Peters Township schedules Aug. 31 hearing on proposed 100‑foot separation after heated debate

Peters Township Council voted to schedule a public hearing for Aug. 31 to consider a proposed zoning change that would require a 100‑foot separation between active agricultural operations and primary or accessory residential structures.

The discussion dominated the July 13 meeting and featured several farmers and residents pressing competing concerns. Farmer Bob Simmons told council the buffer proposals had practical and financial consequences: he said a wetlands designation and plan discrepancies mean he must abandon about two acres of tillable land and argued the buffer shown on a recorded plan did not appear on the planting/landscape plan. "Now that they have identified these wetlands in a recorded plan, I am required to stay back a 150 feet... I'm not allowed to farm. So I'm gonna lose about 2 acres," Simmons said during public comment.

Staff presented the draft ordinance as a fixed zoning setback intended to create a clear, consistent rule rather than a case‑by‑case conditional use process. The manager told council he had asked a local nursery for a planting cost estimate; McMurray Nursery provided a range for a planted buffer on a small lot of about $90,000 to $120,000, a figure staff cited repeatedly as they and council members weighed impacts on smaller parcels.

Councilors and residents discussed several alternatives: keeping a Peters Township buffer requirement (currently in the ordinance) versus substituting the 100‑foot setback; a combined approach (for example a 75‑foot setback plus a 25‑foot planted buffer); or flexibility to allow lower‑cost screening such as grasses or fences. One council member asked whether the township should adopt the 100‑foot rule as written now and then refine details after Department of Agriculture input; another urged narrowing the definition of 'farm' to match state 'clean and green' thresholds (10 acres) to avoid imposing costs on small operations.

Supporters of the setback argued it would give homeowners and farmers clearer expectations and protections from dust, drift and other farm operations. Critics said the fixed rule could be punitive for landowners who lease farmland for modest rent and would make small lots uneconomic to develop.

Council directed staff to notify owners of large active farms and surrounding property owners and set the public hearing for Aug. 31 at 7:00 p.m. Staff was also asked to invite the Department of Agriculture for technical guidance before final action.

What comes next: the hearing on Aug. 31 will allow formal testimony. Council signaled it wants more technical input (Department of Agriculture, conservation district and cost alternatives) before adopting any binding ordinance.