Citizens for Fair Zoning

Position on Draft 2 of the Worth Township Zoning Ordinance

 

As the planning commission and supervisors of Worth Township intend to install a zoning ordinance, we the Citizens for Fair Zoning wish to state our position:

 

1. Whereas, a stated objective of the ordinance is to protect the welfare of the residents of the township, the proposed ordinance offers no protection for current and future homeowners in the General Commercial District.

           

a)      Single-family dwellings already exist in this district and are a permitted use (permitted after paying the cost of a supervisors hearing (approx. $150 + cost of a stenographer if necessary)

b)       Side yard requirements for principal structures is 25 feet each side.

c)      Side yard requirements for non-residential parking & loading is 10 feet each side.

d)      No buffer yard is required between residential and commercial uses within this district.

e)      The ordinance encourages the close proximity of incompatible uses.

f)       Consequently, current and future homeowners in the General Commercial District have no means of protecting themselves from the ill effects of living next to commercial businesses: parking lots, traffic, automobile lights, automobile noise and patrons - all can end up a few feet from a homeowners back door.  A homeowner could step out his backdoor and into the parking lot of a restaurant, convenience market, motels/hotel, shopping complexe or machine shop.  The only means homeowners in the General Commercial District will have to protect themselves is to sell and move away.

 

2. Whereas, a stated objective of the ordinance is to protect the welfare of the residents of the township, the proposed ordinance offers no protection for current homeowners residing in the Interchange district.

 

a)      Single-family dwellings already exist in this district.

b)      Side yard requirements for non-residential parking & loading is 10 feet each side.

c)      No buffer yard is required between residential and commercial uses within this district.

d)      Consequently, current homeowners in the Interchange District have no means of protecting themselves from the ill effects of living next to commercial businesses: parking lots, traffic, automobile lights, automobile noise and patrons - all can end up a few feet from a homeowners back door.  The only means homeowners in the Interchange District will have to protect themselves is to sell and move away.

 

3.  Whereas, at the August 1, 2001 planning commission meeting the chairman of the planning commission stated his position:  “It pays to go slow with development.  A study at Penn State has shown that increased residential, commercial and industrial development actually cost the township more for infrastructure and maintenance than the taxes that such development generates.”

 

4. Whereas, a stated objective of the ordinance is to control development, the proposed ordinance promotes and encourages prolific commercial development that threatens the rural character of township.

 

a)      Minimum lot sizes in the General Commercial District are 1 acre (on-lot sewage and water) and less than ½ acre (with public water and sewage.)

b)      Side yard requirements for a non-residential parking lot is 10 feet each side.

c)      Small minimum lot sizes increase the number of lots available for commercial development and reduce their cost.  As a result, prolific commercial development will occur in this district.  The commercial development that occurs here will look like Breezewood without the signs.

d)      The proposed ordinance does nothing to control development in the General Commercial  and Interchange Districts.  Large corporate developers are largely  uncontrolled.  By allowing smaller lot sizes where public sewer and water are available, the ordinance  encourages high density development with its associated traffic and congestion.  The ordinance encourages the proliferation of public sewage systems and high density development which will cost taxpayers of the township.  Regulations requiring traffic flow studies need to be added.  Because the townships subdivision and land development plan is inadequate, developers can leave the township’s taxpayers with large repair bills for poorly constructed roads, water and sewage lines. 

 

5. Whereas, a stated objective of the ordinance is to control development that will increase taxes, this prop encourages development that will become a tax burden to township residents. 

 

a)      Penn State Agriculture Extension Circular 410, referred to by the chairman of the planning commission at the August 1, 2001 meeting, lists the following land uses as having a negative fiscal impact on a municipality: townhouses (2-3 bedrooms), expensive single-family homes (3-4 bedrooms), townhouses (3-4 bedrooms), inexpensive single-family homes (3-4 bedrooms), garden apartments 3+ bedrooms), and mobil homes.

b)      In the Village District, minimum lot sizes are lower for single-family detached dwellings (30,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit), two-family dwellings (15,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) and conversion apartments (10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) when public sewage or water is available.  Single-family attached & multi-family dwellings (30,000 + 2,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) are permitted in this district when public sewage or water is available.

c)      By lowering minimum lot sizes where public sewage and water is available, the faulty ordinance promotes the proliferation of development that will become a tax burden to residents in the township.

d)      If the planning commission goal is to control development, maximum land use density would remain the same with or without public sewer or public water.

e)      An average density of one residence per acre would prevent the proliferation of public sewer and public water systems because of the costs involved.  Thus, the citizens of the township would be protected from burdensome tax increases related to development that has a negative fiscal impact on the township.

 

6. Whereas, the planning commission has stated that property owners in Worth Township will “absolutely” be able to give land to their children and other family members, the proposed ordinance penalizes “Clean and Green” participants of the township who do convey property to their children.

 

a)      The proposed ordinance requires 5-acre minimum lots for most of the township.

b)      If a “Clean and Green” participant splits-off a lot (five acres) for a child, the landowner will be required to pay the roll back tax penalty (tens of thousands of dollars for some landowners) on the entire tract.

 

7. Whereas, the ordinance should consider the impact of all home occupations equally, the faulty ordinance inexplicably gives preference to Bed and Breakfast establishments even though they could have an adverse impact on the township.

 

a)      Bed and Breakfast establishments are permitted uses in five of the seven districts.

b)      Occupancy can be up to six guest rooms, each room with up to two adults and two children.

c)      Bed and Breakfast establishments will increase traffic on already stressed township roads.

d)      Bed and Breakfast establishments will pose a danger to adjoining residences with increased sewage and refuse needs.

e)      Bed and Breakfast establishments will require a large safe drinking water supply and water usage will be higher than single-family residences.

f)        Bed and Breakfast establishments will require off-street parking facilities.

g)      Bed and Breakfast establishments generate considerable noise.

h)      Yet, inexplicably, Bed and Breakfast Establishments are not required to meet any of the following stringent restrictions that all other home occupations are required to meet:

                                             i.            Persons engaged in the permitted home occupation shall be limited to members of the household of the operator residing on the premises and one (1) non-resident employee.

                                           ii.            The home occupation shall not in any way alter the residential character of the neighborhood where it is to be located, nor shall it in any way adversely affect the safety of the persons residing in that neighborhood.

                                          iii.            The home occupation shall not create any adverse impact on existing traffic or circulation patterns in the neighborhood.

                                         iv.            No offensive or objectionable noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, heat or glare shall be detected at or beyond the property line of the lot containing the home occupation.

                                           v.            A sufficient number of off-street parking spaces shall be provided to adequately accommodate the occupation’s anticipated usage.

                                         vi.            All home occupations may be permitted upon finding of the Zoning Officer that such use complies with the criteria of this Section, other applicable codes and ordinances, and that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the neighborhood where it is to be located.

 

8. Whereas, the ordinance should consider the impact of all uses impartially, in the Rural Residential District, the proposed ordinance gives preference to stables and riding academies over the more mundane and common activities of raising livestock for commercial sale and camps, cabins, and vacation homes.

 

a)      Stables and riding academies are permitted uses in the Rural Residential District.

b)      Raising of livestock or poultry for commercial sale is not a permitted use in Rural Residential.

c)      Camps, cabins and vacation homes are not permitted uses in the Rural Residential District even though these uses have a positive impact on the township - increasing the townships tax base without burdening services

 

9. Whereas, the proposed ordinance promotes prolific commercial development where it would naturally occur along the interchange; it places restrictions on 85% of the of township that will not be under development pressure.  Why should the township residents pay the cost of supporting a zoning bureaucracy when the ordinance does nothing to prevent what would occur naturally?

 

10. Whereas, by minimizing the importance of a strong township subdivision and land development ordinance, the position of planning commission will leave the township wide open to unscrupulous developers.

 

a)      At the planning meeting on August 1, 2001, the chairman of the planning commission stated  Some people have suggested that the township adopt a sub-division ordinance instead of zoning.  Subdivision ordinances only regulate things such as setbacks from roads, turning areas of driveways and compliance with sewage regulations.”

i)  Our research has found that setbacks and turning areas of driveways are regulated by zoning laws; compliance with sewage regulations is regulate by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Code Title 25, Chapters 71 thru 73.

b)      David Piper, an experienced township manager of nearby Halfmoon Township (which has experienced 60% growth in the last ten years), states “It is more important to have good subdivision and land development standards in place than zoning regulations.   Zoning does nothing to prevent poor quality land development. Zoning does not generate structurally solid streets, good water lines, public sewer, quality home construction, safe street design or a host of other concerns that can become a logistical nightmare for municipalities to repair. Contrary to popular belief and the discussion of pro-zoning organizations, zoning does nothing to protect the general public from the ravages of poor land development, that is the job of subdivision and land development regulation. Reconstructing a street in the average development will cost between $60,000 to $100,000 per mile. A mile of road will provide access to approximately 70 single-family homes under the best conditions. The income generated by these homes (if everyone has a job and no retirees live there) for the municipality each year will be approximately $32,000 per household which creates approximately $11,200 in earned income tax revenue annually. Once all municipal costs are deducted from that figure, i.e., plowing, general road maintenance, equipment, salaries, fire protection, etc., the municipality might be able to secure $2,500 for road reconstruction per mile. Without raising taxes on the citizens, that road, as originally built, must be able to last for 24 to 40 years. Realistically with the current construction standards, Worth Township would be lucky to get 10 years of use before severe surface breakdown occurs. In Halfmoon Township several roads lasted less than 5 years before needing a quality reconstruction and resurfacing job. Zoning will not protect you against these types of problems.”

 

11. Whereas, the chairman of planning commission, at the August 1, 2001 planning meeting, engaged in exaggerations in an effort to create an atmosphere of crisis that would facilitate rapid approval of the proposed ordinance.

 

a)      Because zoning has long-term implications to existing residents of the township, we believe all citizens of the township have a right to carefully review the ordinance to assure the adoption of a good ordinance. 

 

 

12. Whereas, two sitting supervisors are appointed representatives - not elected by citizens of the township.

 

a)      What may be the most important decision in the history of the township deserves to be made by elected officials.  

 

 

14.  As a consequence, we the Citizens for Fair Zoning, wish you to consider the following remedies from the planning commission and supervisors:

 

a)      For the supervisors to postpone any vote on the ordinance until elected supervisors are in place in early January.

b)      To immediately develop and implement a comprehensive subdivision and land development ordinance that protects the township taxpayers from unscrupulous developers.

c)      To protect the citizens from unnecessary tax burdens by not encouraging high density development. 

d)      To protect all citizens from incompatible land uses by correcting deficiencies in the General Commercial District and the Interchange District.

e)      To not give preferential treatment to bed and breakfast establishments – require them to meet the same regulations as any other home business.

f)        To remove preferential treatment of stables and riding academies in the Rural Residential District.

g)      To allow camps, cabins and vacation homes in the Rural Residential District.

h)      To allow the raising of livestock and poultry for commercial sale in the Rural Residential District.

i)        To allow residents participating in “Clean and Green” to give land to their children without paying the “rollback” tax penalty which can be ten of thousands of dollars for some participants.

j)        Immediate release of the permit and fee schedule for the ordinance – the planning commission is asking the citizens of the township to agree to buy the plan without knowing the price.

k)      Per the position of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, the township must compensate landowners adversely affected by the ordinance.  Specifically, “A zoning ordinance which restricts the use of private property should be compensated as if the property itself is taken.”

l)        To implement performance zoning, which treats ????

m)    Part of the heritage of Worth Township is the belief of its citizens that private property is an essential American liberty.  In Section 103, the Worth Township Zoning Ordinance states “The Township’s and regions heritage should be understood, respected, and protected by Township policies and initiatives.”  The spirit of American individualism and an individual’s right to own and manage private property, free from excessive government controls, still runs strong in this township.  It is important for the supervisors and planning commission to respect this part of the township’s heritage.