Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Buffer Yards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commissioners weigh changes to buffer-yard rules, delete "Buffer Yard F"
Summary
At a May 18 work session, Adams Township Planning Commission members discussed solicitor-proposed revisions to buffer-yard standards aimed at improving business visibility, including deleting "Buffer Yard F," shifting plantings toward evergreens and shrubs, and placing buffers in conservation easements; a revised draft is expected June 3.
Marty McKinney, a member of the Adams Township Planning Commission, opened discussion on proposed revisions to the township's buffer-yard rules at the commission's May 18 work session, saying the proposed changes were intended to improve business visibility after multiple years of hardship from the current tree requirements. Township Solicitor Sean Gallagher reviewed options and asked commissioners "where and how thick & thin do you want the screening to be," proposing the elimination of "Buffer Yard F" as part of the revisions.
Gallagher told commissioners he favored reducing buffer width along Route 228 while increasing buffer protection adjacent to residential areas, with carve-outs for residential driveways. He also recommended placing all buffer yards within conservation easements so the Township would have authority to require restoration if an easement were encroached. "This will protect the homeowners and allows the Township to have the authority to make whoever restore the Conservation Easement if they were to encroach," Gallagher said.
Commission members discussed plant-selection changes that would lessen reliance on large canopy trees and add more evergreen trees and shrubs to maintain screening while preserving business visibility. Resident and landscaper Tim Stack, who said he lives at 240 Forsythe Road, cautioned that "depending on the location of the business they will have different height differentials which would require a different landscaping design for each elevation," a point McKinney acknowledged as the commission seeks a basic standard applicable across the township.
Two clarifications were raised during the exchange: resident Shane Kaclik asked whether existing vegetation counts toward required landscaping, and McKinney replied that existing vegetation does count. Kaclik also asked whether the Route 228 overlay has been expanded to parallel streets; McKinney said expansion remains "on the list."
The commission directed Solicitor Sean Gallagher to prepare a revised draft ordinance reflecting the buffer-yard changes, residential-driveway exceptions and conservation-easement placement for further discussion at the June 3 Planning Commission meeting. No formal vote occurred at the May 18 work session.
