Owners of local farm appeal zoning conditions
The owners of Simmons Hickory Farm in Mt. Pleasant Township are appealing a decision last month by the township zoning board that they believe violated their right to farm without restrictions.
Attorney John Corcoran Jr. filed the appeal in Washington County Court on behalf of his clients, David and Cindy Simmons, who believe that the five conditions imposed on their operations were illegal.
The couple approached the zoning hearing board with a request to expand their operations in order to host wedding receptions and other entertainment activities on their farm.
A hearing was held in November, and the board ruled they could expand their operations as long as they met certain conditions, such as keeping operation hours between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m.
The conditions also stated any lighting should not be intrusive to neighbors, adequate bathroom facilities should be available, the maximum number of people at events should not exceed 800 and all trash should be removed from the property within 48 hours of the event.
“Under the law, they shouldn’t have these types of conditions on agricultural land,” Corcoran said.
The appeal is requesting a reversal of the zoning board’s decision and a recognition that the Simmonses “have the unfettered right to maintain and operate an agricultural entertainment business without any restrictions.”
The Simmonses purchased their property in 2002 and have used their farm in the past to host hay rides, birthday parties, corn mazes, a petting zoo, bonfires and prayer services, according to testimony during the zoning hearing. The property is considered a nonconforming use because it was previously situated in an agricultural zone, but was rezoned into a suburban residential area in 2006.
The appeal cites the Municipalities Planning Code, which states that “zoning ordinances may not restrict agricultural operations or changes to or expansions of agricultural operations in geographic areas where agriculture has traditionally been present” unless it has an adverse affect on public safety.
The appellants also argued the Agricultural Code prohibits the enforcement of an “unauthorized local ordinance” that restricts agricultural operations, and that the Right to Farm Act protects their decision to expand their operations.