Sunbury neighbors push for guaranteed screening after developer seeks to remove fence at Meadows at Sunbury

The City of Sunbury Planning and Zoning Commission heard public testimony Sept. 22 after the Meadows at Sunbury Apartments applicant applied to amend a previously approved development plan to remove an 8‑foot fence on a 4‑foot mound along the project’s southwest border and instead use landscaping as a screen. Mayor Saint John opened the public hearing and asked the applicant and staff to present details.

Why it matters: Residents who back onto the apartment site said the approved fence was a key privacy and light/noise buffer. Without a robust substitute, several said, they would face intrusive headlights, increased nighttime light in bedrooms and ongoing noise from driveway and recreation areas.

Alex, a city planner, told the commission the amendment, as submitted, would replace the approved 8‑foot fence on a 4‑foot mound with 6‑foot evergreen trees on a 4‑foot mound and that the submittal conforms to the city’s zoning code that allows either a minimum 6‑foot fence or a planting row of 6‑foot evergreens as screening. Several neighbors who live immediately behind the site said they preferred a fence or at least taller, denser plantings installed immediately and maintained by the developer.

“My support is based on a commitment to long term upkeep,” said Bill Trowbridge, who identified his address as 2442 Common Bends, explaining he would accept tree screening only if the city and developer committed to prompt replacement of dead or damaged plants.

Other neighbors said the replacement planting shown in the applicant’s plan appeared to rely heavily on deciduous and ornamental trees that will be leafless in winter and therefore not provide year‑round screening. “We were promised this,” John McCallan said, referencing prior developer assurances about screening and maintenance.

Commission discussion focused on three practical questions: whether the applicant would return with the developer present to explain the reasoning for the change; the proposed initial sizes and species of the replacement plants; and the mound height and related drainage implications if the commission required a taller mound. Several commissioners said larger evergreens and a maintenance guarantee could achieve the intended result, but noted a higher mound might create runoff or require engineered drainage controls.

No formal action was taken. Commission members asked staff to invite the applicant to the commission’s next meeting with specifications on species, initial plant heights, mound geometry and maintenance commitments so commissioners could evaluate whether the proposed plantings would meet the city’s screening objective in practice. Planning counsel advised the public that the commission has 60 days from the hearing to take action on the amendment, effectively moving substantive consideration to the next meeting.

The commission asked staff to collect the photographs offered by one resident and requested engineering input on the mound rise/run and existing drainage behind the yards. Staff said they would request the applicant include larger evergreen specimens, an installation and maintenance schedule, and a clear contingency (replacement) plan if plantings fail.

Residents and commissioners emphasized that their concern was not whether screening is provided but that whatever substitute is approved must be effective immediately and maintained over time. The commission said it will revisit the amendment at a future meeting after receiving the developer’s response and more detailed plans.