HomeMy WebLinkAboutRobert Andolena- Fencing.PDF(),,,, "*
l{S,lt. ' :i '
I li'a 'I " 1'''
I had a conversation with David Fernandez, owner of cayuga Landscaping, regarding exclosure fencing. Iwanted to hear fronr him whether there were accepted practices that would help guide us in defining
and regulating the use of excrosures meant to protect randscape prantings.
The conversation yierlded the following:
r seasonal fenrcing actually follows a well defined timeframe. David defines November Lrt - MayL't as the tinleframe during which seasonal landscape fencing is installed and taken down. whilethere might be a slight difference in timing as to when deer actually do damage to plantings,from a practical standpoint this represents the times of year that landscaping companiesschedule work to begin so that it may be completed in time to protect the intended plantings.
The "spring" season begins a little earlierthan May 1't, but deerwillcontinue to eat plantings
until the gras;s comes in sufficiently for them to target it as a food source. Likewise, in the falldeer might not actually begin damaging plantings until the middle of November, but work toinstall the fencing commences a couple weeks earlier in order to ensure the work is completedbefore damage begins to occur.
o For our purposes, l'd recommend we consider seasonal exclosure fencing to be defined
as that which is installed and taken down every year and that the definition of the"season" is 1t/1to 5/1,. I would also recommend we consider relief from the 7s%
coverage limitation discussed later in this document with the clear understanding thatseasonal exclosure fencing is not to be erected prior to November l"'t and will be takendown no later than May 1't.
' Defining exclosure fencing in terms bf distance from the furthest protrusion makes sense toDavid and, in general, follows practibe. ln simple geographic exclosure forms such as circles,squares and rr:ctangles, 1.8" from thb furthest-most plant protrusion sounded reasonable andwould be the general target David's crew would use in installing exclosure fencing. Forexclosures which protect multiple pl!ntings and whose form is not a simple geographic form,cases might arise where it is more edonomicalto follow a straight-line between connectionpoints rather than to follow the conlour of the planting outline. This can create sections of thefencing that would exceed 18" in dislance from the planting, but these would only be forrelatively short distances.
o Based on this conversation, I would recommend we consider limiting exclosure fencingto extend 18" on average and no greater than 3'at any point from the furthestprotrusion' This definition would allow single exclusion fencing to protect multipleplantirrgs as long as the plantings are within 3'of each other. In terms of enforcement,we could prescribe measurements be taken at L2,3, 6and 9 o'clock positions on simplegeometric forms and every 2 0r 3 rinear feet on non-simpre forms.r As we are well aware, the DEC recommends 8' fencing to protect against deer damage. whileDavid often uses more readily available and significantly less expensive 7, fencing to protectplantings' he agrees that 8'should be the allowable exclosure height standard for ordinancepurposes.
David sees many situations where owners would happily install exclosure fencing along theentire perinteter of their property line plantings. lf the ordinance is not worded carefully, thereare surely those who would plant additional landscaping to complete a property line border inorder to use exclosure fencing to essentially create permanent zero setback property linefencing' Therefore we must consider language that will limit the use of exclosure fencing inorder to avoid this outcome.
o I would recommend we limit exclosure fencing within property line setbacks to cover nomorr: than say,75%o of the linear property line frontage. This would be relatively easy toenforce as we know the property line frontage distances for each property and couldsimply sum the measures of the front-facing linear coverage of exclosure fencing withinthe setback.
David was a little surprised that our earlier fencing ordinance proposals had not consideredlanguage that would control for the use of parallel fencing. He believes there are propertyowners who are currently considering the use of parallel 4' fences within the setback to controldeer access trc their properties. Installing two or three 4' fences, beginning at the property lineand spaced at 2' intervals parallelto each other, would be effective in keeping deer out of one,sproperty (it irnpedes their landing zones when the look to leap over the 4, fences). we wouldwant to consider language that controls for this outcome.o I would recommend we alter the ordinance language to specify only one 4, fence to beallowc.d within the setback.