HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay9th appendix A (2).pdf VCH, 2 MIN, May 9, 2011, Elizabeth Mount
Briefly,
What a glorious day! Is there anyone here who hasn't enjoyed these
marvelous spring blooms?
Then you must also know that of all the blooms you have seen, only the
daffodils can be reliably grown in any of these Northeast States without
some kind of protection or barrier.
And if you want to walk, drive, cycle, or in any other way, pass by and
enjoy these blooms your self, then part of that barrier has to be in the
gardener's front yard where you can see it.
And if that gardener has a small, corner, or oddly shaped lot -
something this Village excels in - then that front yard barrier has to be
on the front property line.
Finally, if the barrier can't be in the front, then the garden will be a
private, back yard garden for the benefit of the gardener alone.
Thank you
Fence ordinance-Yahoo! Mail http://us.mc1133.mail-vahoO.com/mc/showMcssage?sNEd--O&fi...
yAHoo!® MAIL
Classic
Fence Ordinance Monday, May 9, 2011 3:58 PM
From: "Ron Bom" <ronb0m@yahoo.com>
To: "Ron Bors" <ronbors@yahoo.com>
To the Mayor and Board of Trustees-
The issue of deer fences has been difficult for you.You have been attempting to find a balance between
individual property rights, and the rights of the Village as a whole.
It is rare for you to be able to discern the will of the people that elected you to represent us. However, in
the present issue of the fence ordinance, the people have clearly stated the will of the majority. Three
hundred fifty two Villagers have signed their names in a petition to you, to leave the fence ordinance as is.
Their desire is clear. Will you represent the majority tonight?
Ronald Bors
5/9111 3:59 PM
loft
May 9, 2011
Cayuga Heights Trustees meeting
Privilege of the Floor
First, I would like to congratulate you for the new stop signs that have been erected at the Northway
Rd/Parkway Junction at the back entrance to Cayuga Heights Elementary School. This is a great
improvement to safety and will go a long way towards mitigating the negative impact of all the vehicle
traffic,Cars as well as busses, around 8 AM in the morning during school days.
Second, I have already sent you comments on the enforcability of the proposed new fencing ordinance.
These concern the lack of any definition of temporary fencing,the need for permits for ALL fences
regardless of height or location, and finally the color of fencing materials that must be used. Despite
these negatives I hope you will vote for 8ft high rear and side yard fences as outline in the ordinance. I
also hope you will add 8ft high deer fencing on front property lines to the list of approved fences.
We are all concerned about the look of the Village and anyone who has had a shrub,or tree, or deer
resistant plant become a tasty treat for even just one deer,will understand why we urge you to let us
put up good looking 8ft high deer fencing on our property lines.
: I( ( b
`III Q'
To the Trustees
S
Proposed Fencing Ordindance \'•�
I am making these comments in the interest of moving forward successfully to achieve a
revised fencing ordinance that provides Village property owners with the means to
protect their property, children, pets and privacy with fences, without infringing the rights
of villagers who wish to maintain an open, attractive and parklike Village.
My understanding is that Trustees now agree that property owners should have to right
to erect fences up to 8ft in height to protect their property from deer, but do not support
these fences on front property lines. They do however wish gardeners to be able to
protect their front yard plants. I believe the intention of the new ordinance is to allow
this. Assuming none of the Trustees change their views on front yard fences, it is likely
this draft ordinance will be adopted. However, to make it enforceable I believe a
number of changes need to be made first.
Please understand that these comments refer to the way the ordinance is written, not
whether or not front yard fences should be legal. I will address this point separately.
1. The ordinance is very clear on the definition of a fence which includes exclosures
but does not make any mention of temporary fencing.
2. It requires ALL fences to have a permit regardless of where they are, whether or
not they are over 4 ft in height, and whether they are exclusures or fences round
the property. Do you seriously believe that our Zoning Officer is going to have
the time to review the property of every home own who puts up fencing of any
height anywhere on their property?
It appears that no-one has thought this through. To comply with this ordinance I
must get a permit if I plant a tree and put protective fencing round it even if this
tree is in the middle of my back yard well away from the property line and the
fence is only 4 feet. I will also have to apply for a permit if I fence off a small area
of my back yard to plant vegetables and to keep my dog of the plot. This will not
be a good use of Brent Cross's time and property owners are unlikely to apply for
permits for this sort of fencing.
Remember ALL fencing is included in this requirement particularly as there is NO
definition of a temporary fence nor whether temporary fencing is included or
excluded from the terms of the ordinance.
3. 1 strongly recommend that permits are only required for fences over 4ft in height,
and permits for exclosures are only required for those on front yards that are
between the property line and the 25 ft set back line.
4. You are concerned about the look of fences and require that fencing materials for
the part of fences over 4ft in height that are outside the set back zone, must be
90% ope all be of the same color. This will be very difficult to achieve. Most
material that is 90% open is black plastic and most posts required to support this
are either brown (wood) or green.
I recommend you change the ordinance to stipulate the colors that may not be
used.
5. By only including requirements for fences that are extended to 8 ft and leaving
out requirements for newly constructed fences you exclude the possibility of
putting up very good looking fences. Do you seriously want to exclude the
construction of fences such as the one on Trustee Zekerly's property that
recently received a variance? This does not comply with the new ordinance and
I can't believe that is your intention.
I recommend you as a landscape designer such as David Fernandez of Cayuga
Landscape to give you examples of good looking, open fencing the description of
which could be included in the ordinance.
I believe, that without these suggested changes, you will introduce a new ordinance, the
purpose for which hundreds of villagers fully support, that is unenforceable.
Front Yard Fencing — Comments unrelated to enforceability of proposed
ordinance
The following comments are not related to the proposed new ordinance, but are my
personal preferences regarding front yard fencing.
I would like it to be possible to have deer fencing on front property lines provided that
this fencing is made of neutral color material and any part of it over 4ft in height is 90%
open.
We are already allowed to have high hedges that totally obscure the view on front
property lines. We are already allowed to have 4ft high fences on front property lines.
Exclosures dotted all over front yards looks awful (my own front yard, all of which is
legal) looks awful and would look much better with a fence either on or closer to the
property line even if that fence extended to 8ft in height.
Villagers who are opposed to 8ft high deer fencing on property lines forget that we can
already have 8ft high fencing within the property set back lines. Deer are already
denied access to some yards. There will be no increase in the foraging of deer, deer
running across roads, or deer car accidents just because a few property owners put up
fencing on their property lines.
There are few if any open park like vistas left in the Village. Most of the Villagers who
want to put up deer fencing have small yards and want to grow gardens and do not
have open park-like yards to be hidden.
Please reconsider allowing us to protect our front yards in an attractive way as well as
our rear and side yards.
r:
rCO
= %
J
1
r J }
5 >
O W
Q
� Z
a p.:
-I l�na {�v, o. by,Ct
Y. `� OVS ' July 21, 1997 r
Dear friends,
Because of the ever-increasing number of deer in the Village of Cayuga
Heights, we are contemplating erecting a barrier around our back yard to keep
them from decimating our shrubs, potted plants and perennial border. Our
plan is to construct this barrier with the same materials we have used in the
past to enclose individual beds, namely black plastic netting strung between
metal poles. We have found the netting to be almost invisible, and the poles
to be strong and equally inoffensive. Most of the barrier will be within the
natural brush that already exists along the edges of our property. It will be
about 6' high, and while technically the deer could leap over it or even crash
through, it has not happened yet.
We trust that this will not inconvenience you in any way, and that, in fact,
it will restrict the deer traffic through all of our yards. We would appreciate
your signing this to indicate that you know about our plans and do not object.
Many thanks.
Sincerely, Tim and Elizabeth Mount, 303 E. Upland Road, Ithaca, NY 14850
%JLAqw1
Leonard Elkins Was SC'PV('eJ '4
305 E. Upland Road nor wN 60sc�(
K�—
_7�
Sue Sc eapfer
106 Sheldon Road
Mary illigan
819 Triphammer Road
Holly/Phil Tavelli
817 TriphaptTer Road