Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResident Letters to the Village- Deer fencing.PDFTo: Mayor Supron and Village TrUstees As former mayor of the Village, I am pleased to have this opportunity to remind the mayor and the trustees that politically inspired initiatives rarely have desired outcomes. The Community Party which Mayor Jim Gilmore and three trustees structured theIr successful cam n primarily on their view of the need to Village. (l remind you that the Mayor obligations to the voters in favor "ridding tlhe deer", but ran for the hflls given the vigorous and vocal oppositi to the program they envisioned. llage has become seriously divided about percentage of the poPulation are supportive of a deer culling Preventing villager property from thd right to adequately protect their private property by excluding d has nothing to do with any deer reduction program and should not be a ive issue= but as we all know, the outcome of any such program is The Board should NOT also turn proper issuefencing into a politically/di irr the Village are not ugly and much to erilhance the beauty of the village by enabling gardeners to grow, Pr and maintain and for all Villagers to enjoy thre vistas frorn "outside the f l\s you all know the Village pe is now fully mature and those who seek the village are thwarted by fully mature and green matter that have overtaken the Village, fristorically grand views through flourishing trees, bushes, and inrdependent of fencing. The law will not accomplish that. It's in everyone's interest (owners, gardeners, village residents) to put a erect legal and reasonable fencing. Thelaw in place that allows villagers c;urrent proposal does neither so I urge them not to pass the proposed local law. Instead, our elected body owners to protect their proPertY come up with a law that permits property that allows everyone to enjoy the gardens. The proposed temporary won't do it. Walter R. Lynn 102 lroquois Place eliminate the deer problem from succeeded in that campaign by and two of the trustees on that What is important is that the the deer issue, regardless of Flere we have an issue which is just don't like the idea of fencing 1 vote majority.) The fact that Mayor Gilmore lot decided not to continue to fulfill their med primarily on the grounds that "some folks By and large the character of fences erected Tnre temporary fencing law, proposed by the Board and meall"s to deny our right to are going to be shooting d law requires everyone withi agreement arnd we need mul f,ew, rf any, sites where th owner who objects. I have worked in mv vard fl resistant plants, another fall trees and dozens of bushes warming, puriSr the air, and insects, birds and small ani save heating and air conditi beauty for us, our neighbors Even if none of that were th fence our property. And in that right was recognized enforcement upon which w became involved in a fencin iss;ue with another neighbor. Brent had to resolve the ma eliminate front and side enforcernent without a singl I would like to thank Fred the proposed law is discrim Gutenberger, who made it cl Trustees that it would be ille conducting a complete surv determine each and every v begun, woul<l be applied lly to all under the law. ike the {eer remediation plan a 500 foot radius of a kill site to be in ple, changing sites. There will be will not be at least one property eighteer,l years, planting deer ayor, is being pursued only as a rce our properties. The idea that we in the Village is a fallacy. N.Y. state . We have planted more than sixty plantsf which counter global.rLr yrcruLDi wrrlvu vLrLtrlLgl tsruuar provide { safe environment for als. They provide shade and thereby ning resdurces and they provide and those who frequent the area. case, we should still have the rieht to for the last 15 of those 1B years, protected by a policy of non- relied. The only time that Brent Cross issue was,when one neighbor had an If they could not work things out, . Now, the policy will be to fencing and to have Brent start complaint. wett for providing the evidence that atory on its face, and Kristen ar to the Mayor and Board of to begin enforcement before of all Village properties to lation so that enforcement. once I called the people on the Villlage's lisf of potential fencing violators, ffid learned that the list is afso seriously flawed, but 2^-^^-*^-^a1-- T 1^^--- ^ -l L1- ^t 11- ^ -- ^ ^,^1 ^ ---lr1- ---1- -,-- T -,- -1-more importantly, I learned fhat the people with whom I spoke were in agreement that a teri,rporary l{rv was unacceptable and any [aw that limited our freedonl of choicb, our right to privacy, and our right to protect our kids !r dogs or gardens was wrong and unacceptable. They had no notice of phis change in policy and procedure, no notice that thdy were oh a list, and no notice of the much time has been wasted pn tellin! other people how to use their property. The key issues are the effec nife in this vr{llage, the utter this action will have on the quality of of representation for the equally important needs of all of th residents, the bias of a very few, the elimination of basic legal ri and the irrational approach ts, the destruction of our gardens, f this temporary law, which only serves to allow the Mayor d Board to put off, yet again, the creation of a permanent,ible fencing ordinance. Finally, as the ZonrngB is the last resort for those of us who wish to protect our children pets, and gardens, I request the immediate appointment of Zontns Board vacancies to ly Grubb to filI one of the two ing some small balance to that short- handed and fiercelv anti-fen ing group. were in agreement that a terC,rporary l{rv was unacceptable and ar law that limited our freedonl of choicb, our right to privacy, and our right to protect our kids !r dogs or gardens was wrong and unacceptable. They had no notice of phis change in policy and procedure, no notice that thdy were oh a list, and no notice of the pending impact upon their li]ves and t{rey feel vulnerable to the whims of their own Village Board. Tkrose who could not attend asked thdt I speak on their behalf. Additionally,I have a letter [to- Erilt Beukenkamp to enter into the public record of this meqting. No one understands why so Village deer fence law - Yahoo! Mail T?trroof"r*gg Vitlage deer fence law From: "'Ron Bors" <ronbors{lyahoo.com> To: "Ron Bors" <ronbors@yahoo.corn> My narne is,Ronald Bors. I have lived at 121 Village as a Trustee. Last year, there was a wonderful btock pariy fine event later this year. The purpose of best for the entire community. Thig law that you are conternplating tonight i that their individualproperty rights should take lf you allow me to erest a deerfence to roam through my yard will now be neighbo/s nightmare, because lhave doubled fornrer problem. lf he erects a similar fence in self defence, he and I have tripled the problem for third neighbor. In time, this will destroy community spirit. The people who drafted this law had good However, the consequences of this law will be worse than the initial problem. \Ah do not fence problern, we have a deer problem. lwill continue ts be patient while you solve the deer problem. You mernbers of this Board, who serve community above your individual rights. pay, ran for office because you placed the wellfare of the Pleasd do so for the rest of us, by voting no to this law. htttp:l/us.mc 1 133.mail. yahoo.comlmc/shcwMessage?sMid=O&fi ... $4onday, Augtust 9, 2010 5:37 PM Lane inlthe Mllage for 35 years, and I have served this at Commlnity Cor:ners, and the plan is to repeat that is to ffster community spirit, thereby doing what is to gatFfy the strident minority of villagers who feel over the wellbeing of the community as a whole. rd my entire iback and side yards, the deer that used to in my neighbo/s yard, My solution has become my lofl 8/9/10 5:44PM notification from the Village regarding this regent set of cqnsiderations, it certainly appears that someone may have already decided that marfV or all fencei need to go. Additionally, there is news of $tOO per day fines and Village crews removilg fences on nty dime. ls there no time line, no grace period or no manner of appeal? As of this f oment, none of this seems to have been outlined. As a homeowner in the Village, the position tfre Mayor and that of the Board of Trustees is unusually biased iin favor of their collective will and attqmpts to ignofe input from the villagers who are to be governed by these proposed new rules. lf r4re look at other existing rules, do we learn anything about ourselves as a Village? Dogs are not permitted to run in packs freely throughout the Village; there is a rule or an Ordinance for this, yet we allow of large hpofed animals to roam unchecked throughout our area. Based on ttre evidence of deer, ujould I be allowed to introduce free-range cattle or sheep? How do we reconcile disparities? Perhaps we should introduce limits on what kinds of plantings we rnay have in our or stricter controls on where our children may play, or establish a community fund to help pay for dfer-car collisiOn costs. All these are possible but not Erik J. Eleukenkamp IL7 E. tlemington Rd. k):.V+---*L fl, 'a-a ( O I have asked Linda Bors, my I am a 90 year old widow, livin$ on the modest street of Texas Lane for the past 55 years. I have watched tlie deer herd go from nothing, in 1955 , to unmanageable in 2010. And theq'keep incfpasing exponer$ially every ylff, to the point thrlt they want to eat anything reachable including my trees. I don't have the means to fence my property . What will happen when a more generous foncing law is enacted? Fenced out of other yards the deer and their proge4y will only make the problems of those without fencing even worsb. Destruction of property and deer ticks will increase. Please continue working on the sensibne strategy of culling, NOT fencing. Sinceerely , - Charlene Miller 205 Texas Lane ,! ,t t'J tz17Z*',€o.^. ,? / ft_[{,r { Since I am unable to attend the meeting, neiglrbor, to read this statement by me. Hello, I am a village resident for 34 5{ears and I have never seen such discontent in the village. Ttre most important issue we might rdsolve tonig$t - is to allow us all to live together peacefully as neighbors and friends. The deer isdue has indeed been divisive. I can think of no better way to bring {s together than to allow people who choose to have fences to do so. Fences accomplish 4 number of things: (1) allow us to keep children and pets safely with in our own yards, (2) allow up to keep out deer and dogs who might have slipped their leashes, (3) allow ris privacy, ({) allow those who wish to do so - to garden and (5) to keep us as friends aird neighborE in a wonderful neighborhood. I strongly support fencing both temp{wy andperlmanent - but prefer permanent as a solution to the deer issue - so that wd may move forward with imponant issues in the vitrlage. These issues are safety of children and the elderly by building sidewalks and cross walks in nLore neighborhoods, {ocus on speqding again for safety of residents, and on other importeLnt matter of governqlent. I would like my elected officials to work on matters of govemment and not be tie{ with the endless and divisive argument concerning deer. The real heroes and heroines on the bbard of trustee will surelv helo us to heal as a community. I implore you board of trustees to wofk diligently to bring us together as a community for the sake of all of us. Sincerely Mary Tabacchi 705 The Parkway Clrr, -Fencing Ordinance. Comments from Satty Grubb, 104 Midway Road. YJW@^LM o I would like to applaud the Trustees for taKing this first step to address the problems we have with the curlent fencing ordinance. The proposed changes will go a long way to address tlie needs of many Village Residents. lt is unfodunate that the changes are only TEMPORARY. I believe time will show that . Unfortunately the changes do rlot go far enough. There are many issues that have not been addressed and will continue to provide problems to our Zoning Office Brent Cross, and to VillagerB who wish to erect compliant fencing. First there is still no definition of a fence. lt is fine for Brent Cross to have one in his head but that does not helpj a Villager seeking information from the website. The proposed changes do not help. will the temporary fencing I have round my trees in my front yard be in nce or not. lt is well within 25ft of the front property line, but I am not on owners. 's list of possible non-compliant property How willVillagers know their nt fencd is not in compliance? lf it is in compliance with the tem ordinance willt a permit be required? There are many properries not identified the FOlLed list provided by Brent that could be these changes should yard setback. considered to have out of propedies? After the photos were taken la fences wer€) and several new Randy Marcus, the Village I and not to some properties. H and that deer fences are no lo permanenf. You should also reconsider the front liant fences. What will happen to those summer and the moratorium imposed many erected. How will these be identified? has said the law must be applied to everyone will this be handled? that deer remediation has been successful necessary? Who will decide which fences re out of compliance and which are alright. Will permits be required for all fe already erected and how much will the village charge for tlhese? lf the ord ce continues to be vague how will the ZBA be expected to handle appeals? What happerns to the 30% of llage properties whose front yards are two small to accommodate the 25 ft set for a front fence? 30% is a very high number to be ignored by the democr What criteria will be used to process through the rule of the majority. When will the Trustees/Planni Committee work on a permanent update to the fencing ordinance so that Vil may erect attractive effective fences which they know will not have to down. Will the Trustees appointng an ad-hoc fencing committee with a mem p which includes at least one Villager in favor of fenr:es to make ndations on fully updated fencing ordinance? From: Sent: To: Subject: jack@youngbros.com Mcrnday, August 02,2010 4:47 AM Norma Manning Proposed Fence Law comments yards are different, however - deer encountering a fe predictable consequences. So I do agree with the Pla Deer fences along side and rea:r lot lines will clearly deer into 4eighboring properties, but we have to hope that nobody will build a fence against the strong wishes of ir neighbo[s, even where they have the legal right to do so. Front there will IJe pushed back onto public sidewalks and roads, with fences need to be retained, both to preserve the open ing Board's determination that full front yard set-backs for deer el of the Villhge, but also for health and safety reasons. I wish to go on record as being supportive of the I the Trustees have received from the Planning Board despite my long-standing reservations about the impact of deer Village, as well as learning to live with some reasona found and accepted on all sides. I think that current Thanks very much for taking my thoughts into co JackYoung cing on our neighborhood. We have to live with each other in this deer popul4tion, and that means that compromises need to be posal meetg that standard by a slim, but acceptable, margin.