Council discusses draft deer-fencing ordinance, agrees to narrow rules for backyard gardens

Mount Olive Township Council discussed a draft ordinance on June 9 that would allow deer-protection fencing for residential gardens, with staff and residents urging flexibility on materials and council members seeking limits to avoid whole‑yard 8-foot fences.

At the workshop meeting, Andrew (township staff) explained the proposal would add deer fencing to the code as a rear‑yard device to protect gardens and vegetation, set a maximum height of 8 feet, require permitting similar to other fences, and include maintenance provisions. "It shall be no more than 8 ft tall and shall be constructed with the common deer fencing material," Andrew said while describing the draft language, which staff said was reviewed by the land-use committee.

Resident Michael Lowry (146 Stevens Park Road) told the council the draft should permit a range of polymer or polymer‑coated materials — "polypropylene, PVC, nylon or equivalent" — and recommended allowing side yards for corner lots provided setbacks are respected. "Polypropylene is a great material, but it's not necessarily the only polymer material which might be useful," Lowry said.

Council members pressed on several points: whether the ordinance should prescribe specific materials, whether a square‑footage limit was needed to prevent full‑yard fencing, and whether the fences should be treated as seasonal or permanent. Mr. Roman and Mr. Aaron said they favored a lighter regulatory approach that lets homeowners protect gardens while relying on complaint‑driven enforcement by the zoning officer. "If someone puts up a fence and a neighbor complains, we'll enforce the code," Mr. Roman said.

Several members said the council did not want the ordinance to enable an 8‑foot, yard‑encompassing barrier that changes neighborhood character. To reduce visual impact, staff had proposed color limits (black, brown, green) and asked for guidance on whether to keep explicit material language. After extended discussion — which included questions about farm uses, pool‑fence comparisons and whether the fences would include buried hardware cloth to stop burrowing animals — the council directed staff to redraft the ordinance narrower in scope.

The consensus the council asked staff to reflect in the next draft was: allow deer fencing only in rear yards for garden protection, retain an 8‑foot maximum height, avoid overly prescriptive material rules while allowing polymer‑coated or equivalent construction, and add color guidance to harmonize fences with landscaping. Council members also emphasized that enforcement would remain largely complaint driven unless a code violation was evident.

The council did not take a vote; staff said it will prepare a revised ordinance for a future meeting. The resident who prompted the discussion was advised he may proceed with caution, noting currently anything not listed in the code cannot be permitted, and enforcement is complaint‑based.