Centre Regional Planning Agency6AD7E2DC-ECE4-41CD...Sep 07, 2017 · popopopo po popopo po po...
67
Serving the Townships of College, Ferguson, Halfmoon, Harris, Patton and the Borough of State College The Centre Region is a Bicycle Friendly Community SM Centre Regional Planning Agency 2643 Gateway Drive, Suite #4 State College, PA 16801 Phone (814) 231-3050 www.crcog.net CENTRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Centre Region Council of Governments Office Building 2643 Gateway Drive Thursday September 7, 2017 6:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER – Ms. Strickland will convene the meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – August 3, 2017 CRPC meeting 3. CITIZENS’ COMMENTS – For items not on the agenda 4. REGIONAL INTEREST ITEMS – Commission members will report on activities in their municipalities that may be of interest to CRPC members and the public. 5. CRPA ACTIVITY REPORT – Mr. May will report on items of interest from the CRPA Activity Report. 6. CONSENT AGENDA a. Official Map Update – Ferguson Township 7. GUEST PRESENTATIONS a. Identifying Centre County’s Economic Trends and Potential – Centre County 8. ACTION AGENDA a. Proposed Zoning Text Amendment for Water Production Facilities – Ferguson Township b. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment for the Harner Farm Property – Ferguson Township c. Recommendation on the Act 537 Plan Special Study - Beneficial Reuse Waterline Extension into Harris Township – Centre Region 9. POLICY AGENDA a. None
Transcript of Centre Regional Planning Agency6AD7E2DC-ECE4-41CD...Sep 07, 2017 · popopopo po popopo po po...
Serving the Townships of College, Ferguson, Halfmoon, Harris, Patton and the Borough of State College The Centre Region is a Bicycle Friendly Community
SM
Centre Regional Planning Agency
2643 Gateway Drive, Suite #4 State College, PA 16801 Phone (814) 231-3050 www.crcog.net
CENTRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Centre Region Council of Governments Office Building
2643 Gateway Drive
Thursday
September 7, 2017
6:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER – Ms. Strickland will convene the meeting.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – August 3, 2017 CRPC meeting
3. CITIZENS’ COMMENTS – For items not on the agenda
4. REGIONAL INTEREST ITEMS – Commission members will report on activities in their
municipalities that may be of interest to CRPC members and the public.
5. CRPA ACTIVITY REPORT – Mr. May will report on items of interest from the CRPA
Activity Report.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Official Map Update – Ferguson Township
7. GUEST PRESENTATIONS
a. Identifying Centre County’s Economic Trends and Potential – Centre County
8. ACTION AGENDA
a. Proposed Zoning Text Amendment for Water Production Facilities – Ferguson
Township
b. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment for the Harner Farm Property – Ferguson
Township
c. Recommendation on the Act 537 Plan Special Study - Beneficial Reuse Waterline
Extension into Harris Township – Centre Region
9. POLICY AGENDA
a. None
Centre Regional Planning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 2 of 13
10. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
a. Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) Report – Mr. Eich
will report on recent activities of the CCMPO Coordinating Committee.
b. State College Borough Water Authority (SCBWA) Liaison’s Report – Ms.
Strickland will report on recent activities of the SCBWA.
c. Millbrook Marsh Nature Center Advisory Committee – Ms. Strickland will report
on recent activities of the Millbrook Marsh Nature Centre Advisory Committee.
d. University Area Joint Authority (UAJA) Liaison’s Report and appoint CRPC
Representative to the UAJA – Mr. May will report on recent activities of the
UAJA. The CRPC will also need to appoint a liaison to attend UAJA meetings.
11. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Matter of Record – The CRPC will next meet on Thursday, October 5, 2017 at
6:30 p.m. in the COG Building Forum Room. This is a joint meeting with the
COG Transportation and Land Use Committee. Tentative agenda items include a
potential recommendation to the COG General Forum on the Act 537 Plan Special
Study, a presentation on the status of CHIP projects, and a presentation on the
update of the Regional Development Capacity (REDCAP) Report.
b. Matter of Record – Enclosed is a letter to member of the House of Representatives
from several municipal associations stating opposition to House Bill 1620 which
would strip municipal authority to regulate wireless antenna systems in the public
right-of-way. This proposed bill, known as the Wireless Broadband Infrastructure
Deployment and Collocation Act was recently introduced in the PA Legislature
and would amend the Wireless Broadband Collocation Act of October 24, 2012.
Among the purposes of the Wireless Broadband Collocation Act was the
preservation of local governing authority as it relates to use of the public rights-
of-way (ROW). Over the last several years, wireless companies have been
installing towers and antennas, known as distributed antenna systems (DAS), in
the public ROW. Municipalities currently have significant zoning authority over
the “placement, construction, and modification” of these towers and antennas. The
amendments proposed by HB 1620 change the zoning authority that municipalities
have over the public ROW. On August 7, the PA State Association of Township
Supervisors (PSATS), PA Municipal League (PLM), PA State Association of
Boroughs (PSAB), and PA State Association of Township Commissioners
(PSATC) sent a letter to the sponsors of HB 1620 opposing the legislation.
c. Matter of Record – Planning Commissioners should consider attending the
American Planning Association Pennsylvania Chapter conference at the Penn
Stater from October 22 to 24, 2017. With a discount, registration for the full
conference for Planning Commissioners is $308.00. Registration may also be for
individual days of conference. Full program and registration information can be
found at www.planningpa.org.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Centre Regional Planning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 3 of 13
ITEM 6a.
OFFICIAL MAP UPDATE - FERGUSON TOWNSHIP
– presented by Ray Stolinas and Lindsay Schoch
This item provides information on the Updated Draft Ferguson Township Official Map. This
map will repeal and replace the existing Official Map, adopted in 2008.
THE ISSUE
A Public Hearing to adopt the Ferguson Township Official Map was held on July 3, 2017, at
which time, the Board did not approve the Ordinance because of a proposed road (Foxpointe
Drive Extension) being placed outside the Regional Growth Boundary. The Board directed
staff to research why Foxpointe Drive was outside the Regional Growth Boundary. On July
17, 2017, staff reported that Foxpointe Drive has been included on the Official Map since the
early 2000s because of a Township-wide Traffic Study prepared in the early 1990s. A
discussion was held, which resulted in the addition of a Future Bicycle Facility that extends
from the terminus of the future Foxpointe Drive Extension to Pine Grove Mills. This is
considered a substantial change to the Map and is required to be reviewed by the Centre
Regional Planning Agency and Commission prior to a Public Hearing.
OTHER INFORMATION
On July 17, 2017, the Board of Supervisors authorized the advertising of a Public Hearing for
the Official Map. A Public Hearing is scheduled for Monday, October 2, 2017.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
The CRPC reviewed the Draft Official Map at the May 4, 2017 meeting. The CRPC provided
the following comments at that time:
1. Consider an annual update to the map to accommodate changes such as the addition of
agricultural easements if there is not an automatic process to do this.
2. Please confirm that all historic properties from existing county and regional historic
inventories have been considered for inclusion on the Official Map.
3. Several changes have been made to the draft Official Map, including the identification
of a substantial area designated as “Potential Parkland Acquisition” around the
proposed Whitehall Road Regional Parklands. The CRPC requested that the Township
consider providing an additional comment period, including a formal public hearing,
to ensure this change and other changes are completely understood by residents and
the process to incorporate the changes is compliant with the process specified in the
PA Municipalities Planning Code (MPC).
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This request is consistent with the Centre Region Comprehensive Plan.
Centre Regional Planning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 4 of 13
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the CRPC support this item and direct staff to send a letter indicating
such to the Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Updated Draft Official Map
2. Draft Ordinance Amending the Official Map
Ferguson Township Municipal Building3147 Research Drive · State College, PA · 16801
(814) 238-4651 · www.twp.ferguson.pa.us
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
popo popo
po
po popo
popo
popopo
po
_̂
k
ñ
Haymarket Park
HomesteadPark
FairbrookPark
CecilIrvin Park
Meadows Park
Tom TudekMemorial Park
ParkHills Park
GreenbriarSaybrook Park
Ferguson ElementaryBallfields
FergusonTwp Watershed
Preserve
Autumnwood Park
Science ParkRecreationAssociation
ThePark at
Stonebridge
S & A HomesPark
State CollegeTeener League
Fields
Overlook HeightsTot Lot
WhitehallRoad Regional
Park
BBLLUUEE CCOOUURRSSEE
DDRR
W COLLEGE AVE
W COLLEGE AVE
CCIIRRCCLLEEVVIILLLLEE RRDD
WWAAAARROO NN
DDRR
WW GGAATTEESSBBUURRGG RRDD
W WHITEHALL RD
W WHITEHALL RD
W PINE GROVE RDW PINE GROVE RD
S WATER ST
S WATER ST
NN AATTHHEERRTTOONN SSTT
E AARON DR
E AARON DR
AAUUTTUUMMNNWWOOOODD
DDR R
SS NNIIXXOONN
RRDD
DEIBLER RD
DEIBLER RD
EE PP IINNEE GGRROOVVEE
RRDD
WWEESSTTEERRLLYY
PPKKWWYY
DDEEEERRFFIIEELLDD DDRR
TADPOLE RD
TADPOLE RD
BRISTOL AVE
BRISTOL AVE
SCIENCE PARK CT
SCIENCE PARK CT
PP IINNEE HHAALLLL RRDD
MMAARREENNGGOO RRDD
ERNEST LN
ERNEST LN
SCIENCE PARK RD
SCIENCE PARK RD
PLAINFIELD RD
PLAINFIELD RD
VVAALLLLEEYYVVIISSTTAA
DDRR
N NIXON RD
N NIXON RD
OLD GATESBURG RD
OLD GATESBURG RD
VVAA IIRROO BB LLVVDD
HHAARRPPSSWWEE LLLL LLNN
DD RRYY HHOOLLLLOOWW RRDD
SHINGLETOWN RD
SHINGLETOWN RD
Ferguson TownshipFerguson TownshipElementary SchoolElementary School
Bucher AyresBucher AyresFarm BuildingsFarm Buildings
SS FF OOXX PPOOII NN
TT EEDD RR
Inset 3
Inset 2
Inset 1
H A L F M O O N T O W N S H I P
H A L F M O O N T O W N S H I P
PAT T ON
TO
WN
S HI P
PAT T ON
TO
WN
S HI P
S T A T E C O L L E G ES T A T E C O L L E G EB O R O U G HB O R O U G H
HA
RR
I S T
OW
NS
HI P
HA
RR
I S T
OW
NS
HI P
Data SourcesCentre County GISCentre Region Council of GovernmentsTownship of FergusonU.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory - Wetlands. [http://www.fws.gov/wetlands]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, May 2014.U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Flood Hazard Layer. [https://msc.fema.gov/]. Washington, D.C.: FEMA Flood Map Service Center, May 2009. P.A. Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Water Management, Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater Management, Water Quality Assessment and Standards Division. DEP Streams Integrated List Layers - Attaining and Non-Attaining. [http://www.pasda.psu.edu/]. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, January 2015. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Ask ReGIS - National Historic Registry Locations. [http://crgis.state.pa.us]: Cultural Resources Geographic Information System, May 2017
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!
! ! !
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
po
popo
_̂
HaymarketPark
HomesteadPark
SuburbanPark
Tom TudekMemorial
ParkParkHillsPark
GreenbriarSaybrook Park
AutumnwoodPark
Science ParkRecreationAssociation
The Park atStonebridge
S & AHomes
Park
State CollegeTeener
League Fields
OverlookHeightsTot Lot
Whitehall RoadRegional Park
BB LLUU
EECC OO
UURR SS
EEDD
RR
WW CCOOLLLLEEGGEE AAVVEE
WW AAAARROONN DDRR
ASH AVEASH AVE
HHEERRMMAANN DDRR
NO
RTH
WIC
K BL
VDN
ORT
HW
ICK
BLVD
CIRCLEVILLE RDCIRCLEVILLE RD
TEAB
ERRY
LN
TEAB
ERRY
LN
SS OO UUTTHHWWIICCKK BB
LL VVDD
GGAATTEEWW
AAYY
DDRR
N BU
TZ STN
BUTZ ST
KK NNOOBB HHIILLLL
RRDD
SS FFOOXXPPOOIINNTTEE DDRR
WW WWHHIITTEEHHAALLLL RRDD
PARK
LN
PARK
LN
MMAARRTTIINN
SSTT
OOLLDD
FFAARRMMLLNN
E CLINTON AVEE CLINTON AVE
SSHHEEF FF FI IE EL LD DDD
RR
WWEESSTTOOVVEERR
DDRR
LLOONNGGFFEELLLLOOWWCCTT
W CHERRY LNW CHERRY LN
QQUUAAIILL RRUU NN
RRDD
N ATHERTON ST
N ATHERTON ST
DDEEVVOONNSSHHIIRREE DDRR
BRISTOL AVEBRISTOL AVE
WILT
SHIR
E D
RW
ILTSH
IRE
DR
CCAANN
DDLL EE
FFOORRDD
HHTTSS
WWPPAA
RR KKHHIILL LLSS AAVVEE
B BL LA AI IR RRRDD
TAN
AGER
DR
TAN
AGER
DR
PPAARRKK CCEE NN TT EERR
BB LLVV DD
MCB
ATH
ST
MCB
ATH
ST
MYRTLE STMYRTLE ST
BBRR UUSSHHWW OO OO
DDDDRR
S BUTZ ST
S BUTZ STHO
Y STHO
Y ST
SSHHEE FF FF II EE LLDD
CCTT
E AARON DRE AARON DR
S CO
RL S
TS
CORL
ST
W BEAVER AVEW BEAVER AVE
MMAANNOORRCCTT
AAUUTTUUMMNNWW
OOO OD D
D DR R
BB II RRCCHH CCTT
BERK
SHIR
E D
RBE
RKSH
IRE
DR
VAIRO BLVD
VAIRO BLVD
ABBYABBYPLPL
SSAAGGAAMMOORR EE DD RR
CORLCORLCIR
CIR
HHAARR VVEESSTT
CCI IRR
SSPPRRUUCCEE AAVVEE
AACCAACCIIAA DDRR
KK IINNGGSS CCTT
AABBIINN GG TTOO
NN
CCIIRR
WASHINGTON PLWASHINGTON PL
NNOORRTTHHL L
AANNDDCCTTRR
HHAARRVVEESS TT RRUUNN RRDD SS
CCYYPPRREESSSS
WWA AY Y
WW NNOORRTTHH HHIILLLLSS PPLL
C CO ON N
O OV V
EERRLLNN
CCHHEESS
TT NNUU TT
RR IIDDGGEE DDRR
W CALDER WAYW CALDER WAY
WWEESSTTEERRLLYY PPKKWWYY
HHIIGGHH PPOOIINNTT CCVV
SSAARRAATTOOG GA A
D DR R
E NORTH HILLS PLE NORTH HILLS PL
NNFF OO
XX PPOO
II NNTT EE
DDRR
RREEDD
LLIIOONN DDRR
HARLEY ALYHARLEY ALY
FFAAIIRRCCHHIILLDD LL NN
FFAAII RR
FF IIEELLDD CCIIRR
CCRROOMM
EERRDDRR
GRASSGRASS
ALYALY
BB RROOAA DD MM OO OO RR LL NN
MUNCY RDMUNCY RD
SSLLEEEEPPYY HHOOLLLLOOWW DDRR
PRINCETON DRPRINCETON DR
E PA
RK H
ILLS
AVE
E PA
RK H
ILLS
AVE
MID
DLE
MID
DLE
STST
SAN
DY D
RSA
NDY
DR
OOWWEENN
S SD D
R R
MARJORIE
MARJORIE
MAE ST
MAE ST
N ALLEN
STN
ALLEN ST
GGRRAA
CCEE SSTT
HHAAWWKKNNEESSTT RRDD
LILAC LNLILAC LN
LON
GFE
LLO
W L
NLO
NG
FELL
OW
LN
AATTLLEEEEC CI IR R
CARDINALCARDINALLNLN
BBEEAA GG LLEERRUUNN CC TT
HHIICCKKOORRYY
HHIILLLL DDRR
BARN
STAB
LE L
NBA
RNST
ABLE
LN
SCIE
NCE
PAR
K CT
SCIE
NCE
PAR
K CT
AAVV EE BB UU RRYY CC II RR
JUNIPER DRJUNIPER DR
FF AALL CC
OONN PPOOIINNTTEE DDRR
VVIINNEEYYAARRDD
HHVVNN
JJ UULL EE
SSDD
RR
SSTTAAFFFFOORRDD CCIIRR
JJOOHHNNSSOONN
TTEERR
GGAATTEE SS CCTT
SSCCOONNSSEET TT T
WWA AY Y
OOAAKK LLEEAAFF DD RR
NNCC OO
RRLL
SS TT
WWEESS TTWW OO OO DD CC IIRR
RROO YYLLEENN CCIIRR
CATO AVECATO AVE
PP IINN
EEHH
AALL LL
RR DD
VVIILLLL AAGGEE DDRR
SSEETTTTEERRR RU U
N NL LN N
RREEDD
WWII LL LL
OOWW
RRDD
GALA DRGALA DR
FIR DR
FIR DR
FFAARRMMS ST TE EA AD D
L LN N
NNAANN TTUU CCKKEETT
CC II RR
PPAAMMEE LL
AACCII
RR
PARTRIDGE LNPARTRIDGE LNLINNET LNLINNET LN
TEAL LNTEAL LN
OOXXFFOORRDDCCIIRR
GGRREEEENNWWOOOODD CCIIRR
BREEZEWO
OD
DR
BREEZEWO
OD
DR
HHOOLLLLYY
CC IIRR
OOAAKK SSTT
HHAARRVVEESSTTRRUUNN
RRDD
NN
CCRRAANNDDAALLL LDDRR
PPIINNEE CCLLIIFFFF RRDD
GLENWOOD CIRGLENWOOD CIR
SCIE
NCE
PAR
K RD
SCIE
NCE
PAR
K RD
OOLLDD GGAATTEESSBBUURRGG RRDD
BLOO
MSDO
RF DRBLO
OM
SDORF DR
RREEDD OOAAKK LLNN
PP IINN EE HHAALLLL CCTT
VVAALLL LE EY YV VI IS ST TA A
D DR R
CC HHAA
RRLL EE
SS TT
OONN DDRR
LEISURE LN
LEISURE LN
R RU US SH HC C
LL IIFFFFEE SSTT
BB EERRGGMMAANN BBLLVV DD
NNCCHHEERRRRYY HHIILLLL RRDD
SSCC HH EERRRRYY HHIILLLL RRDD
LONGMEA
DOW LN
LONGMEA
DOW LN
E CHERRY LN
E CHERRY LN
EEDD IITTHH SSTT
SUBURBAN AVESUBURBAN AVE
RIDGEVIEW RDRIDGEVIEW RD
PPIINNEE HHUURR SSTT DDRR
RR IIDDGGEE MMAASSTTEERR DDRR
LINN
STLIN
N ST
HARRIS ST
HARRIS ST CU
RTIN ST
CURTIN
ST
CCOONNCCOORRDD DDRR
SSHHEELL LLEERRSS BBNNDD
RESEARCH D
RRESEARCH
DR
CCHHEERRRRYYR RI ID D
G GEE
RRDD
MAD
ISO
N S
TM
ADIS
ON
ST
FIELDSTO
NE D
RFIELD
STON
E DR
PARK CREST LNPARK CREST LN
ENTERPRISE D
REN
TERPRISE DR
SS OOWWAARRD DS SP PL L
CC OOUU
NNTT RR
YYGGLLEENNNN LLNN
RRAAVVEENN HHOOLLLLOOWW RRDD
JJAA MM EESS AAVVEE
NNOORRTT
HHAA
MMPP TT
OONN
SS TT
OOLL DD
BBLL OO
CC KKRR
DDAI
RPO
RT R
DAI
RPO
RT R
D
RROOCCKKYY TTOOPP LLNN
MMEEGGAANN
DDRR
LIG
HTN
ER S
TLI
GH
TNER
ST
CAM
BRID
GE
DR
CAM
BRID
GE
DR
HHAAVVEE RRSSHHIIRREE BBLLVVDD
GGRRAACCEE
CC TT
AABBEERRMMU U
I IR RH HTT
SS
CC HHEE LLSSEEAA
L LN N
Inset 1
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
k
CecilIrvinPark
FergusonElementary
Ballfields
FergusonTwp Watershed
Preserve
SSHHEELLDDOONNDDRR
WW PPIINNEE GGRROOVVEE RRDD
CCHHEESSTTEERR
DDRR
SS WWAATT EERR
SSTT
E PIN
E GRO
VE RD
E PIN
E GRO
VE RD
SHAW
VER LN
SHAW
VER LN
KOCHER LN
KOCHER LN
CCRREESSCCE EN NTTCCTT
BBUUTTTT EERRNNUUTT SSTT
SSAAI INNT T
EELLMMOO
SSL LNN
SS KKIIRR KK SSTT
SPORTS RD
SPORTS RD
N KIRK ST
N KIRK ST
SSNN
IIXXOONN
RRDD
CHESTER
CHESTER
CTCTVIERO ST
VIERO ST
EAGLE ST
EAGLE STTHRUSH ST
THRUSH ST
WWCCHHEESSTTNNUUTT SSTT
SPARROW
SPARROWSTST
MEC
KLEY RD
MEC
KLEY RD
RROOSSEEMMOONNTT DDRR
CINDA DR
CINDA DR
KKOOEEBBNNEERR
CCI IRR
DDAA
NNNN
LL EEYY
DDRR
LLOOIISS LLNN
IRION STIRION ST
WARD ALY
WARD ALY
BBAANNYYAANN DDRR
MAYES ST
MAYES ST SMITH ALY
SMITH ALY
SSEELL DD EERRSS CC II RR
MARTZ STMARTZ ST
REED ALYREED ALY
SSUUNNDDAAYY DDRR
MM OO UUNNTTAAIINNDDRR
MM EEAADDOOWWVVIIEEWWDDRR
EE CCHHEESSTTNNUUTT SSTT
EE BBUUTT TTEERRNNUUTT SSTT
MMOO
UU NN TT AAIINNSSTTOONNEERRDD
BEEC
HNUT ST
BEEC
HNUT ST
DEEPWOOD DR
DEEPWOOD DR
SYCAMORE DR
SYCAMORE DR
TT RR EE EETT OO
PP SSDD
RR
GGRRIISSSS IINNGGEERR CCAAMMPP LLNN
SSEELLDDEERRSSCIRCIR
BBRRAADDFFOORRDD
CCTT
FergusonFergusonTownshipTownship
Elementary SchoolElementary School
Inset 2
FairbrookPark
GGOODDDDAARRDDCCIIRR
VAL VERDA DR
VAL VERDA DR
RAMBLEW
OOD RD
RAMBLEW
OOD RD
RAVENDALE RD
RAVENDALE RD
ROSEWOODROSEWOOD
CIRCIR
TADPOLE RD
TADPOLE RD
FAIRBROOK DR
FAIRBROOK DR
BBRROOOOKK LLAA WW NN RR DD
OAK GLE
NN RD
OAK GLE
NN RD
ELM RD
ELM RD
BBEEAAVVEERR BBRROOOOKK DDRR
MMEEAADDOOWWLLNN
W PINE GROVE RD
W PINE GROVE RD
GG RREEEE NNFF II EE LLDDRRDD
GREENLEE LN
GREENLEE LN
MMAARREENNGGOO LLNNW WHITEHALL RD
W WHITEHALL RD
HHOO
RRS SEESSHH OO EE CCIIRR
Inset 3
C O L L E G EC O L L E G ET O W N S H I PT O W N S H I P
SSTT
AATT
EE
CCOO
LLLL
EEGG
EEBB
OORR
OOUU
GGHH
P A T T O N T O W N S H I P
P A T T O N T O W N S H I P
q
q
q
H U N T I N G D O N C O U N T Y
H U N T I N G D O N C O U N T Y
H U N T I N G D O N C O U N T Y
H U N T I N G D O N C O U N T Y
OFFICIAL MAP
q
0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
0 0.2 0.40.1 Mile
CC OO LLLL
EEGG
EE
TTOO
WWNN
SSHH
IIPP
0 0.1 0.20.05 Mile
0 500 1,000250 Feet
0 0.1 0.20.05 Mile
0 500 1,000250 Feet
_______________________________________CHAIRMAN
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
_______________________________________TOWNSHIP MANAGER
__________DATE
__________
__________
__________
__________DATE
__________DATE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE TOWNSHIPOF FERGUSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION ___ OF ORDINANCE________ OF THE TOWNSHIP OF FERGUSON, CENTRE COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA. ENACTED AS OF _________ ____, 2017.
D R A F T
0 1 20.5 Miles
0 5,000 10,0002,500 Feet
_̂ Ferguson Township Municipal Building
k Ferguson Township Elementary School
ñ Historic Site (per National Register of Historic Places)
Landmarks
po Wells
Sidewalks
Park Paths
Streets
Parks
Musser Gap Greenway & Trail
Existing Bike Lane*
Existing Shared Use Path*
Existing State Bike Route*
Township-Owned Property
Existing Municipal Facilities
Boundary Lines & Natural Features
!!
! ! ! !
!!
!!!!
Regional Growth Boundary
Municipal Boundaries
Parcels
Floodplains
Halfmoon OSPP
ClearWater
Pending Purchase
Purchased
Parcels Included in PACE Agricultural Easements(Centre County's Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement [PACE] Program)
Proposed Roads
Proposed Bicycle Facilities*
Future Fire Station
Proposed Parkland
Proposed Facilities
Map Date: 7/26/2017
Per the Centre Regional Planning Agency (CRPA)Regional Bike Plan, as amended May 23, 2016.Proposed Bicycle Facilities are shown as amended byFerguson Township on 7/25/2017.
*
ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF FERGUSON, CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, APPENDIX D, BY REPEALING ALL FORMER OFFICIAL MAPS AND PORTIONS OF OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE TOWNSHIP OF FERGUSON AND ADOPTING A NEW OFFICIAL MAP FOR THE TOWNSHIP OF FERGUSON. The Board of Supervisors of the Township of Ferguson hereby ordains: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Article IV, as reenacted and amended, the Township enacted an Official Map Ordinance on April 6, 1992, amended the same by ordinance on April 15, 1996, amended the same by ordinance on April 16, 2001, amended the same by Ordinance on May 19, 2008, and WHEREAS, the new Official Map Ordinance has a designated area from the National Register of Historic Places; represents purchased agricultural easements which are a part of the Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement program of Centre County; and those parcels which are pending purchases within Ferguson Township that will become permanent easements in the future are now represented on the map, and WHEREAS, the Township has received the recommendations of the Ferguson Township Planning Commission, the Centre Region Planning Commission, the Centre County Planning Commission, the Council of State College Borough, the Board of Supervisors of Patton Township, the Council of College Township, the Board of Supervisors of Harris Township, the Board of Supervisors of Halfmoon Township, and the Huntingdon County Planning Commission that the streets, roads, and other public facilities as designated on Exhibit “A” attached hereto should be so located; and WHEREAS, the Township desires to repeal all prior Official Maps and portions of Official Maps of Ferguson Township; and WHEREAS, the Township desires to adopt a new Official Map for the Township of Ferguson NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of the Township of Ferguson hereby ordains: Section 1. All prior Official Maps and portions of Official Maps previously adopted by the Township of Ferguson are hereby repealed. The Official Map of the Township of Ferguson shall be adopted in accordance with the Map which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. ORDAINED and ENACTED this _______ day of ______ 2017.
TOWNSHIP OF FERGUSON
By:________________________________
Steve Miller, Chairman Board of Supervisors [ S E A L] ATTEST: By:________________________________ David G. Pribulka, Secretary
Centre Regional Planning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 5 of 13
ITEM 7a.
IDENTIFYING CENTRE COUNTY’S ECONOMIC TRENDS AND POTENTIAL – presented by Bob Jacobs and Sue Hannegan of the Centre County Planning and Community
Development Office and Mark Higgins, Centre County Commissioner
This item provides information regarding the preparation of a document by the Centre County
Planning and Community Development Office (CCPCDO) regarding economic trends in
Centre County.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
There has been no previous action by the CRPC on this item.
RECOMMENDATION
This item is for information only, no formal action is required.
ATTACHMENT
1. Identifying Centre County’s Economic Trends and Potential
Identifying Centre County’s Economic Trends and Potential
The Centre County Economic Assessment and Discussion Guide was completed by the Penn State Extension,
Center for Economic and Community Development, and the Department of Agricultural Economic, Sociology
and Education. The research document is being edited and upon completion will be posted to the Centre
County Government Economic Development Website. http://www.centrecountypa.gov/index.aspx?NID=196
The purpose of this effort was to analyze trends in employment and wage growth by industry sector in
Centre County with special consideration given to agriculture.
The outcome is to develop economic development strategies based on an understanding of the current
economic trends and conditions.
Centre County is dominated by government and government related enterprises – a classification that
includes educational institutions including Penn State University.
Centre County’s expected growth industry and associated occupations
Health care and social services is the largest private employment sector, as it is statewide. However,
in Centre County, the employment growth in this sector is exceeding the state average by 16
percentage points. This finding is consistent with the projected demographic changes for the
national, state and local economy in which a large number of Centre County residents are in the 55-
and-over age group characterized by less participation in the labor force and more demand for
healthcare and related services.
Earnings in Centre County’s health care sector grew by 45%.
Industrial growth requires growth of associated occupations. The Center for Rural PA (July 2017)
completed an economic outlook for the next 10 years in PA and found that the fastest growing
occupations at the national, state, and local levels are all associated with the healthcare industry:
healthcare practitioners, healthcare support, and personal care and service occupations.
Centre County’s 2015 local strengths are reflected in the industry sectors that met the local demand for
services and exported product outside the county. Real estate, rental and leasing; accommodation and food
services; retail trade; finance and insurance; and construction were at the top of the list.
Dairy production in Centre County is nearly one-half of the county’s agricultural sales; yet agricultural
production levels are insufficient to meet the local demand. Even so, the county’s agricultural sales
increased 19% since 2007 (in inflation adjusted dollars) with increases in crop sales and livestock sales.
The number of farm operations increased by 4% in Centre County between 2007 and 2012; a trend
that is inconsistent with the national trend which shows a 4.3% loss of farms over the same time
period.
The relationship between the consumption and production agricultural economies creates economic
development opportunities. “Buy Local” programs maintain local economies.
Receive presentation and discuss findings and future opportunities.
Presenters: Bob Jacobs, Sue Hannegan – CCPCDO and Commissioner Mark Higgins
No action required.
Centre Regional Planning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 6 of 13
ITEM 8a.
FERGUSON TOWNSHIP PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – WATER
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
– presented by Ray Stolinas and Lindsay Schoch
This item provides information on the Proposed Zoning Text Amendment, requested by the
State College Borough Water Authority to add the Conditional Use of “Water Production
Facilities” in the Rural Agricultural Zoning District, change off-street parking standards, and
add definitions for “Water Production Facilities” and “Utilities.”
THE ISSUE
Ferguson Township Planning & Zoning staff received a proposed zoning text amendment on
May 24, 2017. The Ferguson Township Planning Commission had an initial review of the
Ordinance change, which at that time, proposed incorporating water production facilities into
the “Essential Services” definition within the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission
requested the Water Authority go back to the drawing board and propose something different.
On July 24, 2017, The Planning Commission, being pleased with the newly proposed
language, recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed text amendment.
OTHER INFORMATION
The Ferguson Township Planning & Zoning Staff prepared letters and sent the proposed
amendment to Joe Green, the Township Solicitor; Jim May, CRPA Planning Director; and
Robert Jacobs, Centre County Planning Director.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
The CRPC has not taken any previous action on this proposed rezoning.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This proposed text amendment is generally consistent with the 2013 Centre Region
Comprehensive Plan, and specifically the following Goals, Objectives, and Policies:
Community Services & Facilities:
Goal 4: Public Utilities are sited in a manner that will efficiently and economically serve
the greatest number of residents of the community with minimal environmental impact.
Establishing an additional Water Production Facility in the Centre Region will allow
for expanded service and water use.
Centre Regional Planning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 7 of 13
Sustainability:
Policy 1.1.2: Interconnection of water systems should be explored to limit interruption in
service for all customers within the Centre Region, where practical.
Establishing an additional Water Production Facility will ensure that if service is
interrupted because of an issue at the existing Facility, this additional facility will
limit the chance for interruption.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the CRPC support this item and provide any comments for CRPA staff
to forward to the Township Board of Supervisors for consideration.
ATTACHMENT
1. Proposed Zoning Text Amendment - Water Production Facilities
16049/corresp/Zoning Amendment_7-25-17.doc -1-
§ 27-204 Use Regulations. [Ord. 224, 3/15/1981, § 204; as amended by Ord. 268, 2/9/1984, § 1; by Ord. 295, 5/14/1985, §§ 1, 2; by Ord. 303, 11/12/1985, § 1; by Ord. 334, 6/23/1987, § 1; by Ord. 374, 1/18/1989; by Ord. 400, 7/25/1989, § 23; by Ord. 409, 11/14/1989, § 1; by Ord. 491, 6/17/1991, § 1; by Ord. 560, 6/7/1993, §§ 1, 2; by Ord. 595, 9/19/1994, § 1; by Ord. 614, 3/20/1995, § 1; by Ord. 646, 4/1/1996, § 1; by Ord. 658, 9/3/1996, § 5; by Ord. 671, 5/5/1997, § 1; by Ord. 672, 5/5/1997, §§ 1-3; by Ord. 680, 8/4/1997, § 1; by Ord. 682, 10/20/1997, § 1; by Ord. 701, 7/6/1998, § 1; by Ord. 702, 7/6/1998, § 1; by Ord. 703, 8/3/1998, §§ 1-5; by Ord. 704, 9/8/1998, § 1; by Ord. 710, 10/5/1998, § 1; by Ord. 720, 12/7/1998, § 2; by Ord. 733, 8/16/1999, § 1; by Ord. 738, 10/18/1999, § 4; by Ord. 741, 10/18/1999, §§ 1, 2; by Ord. 757, 8/7/2000, § 1; by Ord. 797, 8/5/2002, § 1; by Ord. 820, 12/8/2003; by Ord. 821, 12/8/2003, § 1; by Ord. 852, 8/1/2005, § 1; by Ord. 861, 2/6/2006, § 1; by Ord. 865, 8/7/2006, § 1; by Ord. 870, 11/6/2006, § 2; by Ord. 888, 7/2/2007, § 6; by Ord. 898, 1/7/2008, § 2; by Ord. 900, 2/4/2008, § 1; by Ord. 902, 4/7/2008, § 1; by Ord. 908, 8/18/2008, § 8; by Ord. 917, 1/19/2009, §§ 1, 2; by Ord. 935, 5/17/2010, § 2; by Ord. 938, 7/19/2010, § 2; by Ord. 973, 12/10/2012, § 1; by Ord. 979, 10/21/2013, §§ 1 — 4; and by Ord. 1002, 6/15/2015, § 1] 1. The use of land and structures shall be limited to only the primary, adjunct and accessory uses
permitted in each zoning district, unless specifically permitted, exempted or otherwise modified by this or other sections of this chapter. All other uses not expressly permitted are prohibited. In addition to the regulations stipulated for each use in Part 3 through Part 8, the following use regulations shall apply:
Insert the following at the end of this section:
TT: Water Production Facilities. Water production facilities owned and operated by the
State College Borough Water Authority in the vicinity of their potable water wells shall be permitted as a conditional use in the RA zoning district after recommendation by the Planning Commission if the following standards and criteria are met:
(1) An ambient sound level study is provided and the ambient sound level at all
points along the boundary line of the property upon which the water production facility is located shall be no more than 55 decibels (dbA).
(2) A land development plan shall be prepared in accordance with 27-1003 of this
chapter. An elevation drawing of any structure to be constructed on the property shall be provided as part of the land development plan.
(3) A landscape buffer in accordance with Buffer Yard C of the flexible buffer yard
regulations shall be provided between on-site buildings and the property line.
(4) An Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan shall be prepared and approved. (5) A laboratory within the water production facility shall be allowable. The scale of
the laboratory shall be limited to only the required testing necessary for compliance with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulations. Storage of chemicals within the laboratory which are to be used for DEP compliance shall be limited to a four (4) month supply of such chemicals at one time.
16049/corresp/Zoning Amendment_7-25-17.doc -2-
(6) The minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. (7) The minimum yard setbacks shall be as follows: (a) Rear yard setback: 50 feet (b) Front yard setback: 50 feet (c) Side yard setback: 50 feet (8) Maximum Building Coverage: 15% of lot area (9) Maximum Impervious Coverage: 50% of lot area
16049/corresp/Zoning Amendment_7-25-17.doc -3-
§ 27-809 Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations. [Ord. 224, 3/15/1981, § 709; as amended by Ord. 268, 2/9/1984, § 4; by Ord. 317, 7/22/1986, § 3; by Ord. 329, 12/9/1986, § 3; by Ord. 453, 5/21/1990, §§ 1-5; by Ord. 560, 6/7/1993, §§ 21, 22; by Ord. 597, 10/17/1994, § 3; by Ord. 639, 1/2/1996, § 1; by Ord. 646, 4/1/1996, § 2; by Ord. 672, 5/5/1997, §§ 4, 5; by Ord. 704, 9/8/1998, § 2; by Ord. 730, 6/7/1999, §§ 3, 4; by Ord. 733, 8/16/1999, §§ 6, 7, 8; by Ord. 736, 9/7/1999, § 4; by Ord. 737, 10/9/1999, § 2; by Ord. 738, 10/18/1999, § 6; by Ord. 741, 10/18/1999, § 4; by Ord. 744, 11/1/1999, § 3; by Ord. 746, 12/13/1999, § 2; by Ord. 747, 12/13/1999, §§ 5, 6; by Ord. 820, 12/8/2003; by Ord. 821, 12/8/2003, § 4; by Ord. 835, 8/16/2004, § 2; by Ord. 858, 12/12/2005; by Ord. 888, 7/2/2007, § 8; by Ord. 910, 11/3/2008, § 3; by Ord. 973, 12/10/2012, § 7; and by Ord. 977, 5/20/2013, §§ 1-4] 1. Off-street parking and loading space shall be provided and maintained for each use and
structure hereafter established, erected, altered or extended in accordance with the provisions of this section.
B. Required Off-Street Parking Spaces. All uses and structures shall provide off-street
parking spaces in an amount equal to, or greater than, the number listed below. The total number of parking spaces necessary for two or more uses on the same lot shall be the sum of that required for each use unless a shared parking arrangement is provided in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 1E. Shared parking spaces that are accessible by neighboring properties or uses may be permitted when use of the spaces does not occur during the same daily time period. (1) Dimensions. Each required off-street parking space shall be at least nine feet
wide and 18 feet long if set at an angle to the access aisle or eight feet wide and 24 feet long if parallel to the access aisle.
(2) Number of Computation. In computing the required number of spaces, all
fractional numbers more than 1/2 shall be increased to the next highest integer. When computation is based on the number of employees, the number employed during the largest work shift shall be used.
Table of Required Parking Spaces per Use*
1. Residential Uses.
Use Parking Spaces
Required
A. Single-family detached dwelling (1 dwelling unit) 2 per dwelling unit
B. Single-family semi-detached dwelling (2 dwelling units) - duplex 2 per dwelling unit
C. Single-family attached dwelling (3 or more dwelling units) - townhouse
2 per dwelling unit
D. Two-family detached dwelling (2 dwelling units) 1.5 per dwelling unit
E. Two-family semi-detached dwelling (4 dwelling units) 1.5 per dwelling unit
F. Two-family attached dwelling (6 or more dwelling units) 1.5 per dwelling unit
G. Multi-family detached dwelling (3 dwelling units) 1.5 per dwelling unit
16049/corresp/Zoning Amendment_7-25-17.doc -4-
Table of Required Parking Spaces per Use*
H. Multi-family semi-detached dwelling (6 dwelling units) 1.5 per dwelling unit
I. Multi-family attached dwelling (9 or more dwelling units) 1.5 per dwelling unit
2. Commercial Use. Any portion of a building used for office, repair/service, retail, and restaurants require parking as pertains to that individual use, as if it were a freestanding use.
Use
Parking Spaces Required
A. All retail as follows:
(1) Supermarket/grocery stores 1 space per 200 square feet of GFA
(2) Retail, general 1 space per 200 square feet of GFA
(3) Furniture, appliance, carpet, musical instrument stores
1 space per 350 square feet of GFA
B. Construction equipment, farm equipment, feed sales, boat and marine, mobile/motor home vehicles, motor vehicles, and monument burial vault and casket sales
1 space per 350 square feet of GFA of office, sales and service area plus 1 per 3,000 square feet of GFA outside sales area
C. Automobile service station 1 per pump (does not count car at pump as space), 6 per repair/ service bay, and additional number based on retail space of GFA
D. Barbers and beauticians 2 per chair
E. Car wash 4 per stall, plus 1 per vacuum unit if applicable
F. Mortuary (funeral home) 1 per 3 seats based on maximum capacity, as permitted by Centre Region Code Administration
G. Business, professional and financial offices 1 per 250 square feet of GFA
H. Veterinary office/clinic 1 per 200 square feet of GFA
I. Eating and drinking establishments 1 per 50 square feet of GFA, inside seating area, plus 1 per 100 square feet of GFA outside seating area
J. Hotels, motels, tourist homes, bed and breakfast establishments 1.2 spaces per room
See eating and drinking establishments for additional spaces
K. Neighborhood business-based place of assembly 1 per 3 persons based on maximum design capacity of largest indoor public space as permitted by Centre Region Code Administration
L. Community business-based place of assembly 1 per 3 persons based on maximum design capacity of largest indoor public space as permitted by Centre Region Code Administration
M. Regional business-based place of assembly 1 per every 500 square feet gross floor area plus, 1 bus space per every 2000 square feet
16049/corresp/Zoning Amendment_7-25-17.doc -5-
N. Radio and/or television studios 1 per 250 square feet of GFA
O. Post office 1 space per 200 square feet of GFA
P. Mining and quarrying 1 space per 250 square feet of office use
Q. Horse riding stables and academies 1 space per 2 stalls, for an indoor arena - 1 space per 4 persons based on maximum capacity as determined by the Centre Region Code Office. These spaces will be permitted to be gravel
R. Kennels 1 space per 250 square feet of office, 1 space per 4 animal holding areas
S. Commercial cemeteries 1 space per 350 square feet of public area in mausoleum or similar structure
T. Reading room-classified under commercial uses/retail
1 space per 200 square feet of GFA
U. Shoe repair - classified under commercial uses/retail
1 space per 200 square feet of GFA
V. Tailors - classified under commercial uses/retail 1 space per 200 square feet of GFA
W. Mail order agency - classified under business office
1 space per 250 square feet of GFA
X. Public and private garages for the storage and maintenance of motor vehicles
1 space per 250 square feet of office and 6 spaces per repair or service bay
Y. Take-out restaurant 1 space per 100 square feet of seating/standing/waiting area
Z. Tanning salon 1 space per tanning bed
AA. Laundromat 1 space per each three washers or dryers
BB. Rural agricultural service establishments (i.e., small engine, farm machinery, dairy equipment repair, etc.)
1 space per 250 square feet of GFA
CC. Greenhouses open to the public 1 space per 250 square feet of sales area
DD. Pet care and pet day care 1 space for each staff person and 1 space for every 10 pets, as well as parking required for any retail element of the facility
EE. Caterers 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area
16049/corresp/Zoning Amendment_7-25-17.doc -6-
3. Industrial Uses. Any portion of a building used for office, repair/service, retail and restaurants require the parking as pertains to that individual use, as if it were a freestanding use, in addition to the following:
Use Parking Spaces Required
A. All industrial uses except those specified below
1 per 350 square feet of GFA plus 1 per 1,000 square feet of outdoor operations (excluding storage)
B. Auto wrecking, junk and scrap establishments In addition to on-site office, repair/ service area, etc., 1 per 5,000 square feet of indoor/outdoor storage area
C. Freight and trucking terminals, moving and storage, parcel delivery and express transfer stations, depots and wholesale distribution warehouses, telecommunications switching facilities
1 per 2,000 square feet of GFA
4. Public, Quasi-Public and Transportation Uses. Any portion of a building used for office repair/service, retail and restaurants require the parking as pertains to that individual use, as if it were a freestanding use, in addition to the following:
[Amended by Ord. 1016, 5/16/2016]
Use Parking Spaces Required
A. Ambulance, emergency fire and rescue, taxi and limousine service
2 per vehicle plus 1 per 350 square feet of GFA
B. Bus passenger station (park and ride lots for busses, vanpooling)
1 per 200 square feet of GFA or lot area sufficient to support program
C. Hospital 1 per 400 square feet of GFA
D. Nursing homes, personal care homes and other convalescent homes
1 space for every rooming unit; 0.75 space per unit for personal care homes
E. Archival library 1 per 750 square feet of GFA
F. Tutoring and study center 1 space for every 200 square feet
G. Health and athletic clubs 1 per 3 persons based on the maximum design capacity, as permitted by the Centre Region Code Administration
H. Studios for instruction in music, performing arts and visual media art, photographic and handicrafts studios, martial arts, dance and gymnastics
1 per 3 persons based on maximum design capacity, as permitted by the Centre Region Code Administration
16049/corresp/Zoning Amendment_7-25-17.doc -7-
I. J.
Child day care center Water Production Facility
1 per 350 square feet of gross floor area (minimum of 3) 1 space for every 4,000 square feet of GFA
5. Agricultural Research District
Use Parking Spaces Required
A. Greenhouse for agricultural research 2 gravel or paved spaces adjacent to each greenhouse
B. Laboratory 1 space per 350 square feet of GFA
C. Exhibit hall 1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area with bus/van parking of 1 space per 2,000 square feet of gross floor area
D. Ag Progress Days/educational trips/field days Open field parking is permitted
6. Forest/Gamelands Uses
Use Parking Spaces Required
A. Archery range 1 space per target
B. Rifle or pistol range 1 space per stand or shooting bench
C. Skeet or shotgun range 1 space per shooting station
D. Day/overnight camp 1 per 3 persons based on maximum design capacity of the largest component (dining hall, recreation building), as permitted by the Centre Region Code Office
E. Hunting, fishing and gun clubs 1 per 3 persons based on maximum design capacity as permitted by the Centre Region Code Office
F. Nature education center 1 per 3 persons based on maximum design capacity as permitted by the Centre Region Code Office
G. Picnic area 1 space per table
H. Seasonal dwellings 2 spaces per dwelling
Note: All parking areas within this zone are permitted to be gravel
* Sufficient delivery and pick-up area is to be provided such that streets and private/public roads are not congested nor hazardous as a result of the above uses.
(3) Handicapped Parking. The size and number of these spaces shall be required as
specified in the Township Building Code. The signage for each space must
16049/corresp/Zoning Amendment_7-25-17.doc -8-
contain the handicapped symbol, state that violators will be towed or fined and the minimum and maximum fine.
(4) GFA. GFA is gross floor area. For buildings with more than one use, the parking
shall be calculated based on the GFA for each use.
16049/corresp/Zoning Amendment_7-25-17.doc -9-
§ 27-1202 Definitions. [Ord. 224, 3/15/1981, § 1102; as amended by Ord. 237, 9/7/1982, § 5; by Ord. 270, 3/8/1984, § 8; by Ord. 290, 2/12/1985, § 1; by Ord. 317, 7/22/1986, § 4; by Ord. 339, 9/8/1987, § 1; by Ord. 374, 1/18/1989; by Ord. 399, 7/11/1989, § 11; by Ord. 402, 9/12/1989, § 2; by Ord. 403, 9/12/1989, § 12; by Ord. 409, 11/14/1989, § 3; by Ord. 411, 12/5/1989, § 6; by Ord. 560, 6/7/1993, § 24; by Ord. 595, 9/14/1994, § 3; by Ord. 597, 10/17/1994, § 4; by Ord. 614, 3/20/1995, § 2; by Ord. 630, 11/20/1995, § 2; by Ord. 644, 3/18/1996, § 1; by Ord. 646, 4/1/1996, §§ 3, 4; by Ord. 651, 5/20/1996, § 7; by Ord. 656, 6/17/1996, § 2; by Ord. 665, 12/9/1996, § 1; by Ord. 671, 5/5/1997, § 3; by Ord. 680, 8/4/1997, § 6; by Ord. 682, 10/20/1997, §§ 5, 6; by Ord. 701, 7/6/1998, § 2; by Ord. 702, 7/6/1998, § 3; by Ord. 730, 6/7/1999, § 5; by Ord. 733, 8/16/1999, §§ 11, 12; by Ord. 736, 9/7/1999, § 5; by Ord. 737, 10/4/1999, § 3; by Ord. 738, 10/18/1999, §§ 7-9; by Ord. 757, 8/7/2000, § 2; by Ord. 820, 12/8/2003; by Ord. 821, 12/8/2003, § 6; by Ord. 822, 12/8/2003, § 2; by Ord. 852, 8/1/2005, § 3; by Ord. 858, 12/12/2005; by Ord. 861, 2/6/2006, § 2; by Ord. 888, 7/2/2007, § 7; by Ord. 908, 8/18/2008, § 8; by Ord. 910, 11/3/2008, § 4; by Ord. 917, 1/19/2009, § 3; by Ord. 921, 3/16/2009, §§ 5, 6; by Ord. 935, 5/17/2010, § 4; by Ord. 938, 7/19/2010, § 4; by Ord. 943, 2/7/2011, §§ 2, 3; by Ord. 968, 7/2/2012, § 3; by Ord. 973, 12/10/2012, § 8; by Ord. 979, 10/21/2013, § 5; by Ord. 990, 8/18/2014, § 16; and by Ord. 1002, 6/15/2015, § 3]
Add new definitions: UTILITY - A corporation, enterprise, municipal authority, government entity or persons generating, transmitting, distributing, transporting and/or collecting in any manner, electricity, heat, steam, natural gas, propane, water, wastewater, communications (including, but not limited to, cable, telephone and fiber optic) to the public. WATER PRODUCTION FACILITY - A structure or building whose primary function is the production of potable water for public use. For the purposes of this chapter, such facilities include buildings or structures, including, but not limited to, water treatment facilities, water towers/tanks/reservoirs or pumping stations and any appurtenant structures including, but not limited to, drying beds, back-up generators and fuel tanks, which are necessary for the operation of the water production facility and compliance with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulations.
Centre Regional Planning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 8 of 13
ITEM 8b.
PROPOSED HARNER FARM REZONING – FERGUSON TOWNSHIP
– presented by Ray Stolinas and Lindsay Schoch
This item provides information on the Proposed Rezoning of Harner Farm.
THE ISSUE
Ferguson Township Planning and Zoning received a proposed zoning map amendment on
May 10, 2017 to rezone 71.4 acres on College Avenue, east and west of Whitehall Road. On
June 5, 2017, the Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors considered the request to evaluate
the potential rezoning of the property known as Harner Farm. The property is currently owned
by the Harner Family, but is under agreement of sale to Aspen Whitehall Partners, LLC. The
request was forwarded to the Planning Commission and reviewed at the June 12, 2017
meeting, where they made a motion to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the
proposed rezoning. Comments were received from the Centre Regional Planning Agency, and
the Centre Regional Planning Commission will hear the proposal on September 7, 2017. The
Board of Supervisors authorized a public hearing for September 18, 2017. The property has
been posted, and adjoining property owners have been notified of the hearing.
OTHER INFORMATION
Ferguson Township Planning and Zoning prepared an analysis of this proposed rezoning,
which is included with the agenda.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
The CRPC has not taken any previous action on this proposed rezoning.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Future Land Use Map, found in the 2013 Centre Region Comprehensive Plan, designates
this property as Mixed Use. The Proposed Zoning Change is generally consistent with the
2013 Centre Region Comprehensive Plan. Although the plan calls for Mixed-Use, including
residential uses above commercial storefronts, this proposal is generally consistent since it is
not being proposed as one zoning district, but a mix of three (3) on one lot.
Ferguson Township Planning & Zoning staff feels the proposed rezoning is generally
consistent with the following Goals, Objectives, and Policies:
Sustainable and Smart Development Practices:
Objective 3.3: Balance the amount of vacant commercially zoned property with the needs
of the Centre Region.
After an analysis of the remaining vacant commercially zoned property within the
Regional Growth Boundary in Ferguson Township, a conclusion was made that a
significant amount of commercial land is not available, therefore the rezoning is
justified.
Centre Regional Planning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 9 of 13
Policy 3.3.4: Given the existing amount of commercially zoned land, the Centre Region
municipalities should encourage the redevelopment of existing commercial property and
the development of vacant commercial lands that have appropriate infrastructure.
Although this land is not currently zoned commercial, the proposed rezoning is
consistent with this policy.
Objective 4.4: Encourage mixed-use development opportunities in appropriately
identified areas of the Centre Region.
The 71.4 acres are designated as Mixed-Use on the Future Land Use map in the 2013
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning requests a mix of zoning districts.
Transportation:
Objective 4.2: Consider the transportation system’s capacity to accommodate changes in
travel demand when considering land use, zoning, and proposed land development
activities.
The Rezoning Analysis shows the annual average daily traffic volumes (AADT) for the
West College Avenue and West Whitehall Road segments relative to the location of the
proposed rezoning.
Policy 4.2.1: Require that the transportation impact of proposed rezoning requests, master
development plan proposals, and land development activities be documented prior to
municipal action.
A Transportation Impact Study will be a requirement prior to any land development
plan approval.
Housing:
Objective 3.1: Direct new residential development to sites within the Regional Growth
Boundary and Sewer Service Area to facilitate convenient access to schools, jobs, medical
facilities, shopping and public transit services.
The rezoning proposes commercial and residential zoning districts, which means the
opportunity for housing with convenient access to shops, schools, and work is likely.
Policy 3.1.2: Ensure through the Official Map and plan review process that new
developments offer opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian access within and among
neighborhoods, schools, parks, transit, employment, and shopping.
Ferguson Township is in the process of updating and adopting a new Official Map.
There is a proposed bicycle facility along West College Avenue and a proposed road
within the parcel to be rezoned for future use.
Community Services and Facilities:
Policy 5.1.2: Assist the fire companies in identifying demographic trends that affect the
future recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters.
Centre Regional Planning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 10 of 13
A portion of the Rezoning Analysis outlines the impact the proposed increase in
density would have on the local fire company. It was determined that the increase
would not significantly impact the fire company, with less than 60 responses per year.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the CRPC support this item, provide any comments for CRPA staff to
forward to the Township Board of Supervisors for their consideration.
ATTACHMENT
1. Rezoning Application Analysis Harner Farm Revised August 30, 2017
TOWNSHIP OF FERGUSON 3147 Research Drive • State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Telephone: 814-238-4651 • Fax: 814-238-3454 www.twp.ferguson.pa.us
REZONING APPLICATION ANALYSIS
HARNER FARM REVISED 8.31.17
1. APPLICANT: ASPEN WHITEHALL PARTNERS, LLC
2. LANDOWNER(S): DANNY R. & PAMELA M. HARNER AND THOMPSON P. HARNER & NANCY B. HARNER
3. DB/PG: 1794-0574
4. AGENT: ASPEN WHITEHALL PARTNERS, LLC
5. SUBMISSION DATE: MAY 10, 2017
6. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2191 WEST WHITEHALL ROAD, STATE COLLEGE, PA 16801
7. PARCEL ID: 24-004-,067 ACRES: 71.4 ACRES
8. EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION: RURAL AGRICULTURAL (RA) WITH CORRIDOR OVERLAY
9. REQUESTED ZONING DESIGNATION: GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C), TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2), SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1)
10. EXISTING USE: THE HARNER FAMILY OWNS THE PROPERTY AND OPERATES AN APPLE ORCHARD AND
CURRENTLY FARMS THE PROPERTY
11. PROPOSED USE: 44.6 ACRES OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C); 4.3 ACRES OF TWO-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-2); AND 22.5 ACRES OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1)
12. REQUESTED ACTION: FERGUSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING & ZONING STAFF RECEIVED A PROPOSED
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ON MAY 10, 2017. ON JUNE 5, 2017 THE FERGUSON TOWNSHIP BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS CONSIDERED THE REQUEST TO EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL REZONING OF THE 71.4
ACRES KNOWN AS HARNER FARM. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY THE HARNER FAMILY, BUT
IS UNDER AGREEMENT OF SALE TO ASPEN WHITEHALL PARTNERS, LLC. THE REQUEST WAS
FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND REVIEWED AT THE JUNE 12, 2017 AND JULY 24,
2017 MEETINGS, WHERE THEY MADE A MOTION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO APPROVE THE
PROPOSED REZONING. COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE CENTRE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE CENTRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HEAR THE PROPOSAL ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2017. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AUTHORIZED A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 18, 2017. THE
PROPERTY HAS BEEN POSTED AND ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE
HEARING.
13. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: THE FERGUSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MET ON
JUNE 12, 2017, AND HAD AN INITIAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED REZONING. THE REVIEWED THE
PROPOSAL AGAIN ON JULY 24, WHERE THEY MADE A MOTION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO
APPROVE THE REZONING.
14. 2009/2017 OFFICIAL MAP AND PROPOSED DRAFT OFFICIAL MAP: NO NATURAL
AREAS OF CONSERVATION, EASEMENTS, OR ACQUISITIONS ARE PRESENT WITHIN THE AREA OF THE
REZONING PROPOSAL. A FUTURE ROAD WAS PLACED ON THE PROPOSED DRAFT OFFICIAL MAP AS A
RESULT OF THE RECENTLY PROPOSED REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY.
15. ADJACENT LAND USE: PURSUANT TO SECTION 609((B)(2)(I) OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
MUNICIPALITIES PLANNING CODE, NOTICE OF THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING SHALL BE MAILED BY THE
MUNICIPALITY AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE HEARING TO ALL REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA BEING REZONED. THE NOTICE SHALL INCLUDE THE LOCATION, DATE AND TIME
OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE FOLLOWING TABLE REPRESENTS ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS IN FERGUSON SQUARE ACROSS WEST COLLEGE AVENUE. IT ALSO REPRESENTS THE
ZONING DISTRICT AND TYPE OF USE ON THE PROPERTY TO SHOW CONSISTENCY WITH ADJACENT LAND
USES.
TABLE 1
PARCEL OWNER ACRES ZONING DISTRICT USE
24-004-,070R
FERGUSON
SQUARE
ASSOCIATES
1.59 GENERAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL
24-004-,070C
TEAM RAHAL OF
STATE
COLLEGE, INC.
4.00 GENERAL COMMERCIAL CAR DEALERSHIP
24-004-,070S
BREWMEISTER’S
BED &
BREAKFAST,
INC.
2.90 GENERAL COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT
24-004-,070A
DEALER
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
5.00 GENERAL COMMERCIAL CAR DEALERSHIP
24-004-,070B
HIGHLAND
HOLDING
GROUP, INC. 4.80 GENERAL COMMERCIAL
GAS
STATION/CONVENIENCE
STORE
24-004-,079K
DRISCOLL
AUTOMOTIVE
3220 LLC.
3.98 GENERAL COMMERCIAL CAR DEALERSHIP
24-004-,079P
DRISCOLL
AUTOMOTIVE
3280 LLC
2.87 GENERAL COMMERCIAL CAR DEALERSHIP
24-004-,079N
3490 WEST
COLLEGE
AVENUE, LLC
2.44 GENERAL COMMERCIAL AUTO PARTS STORE
24-004-,079D
3416 WEST
COLLEGE
AVENUE, LLC
7.08 GENERAL COMMERCIAL AUTO PARTS STORE
24-004-078B
THOMPSON P.
& DANNY R.
HARNER
34.00 RURAL AGRICULTURE FARM
24-017-,017
VIRGINIA
CAROL &
RICHARD B.
SMITH
6.38 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-017-,018 JOSEPH H. &
SANDRA 2.11
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
DELAUTER
24-017-,019
DENNIS A. &
WENDY L.
MYERS
4.30 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-004-,067C THOMPSON P.
HARTER .30 RURAL AGRICULTURE
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-004-,069
DANNY R. &
PAMELA M.
HARNER
1.00
RURAL
AGRICULTURE/CORRIDOR
OVERLAY
FARM STORE
24-004-067A
WEST PENN
POWER
COMPANY
.92 RURAL AGRICULTURE SUBSTATION
24-004-,067B
DANNY R. &
PAMELA M.
HARNER
.71 RURAL AGRICULTURE SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-004-,067D CHRISTOPHER
S. HARNER .56 RURAL AGRICULTURE
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-017-,003D PATRICK
KASPER 1.48
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-017-,025
HARRY D &
MARITA J.
CAMPBELL
1.48 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-017-,027 MARITA J.
CAMPBELL 1.53
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-017-,003A
JAN L. &
JOANNE L.
MAURER
1.53 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-017-,003C
FREDERICK R.
& KAREN S.
JUBA
1.33 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-017-,003
ROBERT &
JEANNE T.
SIGENTHALER
3.17 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-017-,002
ROBERT M. &
JOAN KH
PETERS
1.72 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-017-,001A KATHY ANN
RACHAEL 2.75
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-017-,001
DENNIS J &
KATIE G.
SCALISE
2.75 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-004C-,128
ROBERT L. &
DIANE L.
BALDWIN
.41 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-004C-,127 KAREN E.
MORRIS .43 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE
24-004C,200A,G126 STEVEN J.
DOWD .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G128
WILLIAM &
CANDACE
DORNAN
.12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G130 ANNA L.
MAZZUCATO .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G132 CHRISTOPHER .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
WHEELER
24-004C,200A,G134 MAHER HASAN
FELEBAN .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G136 DENNIS BOAKE .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G138 SHANA M.
TELESZ .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G140
SCOTT P &
PAMELA A.
MITCHELL
.12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G142
MARY ANNE
WILLIAMS
FAMILY TRUST
.12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G144 LESLIE Q.
JACKSON .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G146 ROBERTA J.
VALESKI .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G148
BRIAN T. &
MONICA C.
ELLIS
.12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G150 ROBERT W. &
RUTH A. BURK .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G152 LANNY B.
SOMMESE .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G154 RICHARD M.
ROSA .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G156 CHII-YUN TSAI .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G158
SCOTT &
PAMELA A.
MITCHELL
.12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G160
DONALD P. &
LISA D.
GOSHORN
.12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G162
SCOTT &
PAMELA A.
MITCHELL
.12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G164 ROBERT W. &
RUTH A. BURK .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G166 MINGNAN DU .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
24-004C,200A,G168 LILLIAN LUU .12 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
16. PARCEL HISTORY: THE PARCEL HAS BEEN USED FOR AN APPLE ORCHARD IN THE PAST. BUILDING
PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR MULTIPLE GREENHOUSES ON THE PROPERTY AND A VARIANCE
GRANTED FOR RELIEF OF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION IN THE RA ZONING DISTRICT. OTHER
AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS ALSO EXIST ON THE PROPERTY. THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY PREVIOUS
REQUESTS TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY. THE 1982 ZONING MAP HAD THIS PROPERTY ZONED RA.
17. WETLANDS, FLOODPLAIN AND SOILS: THERE
ARE NO MAPPED OR DELINEATED WETLANDS ON
THE HARNER PROPERTY. THERE IS AN AREA OF
OPEQUON- HAGERSTOWN SOIL KNOWN AS
FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE. THE
SOILS ON THE PROPERTY ARE ALL PRIME
AGRICULTURAL SOILS.
18. PUBLIC SERVICES: THE PARCEL PROPOSED TO
BE REZONED FROM RURAL AGRICULTURAL (RA)
TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C), SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-1), AND TWO-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-2) IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SEWER SERVICE AREA (SSA) AND REGIONAL GROWTH
BOUNDARY (RGB) ILLUSTRATED IN THE PURPLE HATCH PATTERN IN FIGURE 2.
AFTER DISCUSSION WITH CORY MILLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE UNIVERSITY AREA JOINT
AUTHORITY (UAJA), STAFF HAS COME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: ALTHOUGH THE HARNER
PROPERTY IS LOCATED
WITHIN THE REGIONAL
GROWTH BOUNDARY (RGB)
AND SEWER SERVICE AREA
(SSA), THE CURRENT
ZONING DESIGNATION, RURAL AGRICULTURE (RA)
ALLOWS FOR TWO (2)
EQUIVALENT DWELLING
UNITS (EDUS). THE
REZONING WOULD REQUIRE
A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN
EDUS FOR A CHANGE FROM
RA TO COMMERCIAL (C), TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(R-2), AND SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-1); THEREFORE, HYDRAULIC AND ORGANIC CAPACITY ARE AVAILABLE AT THE CURRENT TIME. NUTRIENT
CAPACITY WILL BE AVAILABLE WITH NITROGEN OFFSETS AND BMPS. THE CENTRE REGION COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS PLANS TO UNDERTAKE AN UPDATE TO THE ACT 537, SEWAGE FACILITIES PLAN IN
2018. ONE OF THE GOALS IN THE UPDATE OF THIS PLAN IS FINDING NUTRIENT CAPACITY FOR
GROWTH. NUTRIENT CAPACITY IS A NECESSARY ELEMENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY TRIBUTARY STRATEGY. ONE METHOD OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL NUTRIENT
CAPACITY CAN BE FOUND IN BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) IN THE SPRING CREEK
WATERSHED.
SEWAGE FLOW COULD BE AN ISSUE TO THE PORTION OF THE SITE AS WELL. THE PROPERTY SOUTH OF
WHITEHALL ROAD WOULD NEED TO FLOW THROUGH A SEWER EXTENSION TO THE SCOTT ROAD PUMP
STATION. THE DEVELOPER MAY FIND THIS COST TO BE PROHIBITIVE.
PUBLIC WATER SERVICE IS PROVIDED BY STATE COLLEGE BOROUGH WATER AUTHORITY (SCBWA). AFTER A DISCUSSION WITH JOHN LICHMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SCBWA, HE IS SATISFIED
THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RGB AND SSA AND WOULD BE INTERESTED IN
REVIEWING ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN DEPTH AS THE DEVELOPMENT MOVES FORWARD.
Figure 1
Figure 2
19. 2013 CENTRE REGION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - FUTURE LAND USE: THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, FOUND IN THE 2013 CENTRE REGION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY AS MIXED USE. THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE IS GENERALLY
CONSISTENT WITH THE 2013 CENTRE REGION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ALTHOUGH THE PLAN
CALLS FOR MIXED-USE, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL USES ABOVE COMMERCIAL STOREFRONTS, THIS PROPOSAL IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT SINCE IT IS NOT BEING PROPOSED AS ONE
ZONING DISTRICT, BUT A MIX OF THREE (3) ON ONE LOT.
Figure 3
20. FERGUSON TOWNSHIP ZONING:
§27-206.I. REQUIRES THAT, WHERE A TRACT OF LAND ZONED RURAL AGRICULTURAL ON THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS PART, OR THEREAFTER, IS CHANGED TO A DIFFERENT ZONING
CLASSIFICATION, THEN A BUFFER YARD OF NOT LESS THAN 50 FEET IN WIDTH SHALL BE PROVIDED ON
THE PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN REZONED WHEN THE REZONED LAND ADJOINS LAND IN THE RA RURAL
AGRICULTURAL ZONE.” A FIFTY (50’) FOOT BUFFER WILL THEREFORE NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED ALONG THE HARNER PROPERTY
BOUNDARY THAT ABUTS RURAL AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES. A FIFTY (50’) FOOT AGRICULTURAL
BUFFER WILL BE ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE HARNER PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOLLOWING
CONSOLIDATION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMISSION.
SITE
“Mixed Use: This category is used for areas that have a mix of urban uses such as Commercial/Office, Industrial/Office, Residential, or Public/Institutional uses. The Mixed Use category is best utilized when there is no single use that is located in a development. For example, a residential area with a park or school would be classified as residential; however a development with residential uses above commercial storefronts would be identified as mixed use.”
Table 3 Single-family Residential (R-1) PROPOSED Zoning District – Permitted Uses
1. SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS, WITH OFF-SITE
SEWER SERVICE
2. SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS, WITH ON-SITE
SEWER SERVICE 3. NEIGHBORHOOD CIVIC- OR FAITHBASED PLACE OF
ASSEMBLY (SEE § 27-204, SUBSECTION 1NN)
4. FORESTRY USES
5. GROUP HOME 6. COMMUNITY GARDENS
ACCESSORY USES
7. CUSTOMARY USES ACCESSORY TO THE ABOVE; ESSENTIAL
SERVICES 8. NO-IMPACT HOMEBASED BUSINESS
9. HOME OCCUPATIONS
10. FAMILY CHILD-CARE HOMES, IF THE REQUIREMENTS OF §
27-204, SUBSECTION 1E(1), ARE SATISFIED 11. BED-AND-BREAKFAST HAVING 1 TO 3 ROOMS AS AN
ACCESSORY USE TO AN OWNEROCCUPIED SINGLEFAMILY
DWELLING UNIT, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF § 27-
204, SUBSECTION 1X
12. FOOD TRUCKS 13. TUTORING AND STUDY CENTERS AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO
NEIGHBORHOOD CIVIC- AND FAITHBASED ASSEMBLY
CONDITIONAL USES
14. MODEL HOMES 15. GROUP CHILDCARE HOME ACCESSORY TO A RESIDENCE IF
THE REQUIREMENTS OF 27-204, SUBSECTION 1E(2)
IN ADDITION, THERE IS A 660’ WIDE SECTION OF THE HARNER PROPERTY ADJACENT TO WEST
COLLEGE AVENUE THAT IS IN THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT AND WILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE
CRITERIA SET FORTH THAT ENCOMPASSES LANDSCAPE/BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, LOCATION OF OFF-STREET PARKING, BUILDING APPEARANCE, AND GROUND SIGN PROVISIONS.
THE FIGURE ABOVE SHOWS THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR THE HARNER PROPERTY AND ADJACENT
PROPERTIES. THE FOLLOWING TABLES REPRESENT THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT AND ITS
Rural Agricultural (Existing) Zoning District – Permitted Uses
1. THE TILLING OF THE LAND, THE RAISING AND SELLING
OF CROPS, FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AND THE
RAISING, KEEPING AND SELLING OF LIVESTOCK AND
POULTRY. 2. FORESTRY USES
3. USUAL FARM STRUCTURES, INCLUDING BARNS,
GREENHOUSES AND SINGLE- AND 2FAMILY DWELLINGS
NOT TO EXCEED 3 DWELLING UNITS ON ANY SINGLE
FARM PARCEL
4. HORTICULTURAL USES RELATED TO THE RAISING, PROPAGATING AND SELLING OF TREES, SHRUBS,
FLOWERS, FRUITS, VEGETABLES AND OTHER PLANT
MATERIALS
5. ESTABLISHMENTS FOR THE RAISING, PROCESSING,
STORAGE, SALES AND/OR SERVICE OF FARM
PRODUCTS, SUPPLIES OR COMMODITIES. (SEE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF § 27-301,
SUBSECTION 3)
6. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING (FOR EVERY
50 ACRES OF A PRIMARY USE - AS DETERMINED AND
CALCULATED BEFORE THE SUBDIVISION) 7. COMMUNICATION TOWERS
8. NEIGHBORHOOD CIVIC- OR FAITHBASED PLACES OF
ASSEMBLY (SEE § 27-204, SUBSECTION 1NN)
9. KENNELS
10. PET CARE FACILITIES
11. VETERINARY OFFICE/CLINIC 12. GROUP HOME
Figure 4
Table 2
Two- Family Residential (R-2) (Proposed) Zoning District – Permitted Uses
1. SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS (1 DU) 2. 2-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS (2 DWELLING
UNITS)
3. SINGLE-FAMILY SEMIDETACHED DWELLINGS (2
DWELLING UNITS)
4. NEIGHBORHOOD CIVIC- OR FAITHBASED PLACE OF
ASSEMBLY [SEE § 27-204, SUBSECTION 1NN]
5. NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS-BASED PLACE OF
ASSEMBLY
6. PERSONAL CARE BOARDING HOMES
7. FORESTRY 8. GROUP HOME
9. COMMUNITY GARDENS
ACCESSORY USES
10. CUSTOMARY USES ACCESSORY TO THE ABOVE;
ESSENTIAL SERVICES
11. NO-IMPACT HOMEBASED BUSINESS
12. HOME OCCUPATIONS
13. FAMILY CHILD-CARE HOMES, IF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF § 27-204, SUBSECTION 1E(1), ARE SATISFIED
14. FOOD TRUCKS
CONDITIONAL USES
15. MODEL HOMES
Table 5 Table 4
PERMITTED USES AS WELL AS THE THREE (3)
PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS AND THEIR
PERMITTED USES.
21. TRANSPORTATION: UPON SUBMISSION OF A POTENTIAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE APPLICANT
WILL NEED TO COORDINATE WITH PENNDOT AND FERGUSON TOWNSHIP THROUGH TRAFFIC SCOPING
MEETINGS AND THE HIGHWAY OCCUPANCY PERMIT PROCESS TO ESTABLISH NEW ACCESS POINTS FOR
THE PROPOSED PROPERTY. A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY WILL ALSO BE A REQUIREMENT OF A LAND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN. CURRENTLY, TRAFFIC SIGNALS
EXIST AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE AVENUE AND
WHITEHALL ROAD; BRISTOL AVENUE AND COLLEGE
AVENUE; AND COLLEGE AVENUE AND SCIENCE PARK
ROAD. FIGURE 5 REPRESENTS THE ANNUAL AVERAGE
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT).
THE 2015 CENTRE REGION BIKE PLAN DESIGNATES
WHITEHALL ROAD AS A RECOMMENDED BIKE
CORRIDOR (T). THIS CORRIDOR WOULD CONNECT
COLLEGE AVENUE AT THE INTERSECTION OF WHITEHALL
ROAD TO NIXON ROAD. COLLEGE AVENUE TO
ROSEMONT DRIVE IS ALSO A PROPOSED BIKE
General Commercial (C) (Proposed) Zoning District – Permitted Uses
1. RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS FOR THE SALE, SERVICE AND RENTAL OF
GOODS, EXCEPT AIRCRAFT
2. SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BARBERS
AND BEAUTICIANS, DRY CLEANING, HEALTH CLUBS, MORTUARIES,
TAILORS AND LAUNDRIES
3. BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES
4. AMBULANCE SERVICES 5. BUS PASSENGER STATIONS
6. AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS
7. EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS
8. HOTELS AND MOTELS
9. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE GARAGES FOR THE STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE OF
MOTOR VEHICLES
10.TAXI AND LIMOUSINE SERVICE
11.POTABLE WATER WELL PUMP STATION FACILITY BY CONDITIONAL USE
[ORD. 820] 12. COMMUNICATION TOWERS [ORD. 820]
13. STUDIOS FOR INSTRUCTION IN MUSIC, PERFORMING ARTS,
PHOTOGRAPHIC AND HANDICRAFTS STUDIOS, MARTIAL ARTS, DANCE
AND GYMNASTICS. [ORD. 904]
14. CLINICS AND MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICES [ORD. 670]
15. STORAGE AND DISPLAY OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MOTORCYCLES, MOBILE
HOMES, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, BOATS AND MARINE CRAFT HELD FOR
SALE OR RENTAL [ORD. 329]
16.ALL PERMITTED PRIMARY USES OF THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
[ORD. 631] 17.PRINTING ESTABLISHMENTS
18.PET STORES [ORD. 888]
19.PET DAY CARE FACILITIES [ORD. 888]
20.VETERINARY OFFICE/CLINIC [ORD. 888]
21.GROUP HOME [ORD. 908]
22. Tutoring and study center [Ord. 910]
23. Forestry uses [Ord. 973]
CORRIDOR THAT TOUCHES THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY. THE BIKE PLAN ALSO PROPOSES A
FACILITY THAT TRAVELS NORTH APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE TO THE WEST OF THE EDGE OF THE HARNER
PROPERTY. THIS FACILITY IS KNOWN AS THE FOXPOINTE DRIVE PATH FROM THE EXISTING PATH NEAR
COBBLE COURT TO WHITEHALL ROAD.
CONCERNING ACCESS TO CATA TRANSIT, BOTH THE F (PINE GROVE MILLS) AND THE K (CATO PARK)
ROUTES ARE ADJACENT TO THE HARNER FARM
PROPERTY.
22. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SERVICES: THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD
BE SERVED BY THE FERGUSON TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3147 RESEARCH DRIVE, STATE COLLEGE, PA, WHICH IS LESS THAN A HALF OF A MILE FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. IT
SHALL BE KNOWN THAT PARKING ALONG COLLEGE AVENUE AND WHITEHALL ROAD IN THE AREA
AROUND THE PROPERTY IS PROHIBITED AND CARS WILL BE TOWED IF THEY ARE PARKED ALONG THE
ROAD. THE ALPHA FIRE COMPANY IS LOCATED AT 400 WEST BEAVER AVENUE, STATE COLLEGE AND
APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE IMPACT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD
HAVE ON THE FIRE COMPANY BASED UPON THE EXISTING DENSITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE WOULD BE 57 OR LESS ADDITIONAL RESPONSES PER YEAR. THIS WOULD NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THE FIRE COMPANY. THE CENTRE LIFELINK EMS IS LOCATED AT 125
PUDDINTOWN ROAD, STATE COLLEGE AND ABOUT 5.4 MILES FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
23. GROWTH REPORT & ANALYSIS: AT THE CURRENT TIME, FERGUSON TOWNSHIP HAS TWO (2)
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (PRD) WHICH ARE STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT: FOXPOINTE
PRD AND THE LANDINGS PRD; AND TWO (2) TRADITIONAL TOWN DEVELOPMENTS (TTD) TURNBERRY
TTD AND PINEHALL TTD. THE FOLLOWING TABLE OUTLINES THE APPROVED PRD AND TTD PLANS IN
THE TOWNSHIP AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, MULTI-FAMILY, AND SINGLE FAMILY
REMAINING ON THE PLANS. CURRENTLY, NONE OF THE COMMERCIALLY DESIGNATED PORTIONS OF
THESE AREAS HAS BEEN USED FOR SUCH PURPOSES. INSTEAD, MUCH OF THE COMMERCIAL GROWTH IN
THE TOWNSHIP HAS COME ALONG THE MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS (WEST COLLEGE AVENUE
AND NORTH ATHERTON STREET).
Table 6
BREAKDOWN OF REMAINING DEVELOPMENT
IN THE PRDS & TTDS IN FERGUSON TOWNSHIP AS OF JANUARY 2017
FOXPOINTE PRD
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 194,200 SQUARE FEET 4.46 ACRES
MULTI-FAMILY UNITS 291
SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS 292
THE LANDINGS PRD
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 130,000 SQUARE FEET 2.98 ACRES
MULTI-FAMILY UNITS 376
SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS 104
TURNBERRY TTD
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NONE PROPOSED
MULTI-FAMILY UNITS 120
SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS 260
PINEHALL TTD
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 281,000 SQUARE FEET 6.45 ACRES
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 221
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 450
Figure 5
TOTAL
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SQUARE FEET 605,200
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ACRES 13.89 ACRES
MULTI-FAMILY UNITS 1,008
SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS 1,106
THE FERGUSON TOWNSHIP GIS TECHNICIAN PREPARED AN ANALYSIS OF VACANT LAND WITHIN THE
REGIONAL GROWTH BOUNDARY (RGB), SPECIFICALLY OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE BEING
PROPOSED AS PART OF THE REZONING OF THE HARNER PROPERTY; GENERAL COMMERCIAL, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. TABLE 7 ILLUSTRATES THAT THE
AVAILABILITY OF COMMERCIALLY ZONED LAND IS SCARCE AT ONLY 21.14 ACRES. MAP 1 ON THE
FOLLOWING PAGE IS A VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF THIS TABLE. Table 7
VACANT LAND IN THE REGIONAL GROWTH BOUNDARY WITHIN FERGUSON TOWNSHIP
GENERAL COMMERCIAL VACANT LAND IN THE RGB 920,665.25 square feet 21.14 acres
TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL VACANT LAND IN THE RGB 8,011,397.16 square feet 183.92 acres
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL VACANT LAND IN THE
RGB
901,923.36 square feet 20.71 acres
VACANT LAND IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS TOTAL
TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF VACANT (C, R-1, R-2) LAND
IN THE RGB
9,823,985.77
TOTAL ACRES OF VACANT (C, R-1, R-2) LAND IN THE
RGB
225.52
TOTAL VACANT LAND IN THE RGB IN ALL ZONES
TOTAL SQUARE FEET 40,294,616.57 square
feet
TOTAL ACRES 925.04 acres
THE FOLLOWING TABLE REPRESENTS THE PERCENTAGE OF EACH ZONING DISTRICT THAT FALLS WITHIN
THE GROWTH BOUNDARY, WITH THE PROPOSED DISTRICTS FOR REZONING HIGHLIGHTED. Table 8
TOTAL TOWNSHIP ZONING DISTRICT ACREAGE ANALYSIS AND RGB
ZONE TOTAL
ACREAGE % OF
TWP
AREA
ACRES
IN RGB % OF
RGB
AREA
% OF ZONE
LOCATED IN
RGB
AR 2,301.78 7.55% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%
C 264.48 0.87% 264.38 5.39% 99.96%
FG 3,667.58 12.02% 7.33 0.15% 0.20%
I 22.94 0.08% 22.94 0.47% 100.00%
IRD 442.17 1.45% 442.17 9.01% 100.00%
MHP 29.10 0.10% 0.00 0.00% 0.00%
OC 9.94 0.03% 9.94 0.20% 100.00%
PRD 522.43 1.71% 521.90 10.64% 99.90%
R1 1,778.28 5.83% 1,535.29 31.29% 86.34%
R1B 136.35 0.45% 136.35 2.78% 100.00%
R2 138.49 0.45% 137.66 2.81% 99.40%
R3 171.63 0.56% 171.58 3.50% 99.97%
R4 185.04 0.61% 184.47 3.76% 99.69%
RA 16,493.42 54.07% 641.19 13.07% 3.89%
RR 3,944.76 12.93% 435.40 8.87% 11.04%
TSD 48.44 0.16% 48.44 0.99% 100.00%
TTD 325.82 1.07% 325.82 6.64% 100.00%
V 22.53 0.07% 22.53 0.46% 100.00%
TOWNSHIP-WIDE
TOTAL 30,505.17 100.00%
GROWTH BOUNDARY
TOTAL 4,907.37 16.09%
24. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, AGENCY REVIEW AND COMMENTS: STAFF WILL PROVIDE COPIES OF THE
APPLICATION TO THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES AND/OR TOWNSHIP REPRESENTATIVES. UPON APPROVAL
TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING, THE PROPERTY WILL BE POSTED FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY (30)
DAYS TO OPEN UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER OR
COMMUNITY COMMENT.
PERSON/AGENCY NOTIFICATION
SENT
DATE COMMENT
RECEIVED JOE GREEN, TOWNSHIP SOLICITOR YES 7/28/2017 YES
CENTRE COUNTY PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
YES 7/28/2017 YES
CENTRE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY YES 7/28/2017 YES
25. FISCAL IMPACTS: PROVIDED BY ASPEN WHITEHALL LLC.
26. SUMMARY: AT THEIR JUNE 12, 2017 MEETING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTED THE
FERGUSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF PREPARE AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED
HARNER FARM REZONING AND ULTIMATELY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OR NOT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. THE
PROPOSED REZONING OF 71.4 ACRES OF RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND TO A MIX OF GENERAL
COMMERCIAL, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE 2013 CENTRE REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WITHIN THE
REGIONAL GROWTH BOUNDARY. TRADITIONAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSE MIXED-USE
BUILDING WITH FIRST FLOOR RETAIL OR OFFICE AND SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL, WHICH
THE FERGUSON TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW FOR. THE SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED NEW LAND USES, NO WETLANDS OR FLOODPLAINS EXIST ON THE
PROPERTY, BUT PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS DO EXIST. THIS IS NOT A RARE CASE FOR LAND IN
FERGUSON TOWNSHIP, AS MOST OF THE SOILS, TOWNSHIP WIDE ARE PRIME FOR AGRICULTURE. PUBLIC SERVICES ARE READILY AVAILABLE, ALTHOUGH THE PLACEMENT OF BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES AS PART OF ANY STORMWATER PLAN FOR NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
TRIBUTARY STRATEGY, WHICH WILL PLAY A MAJOR ROLE IN THE UPDATING OF THE ACT 537 PLAN IN
2018. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD CONCERNS IN THE PAST REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT WOULD
FOLLOW THE EXISTING CORRIDOR OVERLAY ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 660’ WEST
OF COLLEGE AVENUE TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE CORL ACRES
DEVELOPMENT. AS A RESULT OF THE ANALYSIS OF VACANT LAND IN THE TOWNSHIP, IT HAS BEEN
PROVEN THAT THERE IS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF PROPERTY REMAINING FOR COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE REGIONAL GROWTH BOUNDARY/SEWER SERVICE AREA, THEREFORE, THE
PROPOSED 44 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL LAND IS ACCEPTABLE PROPOSAL TO STAFF.
THE PROPOSED REZONING IS THE FIRST STEP IN A DETAILED AND LENGTHY PROCESS. THE TOWNSHIP
HAS MANY ORDINANCES AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT ANY SUBMITTED LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WILL NEED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE, SUCH AS THE NEWLY ADOPTED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT,
ZONING, POSSIBLY SOURCE WATER PROTECTION OVERLAY, LIGHTING, SUBDIVISION AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT, AND SIGN ORDINANCES TO NAME A FEW. SCOPING MEETINGS FOR TRAFFIC IMPACTS
WILL ALSO BE HELD AND INTERSECTIONS STUDIED TO ENSURE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE OF THE
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA STAY AT AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL.
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FOREGOING, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMEND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVE THE PROPOSED REZONING AS SUBMITTED.
WHERE WE STAND NOW: ON JULY 24, 2017, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REZONE HARNER FARM AS GENERAL
COMMERCIAL (C), TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2), AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1).
Centre Regional Planning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 11 of 13
ITEM 8c.
2017 ACT 537 SEWAGE FACILITIES PLAN UPDATE - BENEFICIAL REUSE
WATERLINE EXTENSION INTO HARRIS TOWNSHIP
– presented by Mark Boeckel
This item provides the CRPC with an update on the review of the 2017 Act 537 Sewage
Facilities Plan Update (Special Study) prepared by Herbert, Rowland, and Grubic (HRG) on
behalf of the University Area Joint Authority (UAJA). A 60 day public comment period for
the Special Study ended on August 28, 2017. The goal of the Special Study is to evaluate the
needs and alternatives to extend the UAJA’s existing reuse water system into Harris
Township in order to serve potential customers such as the Mountain View Country Club and
Tussey Mountain Ski Area.
THE ISSUE
HRG, on behalf of the UAJA, prepared a draft Act 537 Plan Special Study to evaluate
extending the beneficial reuse water system from its existing terminus in College Township
into Harris Township. An extension of the reuse water system into Harris Township would
allow the UAJA to provide reuse water to potential customers, such as the Mountain View
Country Club and the Tussey Mountain Ski Area.
The Beneficial Reuse Water Project was initially identified in the 2000 Centre Region Act
537 Plan as a disposal alternative for the UAJA. The 2006 Act 537 Plan defined a three phase
beneficial reuse water distribution system and states that water produced from the Beneficial
Reuse Project will be reused in the community for industrial, agricultural, and irrigation
purposes. The plan also states that the ultimate goal of the Beneficial Reuse Project is to
move reuse water back to the headwaters of the community where it can be used to replenish
headwater streams, springs, and groundwater resources.
The current reuse water system extends from the Spring Creek Pollution Control Facility in
Benner Township into portions of College Township, where it is utilized by commercial
customers and for environmental uses. The draft Act 537 Special Study recommends
extending approximately 27,600 linear feet of 12 inch waterline and appurtenances from the
booster station near the Centre Hills Country Club into Harris Township in order to provide
reuse water to the Mountain View Country Club, the Tussey Mountain Ski Area, and potential
customers in the Boalsburg Technology Park along Discovery Drive.
Because the beneficial reuse system is utilized to dispose of treated wastewater, the location
of all reuse water infrastructure and distribution lines must be identified in the Centre Region
Act 537 Plan. In February 2016, the COG General Forum recommended that the UAJA
prepare an Act 537 Special Study to potentially extend a beneficial reuse waterline into
College and Harris Townships. In accordance with guidance from the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), HRG prepared an Act 537 Special Study on behalf of the
UAJA to evaluate this extension and is pursuing the required review and approval from the
Centre Region.
Centre Regional Planning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 12 of 13
OTHER INFORMATION
At their meeting on June 26, 2017, the COG General Forum initiated a 60-day public
comment period for the 2017 Act 537 Update, which began on June 28, 2017 and ended on
August 28, 2017. In addition to initiating the public comment period, the General Forum also
referred the study to the individual municipalities for review and potential comment.
During the public comment period, CRPA Staff received comments related to the Study from
the State College Borough Water Authority as well as from two Centre Region residents.
Each Centre Region municipality also provided comments to the COG Executive Director in
relation to the Special Study. A copy of all comments received during the comment period is
included as an attachment to this staff report.
Cory Miller, UAJA Executive Director, has provided a written response to comments
received during the comment period, which is also attached. The UAJA responses will be
forwarded to the Centre Region municipalities for review.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
The CRPC reviewed and discussed the 2017 Act 537 Plan Special Study at their meeting on
August 3, 2017.
CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This request is consistent with the Centre Region Comprehensive Plan. Specifically:
Community Facilities Element:
Goal 1: There is a reliable, safe, and cost effective water supply to meet the existing and
future needs of the Centre Region community
Objective 1.2: Assure the efficient use of water supplies by encouraging water
conservation, water re-use, and public education about local water resources.
Goal 2: Sewer service in the Centre Region is efficient, cost effective, and adequate to
support future growth.
Objective 2.3: Continue to support the University Area Joint Authority’s efforts to
expand the use of high-purity (beneficial reuse) water through recharge or by
consumption in order to accommodate capacity limitations associated with future
growth.
Sustainability Element:
Goal 2: Adequate infrastructure for sewer service is available within the Regional Growth
Boundary and Sewer Service Area to support growth and development for the foreseeable
future.
Objective 2.2: The Centre Region municipalities should continue to support the
University Area Joint Authority’s efforts to identify customers for the Beneficial
Reuse water.
Centre Regional Planning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 13 of 13
RECOMMENDATION
This item is for informational purposes only. No formal action is required by the CRPC.
NEXT STEPS
All comments received during the 60 day public comment period, along with responses from
the UAJA, will be forwarded to the six Centre Region municipalities for review. CRPA staff
will provide the CRPC with an update on the review of the Special Study at their meeting on
October 5, 2017, at which time the CRPC may be asked to provide a formal recommendation
to the COG General Forum regarding adoption of the study.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Public Comments related to the 2017 Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan Update
2. Municipal Comments related to the 2017 Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan Update
3. UAJA Responses to Municipal and Public Comments
lcromell
Typewritten Text
Public Act 537 Plan Comments
1
Boeckel, Mark
From: Todd Giddings <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 8:42 AM
To: Boeckel, Mark
Subject: Comment on the Draft 2017 Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan Update for the Extension of
Beneficial Reuse Water Lines to Harris Township, dated June 2017
Dear Mr. Boeckel, I am writing in strong support of the Draft 2017 Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan Update for the Extension of Beneficial Reuse Water Lines to Harris Township, dated June 2017. I have reviewed the draft plan update, and based on my more than 50 years of studying the groundwater and surface-water resources in the Spring Creek Watershed, it is my opinion that implementing this plan update would benefit both the groundwater and surface-water resources, and the residents, in the Watershed. Thank you, Todd Giddings, Ph.D., P.G.
1
Katherine Watt, Editor and Publisher Bailiwick News/KW Investigations LLC
156 West Hamilton Ave. State College PA 16801
[email protected] (814) 237-0996
July 29, 2017 Mark Boeckel, Principal Planner Centre Region Planning Authority [email protected]
Re: Beneficial Reuse Special Study Dear Mr. Boeckel: I write to enter a public comment regarding the Beneficial Reuse Special Study on extension of the system to the Tussey Mountain Ski Area and the Mountainview Country Club. I do not want the COG General Forum to approve the extension project at this time, primarily because of the opportunity cost. If UAJA has $2.4 million in public ratepayer funds to spend on public water and sewage planning and management, I would prefer that those funds go to the following, higher community priorities, rather than continue a piecemeal approach to watershed management and sourcewater protection. To the extent that COG approval of the Tussey and Mountainview extension will “buy time,” I regard it as a can-kicking evasion of public officials’ current fiduciary obligations as trustees of Pennsylvania’s public resources. I would like to see our public officials engage in difficult, comprehensive examinations of resources and waste discharge capacities and develop wise, long-term strategies to protect sourcewater and waterways downstream of our population, through the following three projects: 1) Drafting and approval of an update to the 2003 Sourcewater Protection Agreement, signed between UAJA, SCBWA and CTWA.
The updated agreement should include Penn State University, and should require regular water quality testing for primary and secondary contaminants of water at wellheads, the UAJA Spring Creek outfall, the Penn State experimental program at the State Gamelands, and the UAJA beneficial reuse processing plant, no less than annually. Penn State should be held, as the other entities are held, to all state and federal regulations and the Chesapeake Bay program, and not given preferential treatment or exemptions from water quality programs enforced on other public and private entities.
If UAJA needs to use public funds to litigate the matter and challenge Penn State’s exemptions in the State Legislature, I would support such spending. 2) Drafting and approval of a comprehensive watershed management plan for the Centre Region.
The watershed management plan should place equal burdens for participation, disclosure and compliance on SCBWA, CTWA, Penn State’s water system, UAJA and Penn State’s sewage treatment systems, along with all regional MS4 stormwater collection and discharge systems, plus Penn State’s stormwater management system. The management plan should, at minimum, include an analysis of the relationship between Penn State’s historic and projected enrollment growth, regional population growth, and impacts on regional sourcewater, stormwater and sewage treatment carrying capacities from an ecological standpoint, taking into account our unique karst geology.
2
The management plan should use current, standard, widely affordable technologies (not experimental or high-tech systems) and compliance with current state, federal and Chesapeake Bay water quality standards. The management plan should examine multiple population scenarios over the next 50 years, at a minimum, the following three scenarios:
a) steady-state, assuming adoption of zoning codes that cap population density at the current respective density levels of each COG municipality and the Penn State campus; b) full build-out at current zoning in COG region municipalities and; c) full build-out with maximum upzoning increasing density to maximum levels in State College and the five surrounding Townships (as has been done, for example, with the Metropolitan, Rise, Residences at College and Atherton in the urban core, and at the Toll Brothers/PSU site in Ferguson Township in the suburban periphery.)
If UAJA needs to use public funds to litigate a watershed management plan to ensure Penn State’s full participation and compliance with laws and regulations to which the other public entities are held, I would support such spending.
3) Review of current business models of SCBWA, CTWA and UAJA, pressures on those business models (commodity pricing v. service pricing) given the impacts of conservation reducing consumption, and alternative business models that can ensure sustainable financial operations without population/customer base growth. The business model analysis should include a comprehensive analysis of volumetric billing for UAJA sewer treatment and compliance with Act 57 of 2003. CONCLUSION: Upon completion of those three higher-priority tasks, I would prefer to see the COG engage in a comprehensive Act 537 Plan update, which could include beneficial reuse extensions to Mountainview Country Club, Tussey Mountain Ski Area and other areas, and if so, should include public cost-benefit analysis of each extension option to support an eventual public selection of the best “bang for the buck” option. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment.
Sincerely,
/s/ Katherine Watt
cc: Cory Miller, Director, UAJA, [email protected]
John Lichman, Director, SCBWA, [email protected] Brian Heiser, Assistant Director, SCBWA, [email protected] Adam Brumbaugh, Township Manager, College Township (CTWA), [email protected] Rob Cooper, Director, Energy and Engineering, PSU-OPP, [email protected] Steve Watson, Director, Campus Planning & Design, PSU-OPP, [email protected] Kelli Hoover, Spokeswoman, Nittany Valley Water Coalition, [email protected] Deb Nardone, Executive Director, ClearWater Conservancy, [email protected]
lcromell
Typewritten Text
Municipal Act 537 Plan Comments
College Township Comment The entire beneficial reuse project is designed to meet the goals and objectives of the Centre Region Comprehensive Plan. The expansion to Harris Township is a logical extension of the entire project, and should not be evaluated as a stand alone project. UAJA expressed repeatedly since 2014 the importance of conducting a full Act 537 Plan amendment, which would have made the benefits of this particular component much easier to see as part of a much larger plan. In addition, when the Beneficial Reuse Project was originally proposed, it was presented by UAJA as a component of a watershed management plan rather than a wastewater disposal project,. Unfortunately, the watershed management plan never materialized. The proposed expansion to Harris Township is being undertaken to meet the same goals and objectives as the original project. In 2013, the Centre Region municipalities updated the Centre Region Comprehensive Plan. That document includes many goals and objectives related to integrated water planning and the Beneficial Reuse Project. These goals and objectives are important to any evaluation of the entire beneficial reuse project. They are listed below. Community Services and Facilities GOAL 1 - A reliable, safe, and cost-effective water supply will meet the current and future needs of the Centre Region community. Objective 1.1 Protect the high-quality surface and groundwater resources in the Centre Region. Objective 1.2 Ensure the efficient use of water supplies by encouraging water conservation, water reuse, and public education about local water resources. GOAL 2 - Sewer service in the Centre Region is efficient, cost effective, and adequate to support future growth. Objective 2.1 Implement the adopted Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan and Supplemental Plans to ensure the logical provision and extension of public sewer service. Objective 2.3 Continue to support the University Area Joint Authority’s efforts to expand the use of high-purity (beneficial reuse) water through recharge or by consumption in order to accommodate capacity limitations associated with future growth. Objective 2.4 Ensure that adequate wastewater treatment, conveyance, reuse, and discharge capacity is available for future growth within the Regional Growth Boundary and Sewer Service Area.
lcromell
Typewritten Text
UAJA Response to Act 537 Plan Comments
Sustainability GOAL 1 - Adequate supply and infrastructure for water service is available within the Centre Region to support growth and development for the foreseeable future. Objective 1.2 Water conservation efforts for homes, businesses, and industrial users should be incorporated throughout local development or code requirements where appropriate. GOAL 2 - Adequate infrastructure for sewer service is available within the Regional Growth Boundary and Sewer Service Area to support growth and development for the foreseeable future. Objective 2.1 Adequate wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment capacity is available for all properties within the Regional Growth Boundary and Sewer Service Area prior to land development. Objective 2.2 The Centre Region municipalities should continue to support the University Area Joint Authority’s efforts to identify customers for the Beneficial Reuse water. Natural, Environmental, Cultural and Historic Resources
GOAL 1 - The Centre Region’s natural resources, which include agricultural soils, surface and groundwater quality, and forests, are protected and preserved, and restored to continue providing Region-wide benefits. Objective 1.3 Ensure that negative impacts related to any future natural resource extraction activities in the Centre Region are minimized. GOAL 2 - The Centre Region’s diverse and fragile environmental resources are preserved, restored and responsibly managed. Objective 2.2 Protect and preserve wetlands and surface-water resources throughout the Centre Region. In addition to the Comprehensive plan Goals and Objectives that are difficult to quantify financially, UAJA places a high value on having options for the beneficial reuse water. The greater the locations available for reuse water, the more operational flexibility UAJA has with the system. The entire Beneficial Reuse Project has, since its introduction in the 2000 Act 537 Plan, been moving towards meeting the anti-degradation regulations. In a high quality, cold water stream, activities which degrade the quality and/or quantity in the stream are
prohibited. As was pointed out in the 2000 plan, removing water from the top end of the watershed and putting it back in the stream miles below the groundwater sources is a degrading activity. In the 2000 plan, phase 3 of the project was to complete the loop by returning the beneficial reuse water above the water withdrawals in the Slab Cabin Run Basin. Phase 3 has been put on hold because of refusal by several large property owners to allow UAJA to enter their property to prepare a study to locate recharge and stream augmentation sites within the basin. Phase 3 is further complicated by the proposed Slab Cabin Run Initiative Conservation Easement including a clause specifically prohibiting Beneficial Reuse water from crossing or being used within the easement. Since Phase 3 in Slab Cabin Run appears to be significantly delayed, the Harris Township project gains much more importance. While it can be argued that UAJA could simply augment Slab Cabin Run at the Gordon D. Kissinger Meadow through the existing 3 MGD NPDES discharge permit, it should be noted that that site does not completely mitigate the degrading effects of the drinking water wells. CTWA now has a well at Oak Hall, and there is a current well at Mountainview. Tussey Ski Resort also has an impact on the upper reaches of Spring Creek. The Harris Township extension can completely mitigate the environmental impact of those water withdrawals. Mitigating stream degradation is very important to allowing growth in the Centre Region to continue uninterrupted. Nitrogen – The limiting Factor to Growth in the Centre Region The biggest problem that UAJA faces is Nitrogen capacity. The discharge limit for Nitrogen is 164,381 Pounds per year. That capacity is not affected by additional treatment technology applied at the treatment plant. Nitrogen discharge capacity t is the limiting factor to growth in the Centre Region. The beneficial reuse water contains very little Nitrogen. Removing 2 MGD of beneficial reuse water from the UAJA plant concentrates the remaining Nitrogen and makes the conventional treatment components more effective at reducing the Nitrogen, and thus meeting the mass limit. Supplying water to actual customers connected to the UAJA collection system has a positive impact on the Nitrogen treatment at the plant because unlike the water provided by drinking water providers, the beneficial reuse water contains almost no Nitrogen. Supplying water to golf courses and Tussey Ski Resort has a positive impact as well, because water used in irrigation and snow making does not count towards the Nitrogen mass limit. Even with this impact, UAJA will still need to build a denitrification system at the UAJA
plant ($4 Million, currently in design), and will need to create Nitrogen offsets through non-point source best management practices (BMPs). It is important to emphasize that additional Nitrogen capacity cannot be created through treatment technology at the UAJA plant, and that there is more need for Nitrogen capacity within the existing sewer service area that there is Nitrogen capacity. A 2016 nutrient study conducted by Rettew indicated that UAJA must increase the Beneficial Reuse capacity, build a denitrification system, and create Nutrient offsets through BMPs to meet the future capacity demand of the Centre Region. It is not a case of selecting the least expensive alternative. All of the alternatives must be pursued, or the need for Nitrogen capacity must be reduced by reducing the potential future connections to the UAJA system. UAJA was authorized by the Centre Region municipalities to study Slab Cabin run as a potential source of BMPs through floodplain restoration in conjunction with identifying locations within Slab Cabin Run for wetland creation and stream augmentation (Beneficial Reuse phase 3). As was noted, this project was cancelled because of resistance from several property owners. UAJA needs to evaluate other sources of BMPs. There are BMP opportunities along the Harris Township project route. There are financial impacts that can be quantified. The special study includes an estimated project cost of $2.7 million. The expansion of the advanced water treatment system from 1 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) to 2 MGD is estimated to cost $4.5 million. The increase in capacity will allow an additional 5,700 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) to be connected to the UAJA system in the future. At the current tapping fee, that results in $28.5 million in revenue, which would completely pay for the expansion, and provide $21.3 million to pay towards the existing UAJA debt. The project will not increase rates to existing or future customers of the UAJA system. Rates may increase in the future because of inflationary increases to annual operating costs and/or regulatory changes. UAJA has significantly beaten the rate projections included in the 2009 Act 537 Plan Amendment which was approved by the Centre Region Municipalities. Section 6.6.2 of the 2009 plan projected rates to rise to $117 per quarter by 2015. The 2017 rate is $104 per quarter, 11 percent lower than the projected rate. Likewise, the plant capacity tapping fee was projected to increase to $5450 by 2015. The 2017 Tapping fee is $5008, 8 percent below the projected rate. UAJA strives to ensure that growth and development in the UAJA service area pays for itself, and is not a burden to the existing rate payers.
Ferguson Township Comment 1
The Board is concerned about the discharge of untracked amounts of chemicals and pharmaceuticals into our waterways. The Board would like some analysis on the amounts and concentrations of chemicals, including endocrine disruptors present in treated wastewater, specifically beneficial reuse water and the ecosystems to which it is discharged. UAJA should consider testing for the presence of said chemicals at Kissinger Meadows, and include in its analysis any presence of endocrine disruptors found in amphibians and macroinvertebrates.
UAJA, SCBWA, and CTWA sampled drinking water sources, SCBWA treated water, Slab Cabin Run, the Bellefonte Big Spring, beneficial reuse feed water and beneficial reuse finished water in June 2017. The samples were analyzed for the list of chemicals on the EPA emerging contaminants list. Very few contaminants were found in any of the samples. Below is a table of the results that were above the detection limits.
Beneficial Reuse feed water
Beneficial Reuse Water
SCBWA treatment plant feed
SCBWA treated water
CTWA well water
Slab Cabin Run
Bellefonte Big Spring
Units
Hexavalent Chromium 0.021 0.072 0.3 0.31 0.22 0.16 0.29 ug/L Diuron 5.8 ng/L Strontium 280 0.37 150 140 550 250 74 ug/L N-Nitroso-dimethylamine (NDMA)
3.6 ng/L
Acesulfame-K 640 32 30 20 110 ng/L Atrazine 16 28 27 24 20 16 ng/L DEA 49 110 120 80 48 49 ng/L Propylparaben 49 5.6 7.8 ng/L Sucralose 66000 190 120 ng/L Chromium 0.71 0.99 0.74 0.74 0.6 0.67 ug/L Vanadium 0.23 0.34 0.27 0.48 0.24 ug/L Manganese Total ICAP/MS
8.8 9.6 ug/L
4-nonylphenol - semi quantitative
130 130 ng/L
1,4-Dioxane 0.021 ug/L 4-androstene-3,17-dione 0.45 ug/L Acesulfame-K 550 ng/L Albuterol 640 ng/L Amoxicillin (semi-quantitative)
6.3 ng/L
Atenolol 260 ng/L Butalbital 34 ng/L
Carbamazepine 10 ng/L Diclofenac 9.2 ng/L Diltiazem 74 ng/L Gemfibrozil 8.2 ng/L Iohexal 120 ng/L Lidocaine 570 ng/L Lopressor 24 ng/L Naproxen 60 ng/L Primidone 23 ng/L Sulfamethoxazole 6.3 ng/L TCEP 59 ng/L TCPP 17 ng/L Triclosan 120 ng/L Trimethoprim 12 ng/L Molybdenum 8.8 ug/L
As expected, there are many unregulated contaminants present in the feed water to the beneficial reuse treatment system. Also as expected, nearly all of those unregulated contaminants are reduced to below detection limits by the treatment system. Hexavlent Chromium and Strontium, two of the four contaminants detected in the finished beneficial reuse water, came from the drinking water.
Ferguson Township Comment 2
The Board feels that the Sourcewater Protection Agreement is too narrowly focused and some consideration should be given to expanding that dialogue regionally. This may take place after the Source Water Protection Agreement is adopted as the Board understands it is time-sensitive. Specifically, a Regional Sourcewater Protection Plan/Agreement that is inclusive of municipalities, relevant authorities, and Penn State University in its multiple roles as an institution, a customer and a supplier is favored by the Board. Concerns raised in the previous bullet point (Ferguson Township Comment 1) should also be a part of this Plan/Agreement. UAJA agrees. There should be a regional or watershed wide integrated water plan which includes source water protection. All potential sources of contamination should be investigated.
State College Borough Comment 1 Matters of this nature be discussed and considered by the General Forum and not referred back to municipalities for discussion. All elected officials, as members of the General Forum, should have the opportunity to hear and participate in a full discussion, including statements and opinions expressed by members from other municipalities. All members of the General Forum should have the opportunity to ask questions and gain a better understanding
The Act 537 sewage facilities planning process is intended to be a very open and public process. By having each municipality discuss the plan individually, there is more opportunity for public comment. Collecting comments from individual municipalities prior to consideration at the General Forum allows staff the opportunity to provide responses to comments in advance of a General Forum meeting. The elected officials still have the opportunity to discuss and ask questions at the General Forum meeting. They will have much more information available to them before that discussion begins.
State College Borough Comment 2 The beneficiaries of the beneficial reuse water system should share in the capital costs to extend the lines to extend to their sites in the same way that a developer pays a tapping fee calculated according to Act 57 to share in the capital costs of treatment, collection, and distribution systems for water and wastewater utilities. The beneficiaries of the beneficial reuse water system are the future and existing customers of UAJA, as well as the entire Spring Creek Watershed, the State of Pennsylvania, and the entire Chesapeake Bay. The beneficial reuse system is a water conservation project. The purpose of the project is to mitigate the impact of removing water from the ground at the upper end of the watershed. More water left in the ground means more water is available for the streams. Based on the Centre Region Comprehensive Plan, UAJA assumes the municipalities desire impacts of growth in the region to be mitigated, particularly the impact on water resources. Most capital projects that result in additional capacity are funded by the tapping fees collected by UAJA from developers. Thus, the beneficiaries (developers requiring additional treatment and discharge capacity) are in fact paying for the project.
State College Borough Comment 3
The issues related to potential negative impacts on the State College Borough Water Authority and the College Township Water Authority rate payers should be fully assessed before this plan is approved. There is insufficient information provided at this time to fully understand the concerns of these potential impacts.
Both water authorities rely on volumetric billing for their revenue. Success in water conservation automatically reduces revenue of the two water authorities, which ultimately results in water rates
being increased to make up the shortfall. Beneficial reuse water being used in place of water from a water authority is water conservation.
There are two solutions to the revenue shortfall caused by water conservation:
1. Accept that water conservation is good, and outweighs the negative impact on revenues. 2. Stop encouraging water conservation so more water can be sold to keep rates low.
UAJA has offered to pay the two water authorities for the right to develop water conservation projects within the service areas of CTWA and SCBWA. UAJA recognizes the goals of water resource management contained in the Centre Region Comprehensive Plan and UAJA is willing to pay for implementing water conservation projects.
State College Borough Comment 4
The University Area Joint Authority (UAJA) has requested several studies, plans, and tasks be prepared and reviewed in similar timing which all are separate but related components of a comprehensive Act 537 Plan. These should all be included in one overall discussion verses being handled piecemeal so the overall regional impact can be accurately assessed.
UAJA has been asking for a comprehensive update to the Act 537 Plan since 2014. The piecemeal approach is the result of the Centre Region Council of Governments declining to undertake a comprehensive update to the Act 537 Plan. A full Act 537 Plan update is now included in the workplan for CRPA for 2018.
Beyond the sewage facilities plan, for more than 15 years UAJA has encouraged the development of an integrated water plan (watershed plan). To ensure that water resources are being managed most effectively, UAJA urges the Centre Region to cooperate to develop an integrated water plan. State College Borough Comment 5
The sanitary sewer service area is included in the Act 537 Plan as it identifies the tributary areas thus forming the basis for the flows and hydraulic capacity used for the treatment plant design. In the UAJA model with the beneficial reuse water being a portion of the plant design capacity, the total influent flow to the treatment plant needs to be carefully controlled to reduce extraneous flows as any flows in excess of the NPDES permitted effluent discharge will need to be discharged via the beneficial reuse water’s advanced water treatment plant. This plant by nature of its design with treatment to further remove nutrients is more expensive from capital, operations, and maintenance perspectives and should be viewed as a last resort due to the adverse impact on the rate payers. Managing extraneous flows, known as inflow and infiltration (I&I), is always a high priority of any sewer system. At UAJA, managing I&I is even more important, because the water that gets in the sewers carries excess Nitrogen and Phosphorus, which must be removed to meet the very difficult nutrient mass limits. UAJA does not have direct control of all of the sources of I&I, since the Borough of State College and Penn State University, both customers of UAJA, manage their own collection systems.
The comment implies that the UAJA treatment system should be managed with the objective to meet the NPDES permit at the lowest cost. According to the Centre Region Comprehensive Plan, “The Centre Region’s natural resources, which include agricultural soils, surface and groundwater quality, and forests, are protected and preserved, and restored to continue providing Region-wide benefits.” That is how the UAJA treatment system is being managed, and is why the beneficial reuse project is being expanded. That is why UAJA operates the beneficial reuse system as a priority. It has the greatest impact on meeting the goals of the Centre Region Comprehensive Plan.
State College Borough Comment 6
UAJA is proposing connection of on-lot septic systems in order to increase their nutrient credits but there does not appear to be the comprehensive evaluation of the region’s on-lot system performance as would be included in a full act 537 Plan. Additionally, this type of public sewer connection is typically resulting from failures whereby property owners welcome the repair. In this instance, the motivation may not receive this response if property owners are required to pay to connect fully functional systems. This comment would be important to the full Act 537 Plan in the CRPA work plan for 2018, but is not related to the Act 537 Plan special study.
The proposal was discussed at the June and July 2017 UAJA board meetings. Connecting on-lot systems to the public sewer is being considered to eliminate the threat of unregulated contaminants passing through the on-lot systems and contaminating the groundwater, as well as for nutrient offsets. In the source water protection agreement between UAJA, the State College Borough Water Authority (SCBWA) and the College Township Water Authority (CTWA), the parties agreed to work together to protect the source waters from all threats. The water authorities have expressed significant concerns about potential contamination from the beneficial reuse system, which is designed to remove the contaminants of concern. On-lot systems are not designed to remove those contaminants, and properly operating on-lot systems have been shown to pass contaminants to groundwater. According to the Act 537 plan, there is approximately 450,000 gallons per day of on-lot system effluent entering the groundwater in the Centre Region. It follows that mitigating the impacts of on-lot systems is an important step in source water protection.
State College Borough Comment 7
UAJA has requested that the Centre Region review and develop a nutrient management plan while they are the ones most able to control the nutrient discharges from an existing point source of a wastewater plant. The UAJA should be able to show how they have optimized both collection and treatment to minimize flow and load being discharged. The municipalities and the University who have NPDES discharge permits for non-point source Stormwater discharges in the MS4 program, have far less options and control for nutrient management and further discharge reductions annually and with each permit cycle.
This comment would be important to the full Act 537 Plan in the CRPA work plan for 2018, but is not related to the Act 537 Plan special study.
The purpose of an Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan is to ensure that a municipality or collection of municipalities has a plan to provide collection and treatment capacity for their municipalities. Nutrient treatment capacity is capacity, and therefore is the responsibility of the municipalities. While UAJA can be involved in developing the plan, it is the responsibility of the municipalities.
UAJA has asked the region to develop a nutrient management plan because of the interdependencies of the wastewater systems (UAJA, PSU, and on-lot systems), municipal stormwater, and agriculture.
As has been stated many times by UAJA, nutrient capacity is very different from flow and organic capacity. Nutrient capacity is a mass limit, and cannot increase through adding treatment units at the plant. It can only be increased through offsets and credits. Thus, to continue to grow according to the Centre Region comprehensive plan, additional nutrient capacity must be created through non-point source projects. UAJA has no more options than the MS4 program. In fact, there are opportunities for cooperation between the MS4 program and UAJA that would result in decreased costs for all.
State College Borough Water Authority Comments
1. No other uses are anticipated at this time. As has been demonstrated in the College Township Water Authority service area, UAJA is willing to pay for the right to implement water conservation projects that replace drinking water withdrawn from groundwater sources with beneficial reuse water. SCBWA needs to determine how much they want to charge UAJA for the right to implement water conservation projects within the SCBWA service area. SCBWA is a public water supplier, and thus should already have a cross connection prevention program in place. UAJA has cross connection prevention requirements in place to prevent contamination of the beneficial reuse water. UAJA welcomes the opportunity to work with SCBWA to develop a cross connection program that ensures both authorities are protected from each other’s water. The 2003 agreement prohibits UAJA from providing beneficial reuse water to any current or future SCBWA customer without obtaining approval from SCBWA. When a potential water conservation project is presented to UAJA, if UAJA decides it is a viable project for UAJA, a request will be made. Currently no water conservation projects involving current or future customers of SCBWA have been presented.
2. The rapid travel time applies to not only the plan for beneficial reuse water to be returned to Slab Cabin Run, but also to contaminants already in slab Cabin Run and the aquifer from existing sources. Agricultural practices affect the water quality. Runoff from roads affects the water quality. The multitude of on-lot wastewater disposal facilities affect water quality. All of these other sources provide unregulated contaminants that rapidly reach the wells. What is needed is not just a regional wastewater plan, but instead a regional or watershed wide water plan that looks at all of the needs for water, both human and environmental, and integrates solutions. These plans are typically called integrated water plans. UAJA has been suggesting this for more than 15 years. UAJA welcomes the opportunity to work with SCBWA and others to produce the plan. The development of the integrated water plan does not affect the proposed water conservation project to supply beneficial reuse water to Mountainview Country Club and Tussey.
Response to Katherine Watt Comments
1) Drafting and approval of an update to the 2003 Sourcewater Protection Agreement, signed between UAJA, SCBWA and CTWA. The updated agreement should include Penn State University, and should require regular water quality testing for primary and secondary contaminants of water at wellheads, the UAJA Spring Creek outfall, the Penn State experimental program at the State Gamelands, and the UAJA beneficial reuse processing plant, no less than annually. Penn State should be held, as the other entities are held, to all state and federal regulations and the Chesapeake Bay program, and not given preferential treatment or exemptions from water quality programs enforced on other public and private entities. If UAJA needs to use public funds to litigate the matter and challenge Penn State’s exemptions in the State Legislature, I would support such spending.
This is already occurring. One of the purposes of the existing Sourcewater Protection Agreement is to have the participants determine monitoring requirements for the signing entities. The monitoring goes beyond primary and secondary contaminants, and has included EPA’s emerging contaminant list. The most recent testing results for detected contaminants is included in the response to Ferguson Township.
2) Drafting and approval of a comprehensive watershed management plan for the Centre Region. The watershed management plan should place equal burdens for participation, disclosure and compliance on SCBWA, CTWA, Penn State’s water system, UAJA and Penn State’s sewage treatment systems, along with all regional MS4 stormwater collection and discharge systems, plus Penn State’s stormwater management system. The management plan should, at minimum, include an analysis of the relationship between Penn State’s historic and projected enrollment growth, regional population growth, and impacts on regional sourcewater, stormwater and sewage treatment carrying capacities from an ecological standpoint, taking into account our unique karst geology. The management plan should use current, standard, widely affordable technologies (not experimental or high-tech systems) and compliance with current state, federal and Chesapeake Bay water quality standards. The management plan should examine multiple population scenarios over the next 50 years, at a minimum, the following three scenarios: a) steady-state, assuming adoption of zoning codes that cap population density at the current respective density levels of each COG municipality and the Penn State campus; b) full build-out at current zoning in COG region municipalities and; c) full build-out with maximum upzoning increasing density to maximum levels in State College and the five surrounding Townships (as has been done, for example, with the Metropolitan, Rise, Residences at College and Atherton in the urban core, and at the Toll Brothers/PSU site in Ferguson Township in the suburban periphery.) If UAJA needs to use public funds to litigate a watershed management plan to ensure Penn State’s full participation and compliance with laws and regulations to which the other public entities are held, I would support such spending. UAJA has encouraged the development of a watershed plan (Now known as in Integrated Water Plan) for many years. To be successful, all of the major water infrastructure entities need to participate. The purpose of such a plan is to ensure that all of the water needs (human and environmental) are reliably met under all conditions. The development of such a plan should not be constrained by excluding any technology from consideration, particularly since it is a very long range plan.
3) Review of current business models of SCBWA, CTWA and UAJA, pressures on those business models (commodity pricing v. service pricing) given the impacts of conservation reducing consumption, and alternative business models that can ensure sustainable financial operations without population/customer
base growth. The business model analysis should include a comprehensive analysis of volumetric billing for UAJA sewer treatment and compliance with Act 57 of 2003. Once the integrated water plan is complete, the revenue streams of the water infrastructure entities might be modified to ensure that there is sufficient funding to construct and maintain the infrastructure required to implement the plan.
CONCLUSION: Upon completion of those three higher-priority tasks, I would prefer to see the COG engage in a comprehensive Act 537 Plan update, which could include beneficial reuse extensions to Mountainview Country Club, Tussey Mountain Ski Area and other areas, and if so, should include public cost-benefit analysis of each extension option to support an eventual public selection of the best “bang for the buck” option. The integrated water plan should, if developed correctly, already identify all wastewater solutions for the region.
August 7, 2017
Hon. Nick Miccarelli Hon. Frank Farry Hon. Dominic Costa
432 Irvis Office Bldg. 52B East Wing 217 Irvis Office Bldg.
P.O. Box 202162 P.O. Box 202142 P.O. Box 202021
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120
Hon. Pam Snyder Hon. Gene DiGirolomo Hon. Thomas Murt
112 Irvis Office Bldg. 49 East Wing 410 Irvis Office Bldg.
P.O. Box 202050 P.O. Box 202018 P.O. Box 202152
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120
RE: Opposition to H.B. 1620 Regarding Regulation of Wireless Facilities
Dear State Representatives Miccarelli, Farry, Costa, Snyder, DiGirolamo, and Murt:
The undersigned municipal associations, which represent nearly all of the 2,600
municipalities in the Commonwealth, have been working together for some time regarding the
management of wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way. We have reviewed House Bill 1620,
which you have cosponsored, and have concluded that the bill is not in the best interests of
Pennsylvania. In our opinion, it would undermine local management of the public rights-of-way,
harm public safety, remove the public from the wireless facility approval process, strip
municipalities of their basic legal protections, and violate federal wireless siting law.
As you know, Pennsylvania municipalities are charged by state law with the
oversight and maintenance of the health, safety, and welfare of their residents. This includes the
maintenance of perhaps the most important physical asset of every municipality, namely the public
rights-of-way. Municipalities actively manage the public rights-of-way, not only with respect to
vehicular and pedestrian traffic, but also with respect to the numerous types of facilities being
placed there by public utilities and related companies. These include gas, electric, water, cable,
telecommunications, and wireless facilities. Municipalities must manage these facilities in a
manner that maintains public safety and preserves the character of their communities. As such,
Pennsylvania municipalities have an immediate and direct interest in the management of towers,
antennae, and related wireless equipment in the public rights-of-way.
Our members strongly support the deployment of high-speed broadband service throughout
the Commonwealth. Whether achieved through wired or wireless networks (or a combination of
both), broadband deployment is critical to elevating Pennsylvania in the areas of economic
development, academic achievement, health care advancement, the maintenance of residential
property values, and the efficiency of local governments. The rollout of wireless distributed
antenna system (“DAS”) facilities, however, must be done in an orderly fashion that preserves
lcromell
Typewritten Text
Matter of Record
public safety and protects the public rights-of-way. H.B. 1620 would have the opposite result if
enacted in its current form.
Federal law grants to local governments the legal right to regulate the “placement,
construction, and modification” of wireless facilities through their zoning authority. At the same
time, federal and state laws grant numerous protections to the wireless industry and expressly
restrict municipalities from over-regulation of wireless facilities. These include, but are not limited
to, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC’s”)
“Shot Clock” Ruling of 2009, the Spectrum Act of 2012, the Pennsylvania Wireless Broadband
Collocation Act of 2012, and the FCC’s Wireless Report and Order of 2014. All of these statutes
and rulings restrict local government regulation and promote the deployment of wireless facilities.
Indeed, the wireless industry is fully protected now under federal and state law without the need
for H.B. 1620.
Municipalities in Pennsylvania cannot and will not surrender their right to manage their
public rights-of-way or to use their zoning authority to promote orderly development and preserve
the integrity of their communities. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to
discuss these issues and work collaboratively to prevent the detrimental impact that would result
from the enactment of H.B. 1620.
Sincerely yours,
__________________________ __________________________
David M. Sanko Richard J. Schuettler,
Executive Director Executive Director
Pennsylvania State Association of Pennsylvania Municipal League (PML)
Township Supervisors (PSATS)
__________________________ __________________________
Christopher Cap Richard J. Schuettler,
Executive Director Executive Director
Pennsylvania State Association of Pennsylvania State Association of
Boroughs (PSAB) Township Commissioners (PSATC)
cc: Members, House Consumer Affairs Committee
Pennsylvania House Majority and Minority Leadership
