Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long-time Peters Township farmer urges 100-foot setback and immediate planting of buffer near new subdivision
Summary
Bob Simmons, a 65-year resident and local farmer, testified at length urging council to require a 100-foot setback and planted buffer between a proposed subdivision and his orchard, citing dust, lime storage and spray odors; council and staff discussed ordinance requirements, enforcement and using dedication/acceptance of streets as leverage.
Bob Simmons, who identified himself as a resident at 170 Simmons Road and a long-time farmer, told Peters Township Council he is seeking stronger protections from adjacent residential development.
"I'm asking for buffer zone, and please consider a setback...100 ft total from my property line to the wall of the house," Simmons said, describing an apple orchard immediately adjacent to the sketch plan for the Herehold/Gearhold property. He walked council through his reading of the zoning ordinance (he said a 25-ft planted buffer is required), explained agricultural operations that produce dust (including stored pulverized limestone “lime”) and sprays such as 2,4-D, and asked council to require buffer planting or setbacks that keep new homes away from active farming operations.
Councilors and staff responded that the ordinance requires developers to plant buffers and that the developer — not the homeowner — is typically responsible for planting. Staff said some previously required buffers (examples cited: phases of Tuscany) had not yet been planted and that the township must review its process for ensuring buffers are installed before or as a condition of road dedication and occupancy. Councilors discussed options including making buffer planting a condition of accepting streets for dedication or requiring temporary measures during construction.
Simmons and other residents urged a stronger enforcement checklist and clearer timing so homeowners are not occupying lots before buffers are installed. Council asked staff to track which required buffers were unplanted, to discuss enforcement options with the planning department and to press the developer to propose solutions (for example extending open space in the plan so the cul-de-sac would be pulled back from the orchard).
No formal zoning change or permit decision was made at the meeting; council directed staff to continue discussions and enforcement follow-up as the developer prepares formal applications.
The exchange illustrates recurring tension between agricultural operations and infill residential development, with residents seeking clearer municipal safeguards.
