Town of Jackson Draft Wildlife Friendly Fencing LDRs

The goal of this section is to promote wildlife permeability and preservation of openness that defines our community. To achieve this goal, I recommend prohibition of perimeter fencing in town. However allowance should be provided for special purpose fencing (small enclosures and agriculture) and for short length privacy panels (8-16 feet long - more work needs to be done regarding the length and number of panels and the spacing between panels).
There are neighborhoods in Teton County that prohibit perimeter fencing. Given the dense development in town and the small yards, if perimeter fencing is allowed, it would be possible for entire blocks to be fenced lot line to lot line. Fenceless areas contribute to a more open and connected town by reducing visual barriers and supporting permeability across the built environment.

This section is hard to follow. I recommend reorganizing as follows:
5.12 Fencing (just fencing instead of wildlife friendly fencing)
A. Findings
B. Applicability
C. Fence Design Standards (Standards should be the same town wide. NRO tier should not matter - the goal is openness and permeability through all of town)
D. Prohibited Fencing Types
F. Prohibited Fencing Materials
E. Special Purpose Fencing
1. Small Exclusionary areas
2. Agricultural Fencing
F. Repair of Nonconforming Fencing

The frequency of required single-sided sections should be included.

How will this be tracked? Could there be a free online form to file with the town to keep track of new fencing and fence repairs?

Having lived for many years in the Cottonwood neighborhood, I’ve observed that many lots have fenced backyards with fences higher than 38". Moose and deer regularly move through this neighborhood, as they do in similar neighborhoods. Because most backyards are fenced, wildlife generally use parks, front yards, cul-de-sacs, paths, and streets. Because many (perhaps 30-40%?) of backyards have dogs, I think it's possible the higher back- and side-yard fences actually benefit wildlife by keeping dogs contained to yards and preventing undue harassment of wildlife/danger to pets.

In summary, it might be worth considering different standards for small lots (East Jackson, Cottonwood, etc.) where taller fences in back and side yards for exclusionary purposes might make sense for the reasons listed, and larger, Westbank style lots where wildlife is maybe more reliant on access through backyards for movement and migration? However, I also acknowledge that might over complicate things!

It's possible that mandating "25% of linear fence length may not exceed 38" will not sufficiently address privacy concerns for residents living on certain small East Jackson/Cottonwood lots. To simplify the regulation, consider not allowing fencing in front yards to exceed 38", or perhaps confining perimeter fencing to back and side yards. This compromise would allow homeowners on small lots the freedom to fence side and back yards as they choose, while allowing wildlife to pass through neighborhoods using front yards, sidewalks, streets, bike paths, and parks. It seems likely that at least some homeowners/residents of small lots (maybe with dogs or small children) will not want to encourage wildlife like moose spending time in their backyards - I think this suggestion could be a good compromise.

Consider clarifying a gate as an option, assuming there is no functional difference between a gate and Option 1, the sliding panel. With a gate, if a moose becomes trapped in a fenced backyard, the gate can simply be opened and the moose can walk out. A gate option may be cheaper/easier to construct than a sliding panel.