Sagaponack Village Board Sets Public Hearing On Proposed Deer Fencing Law

The Sagaponack Village Board will hold a public hearing on November 13 to discuss proposed legislation to regulate deer fencing applications on farmland.

This proposed law on traditional 8-foot-high fencing—intended to prevent deer from devouring and devastating farmland—comes after two applications before the Village Board to install deer fencing on agricultural preserves, which prompted board members to enact a temporary moratorium in September on the processing or approval of any deer fencing applications for the rest of the year, to give them time to decide how applications should be processed.

During a meeting on Monday, Mayor Donald Louchheim said the board wants to have a new law in place before the planting season next spring. With any luck, Mr. Louchheim said, the law could be voted on at the November 19 meeting.

“The proposed law clarifies the circumstances in which we are able to grant agricultural fencing and clarifies what we need from those applicants to make that decision,” he said.

In the village, residential properties are prohibited from having deer fencing. Only land that is in “agricultural production” can be permitted, under a special exception, to have such fencing.

The terminology, used by the State Department of Agriculture and Markets, has caused some confusion in the community, and Mr. Louchheim said the new law would set the record straight.

In an effort to figure out the department’s intent, the mayor sent a letter to the state on September 26 asking for the Farmland Protection Unit to comment on the village’s draft legislation. Robert Somer, the unit’s manager, made some recommendations that ultimately made its way into the law in one way or another.

The latest draft of the legislation defines land in agricultural production as “facilities and practices which contribute to the production, preparation and marketing as a commercial enterprise of crops.”

Applicants would need to demonstrate that there would be an economic loss without a deer fencing. Property owners seeking permits would need to investigate alternative fence types and heights first—none of which would be permitted to block vistas into the farm. The proposed law stipulates that the planting of corn, grapes and nursery stock wouldn’t impede vistas.

“The protection of scenic vistas has not been a priority with the department, as the agency feels that farms, along with the crops and buildings associated with the farm, are, in and of itself, part of the scenic vistas,” Mr. Somer said in an October 11 email to the village.

Mr. Somer also recommended that the village adopt language to specifically “address startup farms,” which both of the two applications that were made this year in the village would fall under.

According to the proposed law, the Village Board would need to evaluate the capital investment, production schedule and business plan, gross sales to date and financial risk of the farms to be considered.

All applicants would need to highlight on a current survey the location of the proposed fence and of any crop production during the last two years. The legislation also includes a “sunset clause,” which requires fencing to be removed after land lies fallow for more than two years, and for the property owner to keep vegetation clear around fencing that’s roadside to keep vistas open.

Board member William Barbour, who voted against the 90-day moratorium in September, said the fencing is still in great need as the harvest season comes to a close. He contends applications for deer fencing from farmers in need should not be stalled by the board.

Mr. Barbour noted that he saw shrubs and low-lying trees picked clean during a recent visit to a nearby farm.

Deputy Mayor Lee Foster dubbed it the “Hamptons haircut” and said it will continue to get worse as the deer population explodes.