Peggy Revell
Town council voted Monday night to uphold the bylaw concerning the height of front yard fences—even those meant to keep out deer that see residents’ yards as a personal buffet table.
“Personally, I’m very sympathetic to the plight of these residents,” Coun. Andrew Hallikas said during the committee of the whole meeting earlier Monday.
“I’m also cognizant of the fact that you have to be careful because you could set a dangerous precedent,” he warned.
The issue originally was brought before council back in April when local residents Marie and Lynwood Anderson requested they be allowed to keep up a deer fence originally constructed earlier this year to keep out the numerous deer that have made their home’s front yard a feeding ground.
The couple had been given permission from the town earlier for the temporary fence, but on May 11 they received a letter from the bylaw office stating there had been a concern raised over it, which is higher than the town’s height limit for front yard fences.
While council originally forwarded the request to the Planning and Development executive committee, it was “somewhat divided on the issue” and unable to come to a recommendation.
As such, it decided the issue should be dealt with by the committee of the whole, Rick Hallam, superintendent of planning and development, explained to council at Monday night’s meeting.
“I think Coun. Hallikas brought up a concern that we always are faced with in these decision and that is precedent-setting issues,” noted Coun. Rick Wiedenhoeft, a sentiment other councillors also expressed.
“I feel that the question is, when does a fence become a fence, and when does it become a shrubbery guard.
“This is a question we’ve got before us here.”
While a six-foot fence around the property would be a violation of the bylaw and should be handled as such, Coun. Wiedenhoeft said he wouldn’t see a six-foot high retaining net around some of the shrubbery in the front yard “necessarily as the same thing.”
“Suppose I’m moving next to neighbours who have unruly kids, and I want to put a six-foot high fence around my yard to keep the kids out. You can see where this would extend as a precedent,” Coun. Wiedenhoeft added.
“The reasons would be different, but the ultimate end would be the same.
“I feel that if they can contain the shrubbery, then I would be okay with it, but I’m against a six-foot high or higher fence going around the entire property,” he added.
Coun. Ken Perry reminded council it was they who gave the Andersons permission to originally “break” the bylaw.
“Our problem now is when [does] ‘temporary’ run out? They say temporary is until the deer problem is done, [but] they still have a deer problem and the fence is still temporary,” noted Coun. Perry, adding the Andersons didn’t fence their whole yard, just a portion of it.
Coun. John Albanese indicated it was his understanding that “temporary” meant for the winter months.
“What our real issue is here is if they’re contravening the bylaw with the height that spans higher than the four feet,” said Mayor Roy Avis. “So do we change the bylaw to accommodate this? Or do we move on and just close a blind eye to it?
“Or do we say, ‘No, the fence has to come down.’”
Mayor Avis noted when the issue was before the committee, a compromise had been put forward to the Andersons, where they would be allowed to heighten their fence with the semi-invisible netting during the winter when the deer were most active feeding in people’s yards.
Then during the other seasons, the fence would have to remain within the bylaw’s height limits.
He noted that the Andersons did not accept this compromise.
“I feel that they implemented the letter of the law, but they’re not enforcing the bylaw equally or fairly,” Marie Anderson said yesterday following council’s decision, noting there are other over-height fences in town where this bylaw hasn’t been enforced.
“I feel that they are prejudicial and that it’s unconstitutional that they should do this, that they can insist that we take our fence down but other people have had their fences up for years, in their front yards, and they’re about six feet,” she added.
Anderson said the current system enforces bylaws through neighbours “snitching” on other neighbours—even if those neighbours themselves have bylaw infringements on their property.
“We have a right to protect our property, and we can’t protect our property unless we have some form of fencing to keep the deer out of our front yard,” she argued.
Anderson pointed to a case in London, Ont. where there were deer living in the city-owned Sifton Bog. The province’s attorney general stated because the town owned that property, it was liable for damage caused by the deer living on that land.
“And in our case alone, the loss of a mature tree has taken a couple of thousand dollars of value off our property, plus the other damage that they have done,” she remarked.
Anderson said their next step is to go to the Human Rights Tribunal since she feels her rights to property are being violated.
“This isn’t just about a fence, this is about human rights,” she stressed. “It’s about being treated fairly and we aren’t being treated fairly.”
Although council voted to uphold the fencing bylaw, Coun. Hallikas stressed they needed to deal with the bigger issue that was causing people to go to such lengths to protect their property: the deer.
“Regardless of how council decides on this, the pressing issue is the deer in the town and that’s what needs to be dealt with,” he argued, saying council should meet with the Ministry of Natural Resources about what can be done.
“The deer aren’t going away,” he said. “This will not be the end the debate.
“We have a problem in town with deer and I think that it needs to be addressed.”
With this in mind, council adopted a recommendation that the issue of the deer population within town limits appear on council’s agenda in the future.
But that move isn’t enough for Anderson, pointing out the town long ago had a deal with the MNR concerning the bear problem while nothing has been done up to this point about deer.
“They’re only addressing the problem now because there’s more and more people complaining about it,” she charged. “Whether or not they do anything about it or not has yet to be seen.”
