what he’s asking me to do, is to give him my property.”
Wanuck said he offered payment to use the alley, similar to the former agreement with Santa Fe’s landlord, but Willoner rejected it. Willoner called Wanuck’s offer “inadequate” and a “joke.”
City and county officials could not be reached for comment on this story.
Contact reporters Steven Overly and Mike Silvestri at overlydbk@gmail.com.
