By WES KELLER Freelance Reporter

Following a two-hour special meeting Monday night, East Luther Grand Valley council has agreed to draft a specific plan for erection of a fence on the former CP Rail right-ofway.

But there remains disagreement about whose fault it is that the plan has been four years in the making, and seven landowners apparent have a consensus that the council would be offering too little, possibly too late.

The Township has owned the right-of-way for about eight years. Negotiations for a trailway started about five years ago. The seven landowners requested fencing in accordance with Section 20 of the Line Fences Act after the trailway began to be used formally. Section 20 stipulates

that owners of a former rail line are required to fence its lateral boundaries. At the request of the seven property owners, fence viewers were engaged to determine what, if any, new fencing would be required, and whether there was fencing in place that could be repaired.

In the normal scheme of things, the fence viewers would also determine whether abutting owners

should share the cost of fencing. But a Tillsonburg court had interpreted Section 20 as meaning that municipalities must bear the entire cost in cases where they have converted an abandoned rail line into a trailway.

Shortly thereafter, the council designated the rail line as a highway. The seven property owners appealed the designation in the courts, saying that the council was trying to circumvent its fencing obligation.

Recently, the Superior Court upheld the property owners' appeal, quashed the bylaw creating the highway designation, and said the designation had been unnecessary.

Now the council is appealing the court's ruling, saying it goes to the heart of whether or not a municipality has the authority to enact bylaws. It is not, however, denying its obligation to fence the right-of-way without cost to the property owners.

In a sometimes-heated two hours, members of the landowners' ad hoc committee accused the council of delaying the fencing with its bylaw, but Deputy Mayor John Ince accused the landowners of putting the issue on hold by asking for fence viewers and taking the township to court.

"I want to stress ... it was the action of your group" that delayed the fencing, he said. He suggested that the fences be viewed once more. "I agree with you. Let the viewers to back and do the job. Let's go your method."

At the start of the meeting, Mayor John Oosterhof asked the landowners to outline their priorities for fencing, as there isn't sufficient money in the budget to complete it all this year.

"There's $20,000 in this year's budget. It's not enough to do all that's requested. We hope to progress as we move along," he said.

Sue Grosvenor, speaking for the group, said the group "wants to hear from council on focal points." (Outside the meeting, earlier in the day, Verona Tupling said the group would be attending the 7 p.m. special meeting "to listen.")

Said the mayor: "There's no formal proposal on what we want to do. Council is looking for input from the ad hoc committee on what is the proper way to go forward; probably to look at the issue that we couldn't put in the full amount.

"If you want it all at one time, we could put in more money next year," he said.

Mark Thorpe asked for an estimate of all the fencing for the seven properties involved. Mayor Oosterhof said there hasn't been such an estimate, that the cost per foot could vary depending on obstructions such as brush.

The council is proposing a page-wire fence, with two steel stakes interspaced between each pair of wooden fence posts. The landowners were noncommittal about their acceptance of the design.

Councillor Tom Hardy said the council is proposing to abide by the Line Fences Act.

Responded Mr. Thorpe, "the (Act) doesn't specify the type of fence. That's up to the fence viewers."

Ms. Grosvenor, keeping a cooler, yet forceful, head, said: "You say you have $20,000, that's all you have this year. There's no overall concept, no guarantee from council. What are you saying to us? Is it over four years, five, in dribs and drabs?" She said the group wanted to see a legally enforceable document that could be taken to a lawyer for review.

Carmen Bignall generally questioned the motives of council, and reviewed letters and council minutes going over the past several years. "The $20,000 means nothing," she said. Mr. Thorpe added that the council had spent more than that defending its bylaw.

According to several landowners at the meeting, the trailway use has led to trespassing and other unacceptable things such as dirt bikes and snowmobiles speeding.

Pat Williams said there had been gunshots, snowmobilers on her family property, and instances of people defecating. Her

husband, Tom, said he'd thrown out garbage bags at the end of the snowmobile season - trash left behind by trail users.

Mayor Oosterhof said it would be impossible for the township to pay for constant policing, that it would be up to the landowners to report violations - possibly to ask for police patrols at times when regulations are routinely contravened.

But he warned that fencing wouldn't prevent all trespassing. He said County 109 between Townline and Highway 10 had been fenced both sides but an opening had been cut by someone several times, to the point where the county had grown weary of repairing it.

Barbara Evans of East Garafraxa, who heads Dufferin Federation of Agriculture, attended the meeting as an observer. She said "a lot of people from the city have no respect."

She suggested more rigid policing by clubs using the trail, plus charges to bolster revenue. On the defecation, she said "maybe the trail users should have Johnny On the Spot. If the people want (the trail, they should) pay for it."

At the end, Mayor Oosterhof undertook to have a plan of fencing put in place - including time lines and type of fencing among other things - for the group's approval.