Sagaponack Board Considers Regulations on Deer Fencing
Members of the farming community were invited to a Sagaponack Village Board meeting on Monday to express their opinions on a proposed series of code changes to regulate deer fencing. While considering applications for eight-foot-high deer fences, Mayor Donald Louchheim said the board wanted farmers’ help in addressing an inherent conflict between two tenets of Sagaponack’s comprehensive plan, namely the preservation and support of working farms versus the protection of scenic vistas. “We have to update our code,” the mayor said after the meeting.
The code permits deer fencing on agricultural properties but not residential ones. Farmers say such fences are vital given a significant increase in the deer population. “If you’re a vegetable farmer, you have to have a fence,” said Peter Dankowski, a farmer who attended the session. “With what it costs to get involved in farming, you can’t take losses.”
The mayor said that fencing can lead to friction between farmers and their neighbors, who often think “this is going to negatively impact their views, devalue their properties, and make it look like the village is a series of internment camps.”
The issue came to a head at a board meeting on July 9, at which two property owners, one who lives on Parsonage Lane, the other on Bridge Lane, sought permission to build fences. Parsonage Lane neighbors vociferously opposed the fence and questioned whether the property owners could legitimately claim to be farmers. The matter was adjourned without resolution.
Mayor Louchheim said that one of the board’s reasons for calling Monday’s meeting was to receive guidance on how to effectively distinguish between a farmer and a homeowner who decides to grow fruits and vegetables in a backyard. A sheet of discussion points handed out at the meeting included a question: “What criteria should be used to qualify as a bona fide commercial farm operation?”
Alternatives to standard wire deer fencing was also explored. “The consensus seems to be there isn’t one,” Mr. Louchheim said, and added that, after having driven around the village and elsewhere to look at farm fences, he decided that “they change the view, but they don’t block the view. You still get a sense of open space around them, and they may just be a necessary evil.”
The conversation at the meeting eventually veered to the possibility of culling the deer population. Dean Foster, of a longtime farming family, said, “You’ve got too many deer living on top of each other and invariably what that promotes is disease. The only way to deal with this is to cull the herd and to do it properly and safely.” The mayor said that all the farmers present approved culling.
The next step, the mayor said, is for the village to “cogitate on what was said, and I think we’re going to propose code changes.” In addition to clarifying who classifies as a farmer, he said he expects a “sunset clause” will be crafted to ensure that farms that become inactive remove their enclosures. He also wants the code to make it blatantly clear that deer fencing is not permitted on the residential areas of working farms.