REGIONAL PLANNING HANDBOOK CENTRAL PERKIOMEN VALLEY REGION INDIAN VALLEY REGION PHOENIXVILLE REGION POTTSTOWN REGION UPPER PERKIOMEN VALLEY REGION

Transcription

1 I n t e r - R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g C o o p e r a t i v e REGIONAL PLANNING HANDBOOK CENTRAL PERKIOMEN VALLEY REGION INDIAN VALLEY REGION PHOENIXVILLE REGION POTTSTOWN REGION UPPER PERKIOMEN VALLEY REGION SEPTEMBER 2010

2 INTER-REGIONAL PLANNING COOPERATIVE REPRESENTATIVES CENTRAL PERKIOMEN VALLEY REGION Dean Becker Gib Williams INDIAN VALLEY REGION Keith Freed Dick Prescott* PHOENIXVILLE REGION Richard Kirkner Chris McNeil* POTTSTOWN REGION Andy Paravis UPPER PERKIOMEN VALLEY REGION Shannan Bieler Vicki Lightcap MONTGOMERY COUNTY John Cover Eric Jarrell CHESTER COUNTY Carol Stauffer Mark Gallant * Denotes Past Representative

3 REGIONAL PLANNING HANDBOOK SEPTEMBER 2010 Funding for this Handbook was provided, in part, by the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development through their Regional Economic Development District Initiative program. i

4 ii

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 1 INTRODUCTION REGIONAL PLANNING 3 WHAT IS REGIONAL PLANNING 4 BENEFITS OF REGIONAL PLANNING 7 INCENTIVES FOR REGIONAL PLANNING 12 ESTABLISHMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 15 BACKGROUND 16 REQUIRED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS 26 ADDITIONAL OPTIONS AND REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR REGIONAL PLANS 30 ADOPTION PROCESS 30 RELATIONSHIP TO COUNTY PLANNING INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT 31 INTRODUCTION 32 REQUIRED COOPERATIVE IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT ELEMENTS 39 ORGANIZATION OF THE REGIONAL PLANNING GROUP iii

6 iv

7 INTRODUCTION The establishment of regional planning organizations in Pennsylvania has grown exponentially since the adoption of amendments to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code in These amendments provided specific incentives for regional cooperation while making it easier for municipalities to plan together. Even in the context of this expansion, however, the concepts and mechanics of regional planning are generally not well understood. From a municipal perspective, a practical understanding of regional planning tends to be limited to those who directly represent their municipality on the regional planning board. This is especially true for those who were integrally involved in the establishment of regional planning in their area. In-depth knowledge of regional planning among representatives to local planning commissions and governing body members not involved in regional planning tends to be limited. Yet it is from these various boards that future regional planning representatives may often emerge. Therefore, newly appointed regional planning board members often face a steep learning curve when it comes to understanding the context and intricacies of regional planning. In 2008 representatives from the Upper Perkiomen Valley, Central Perkiomen Valley, Indian Valley, Pottstown Region, and Phoenixville Region planning groups formed the Inter- Regional Planning Cooperative (IRPC) and began meeting on a bi-monthly basis. The purpose of the IRPC is to bring the leadership of the five contiguous regions together to share information, identify areas of mutual support and cooperation and promote the cause of regional planning. In this supporting role, the IRPC recognized the challenges facing new representatives to the regional planning organizations. Therefore, to provide a firm foundation for the continued success and evolution of regional planning in Southeastern Pennsylvania, the IRPC initiated development of the Regional Planning Handbook as a primer for regional planning. 1

8 INTER-REGIONAL PLANNING COOPERATIVE A voluntary and advisory body comprised of representatives from five contiguous regional planning organizations in western Montgomery County and northern Chester County, including the Central Perkiomen Valley, Indian Valley, Phoenixville Region, Pottstown Metropolitan Region, and Upper Perkiomen Valley. These five regional planning organizations involve thirty-two municipalities with a combined population of over 200,000 people. MISSION The mission of the IRPC is to support the planning endeavors of the member regions and to further the cause of regional planning. The IRPC will undertake the following pursuant to its mission: serve as a clearing house for inter-regional information identify common transportation and infrastructure needs and devise potential solutions identify and support land use planning and zoning best practices identify Local, County and State Government legislative initiatives that support regional planning and cooperation other activities as deemed appropriate by the participating regional planning organizations In support of regional planning, the IRPC will not conflict with, interfere with, or supplant in any way the five participating regional planning organizations. 2

9 CHAPTER 1 REGIONAL PLANNING What is Regional Planning All authority for planning in townships and boroughs, including regional planning, is provided by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act 247 of 1968, as reenacted and amended. The MPC recognizes regional comprehensive plans as a legitimate land use and growth management tool that can be implemented by any number of contiguous municipalities or noncontiguous municipalities within the same school district. The MPC also grants regional comprehensive plans the same legal status as municipal comprehensive plans, requiring zoning, subdivision and land development regulations and capital improvement programs to generally further the goals and policies of the plan. In order to implement a regional comprehensive plan, the MPC specifically permits local governments to enter into cooperative agreements that lay out specific roles and responsibilities for participants. Historically, regional planning in Pennsylvania has not been widespread. However, amendments to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) in 2000 provided specific incentives for regional planning. Most significantly, the amendments permitted regional planning to take place outside of joint zoning. Prior to 2000 the only way municipalities could enjoy all the advantages of inter-municipal planning was to have all municipalities adopt a single zoning code. This was a substantial impediment to regional planning as municipalities were reluctant to relinquish any, real or perceived, control of local zoning. The 2000 MPC amendments permitted implementation of regional 3

10 planning via cooperative implementation agreements. The cooperative implementation agreement serves as a contract between the participating communities, laying the foundation for organization and requiring each municipality to adopt land use controls that are generally consistent with the adopted regional plan. This permits municipalities to maintain their own established zoning codes, including their own planning commissions and zoning hearing boards. Cooperative implementation agreements are also needed to qualify for many of the specific incentives for regional planning offered by the MPC. Benefits of Regional Planning At the most fundamental level, regional planning in Pennsylvania is a voluntary endeavor. Municipalities choose, based upon their view of the benefits of regional planning, to participate and are not obligated in any way to maintain their association with a regional planning effort, beyond the region-specific terms for withdrawal identified in the region s intergovernmental agreement. Following formal withdrawal from regional planning, the withdrawing community will need to independently fulfill their land use obligations. With that understanding, many municipalities have initiated regional planning efforts, and have continued to participate, due to compelling and ongoing benefits and advantages. Communication and Coordination Many regional planning efforts started as occasional gatherings of municipal officials desiring to share information and increase communication. For instance, groups in the Upper Perkiomen and Indian Valley met informally for years prior to considering the prospect of regional planning. Based upon these past experiences, along with the recent history of regional planning in Southeastern Pennsylvania, the enhanced communication and information sharing alone is a significant benefit to regional planning. A primary example of this took place in the Upper Perkiomen Valley in 2009 when an agreement among three regional municipalities was developed to install a much needed traffic signal at a key intersection. The project also benefited from monetary contributions by three other regional communities, the school district, and the County. This was heralded by all involved as a crowning achievement for regional planning and was directly attributable to the communication and goodwill that had been fostered by participation in regional planning. This example is also significant because the need to install the traffic signal was recommended by a traffic study that 4

11 was initiated by the Regional Planning Commission with funding assistance by the County. Information sharing is so significant to the regional planning effort, most regions spend a portion of their agenda specifically for a roundtable update from each municipality. Through these updates, municipalities provide status reports regarding significant developments and pending proposals and updates on other municipal issues. During these discussions municipalities can informally raise concerns or make suggestions regarding a proposed development, especially those that may not meet the threshold of regionally significant. Municipalities may also be able to offer advice as to how a similar issue was handled in their community. Lastly, many regions have found it invaluable to include a representative from the local school district(s) in regional meetings. To the degree regional planning is involved with planning for future population and land use, increased coordination with school districts is imperative to inform decisions regarding facility needs and management. In addition, both the school district and regional planning commission have a common interest in the continued economic growth of the region to maintain a strong tax base. Good Planning The Regional Planning Commission s central reason for existence is the development and implementation of the regional comprehensive plan. The principal purpose of the comprehensive plan is to develop a Figure 1.1 Past Pottstown Metropolitan Regional Planning Committee 5

12 future land use plan that clearly outlines designated growth areas and rural resource areas, and is specifically authorized for regional planning in Section 1103 of the MPC. The other sections of the comprehensive plan (housing, existing land use, transportation, community facilities) are meant to inform the future land use plan. Designated growth areas are designed to accommodate residential growth at densities of one unit per Figure 1.2 Establishment of Growth Areas acre and greater and nonresidential growth to provide for the region s economic and employment needs. Designated growth areas are to be currently served by existing transportation systems and public sewer and water, or the plan should provide for the orderly extension of public infrastructure to these areas. Rural resource areas should have limited residential development, at densities compatible with rural uses, and nonresidential growth. Rural resource areas are not intended to be served by public sewer or water, except in villages or for public health and safety reasons. Clearly establishing growth areas (see Figure 1.2), and ensuring municipal zoning ordinances reflect this policy, gives the region the opportunity to target areas for revitalization, economic development, historic preservation, and neighborhood enhancement. Clear policies in this regard allow municipalities to channel limited resources to specific areas and for specific causes. The benefit of growth areas can be most apparent from a sewage facility planning perspective. Municipalities that conduct sewer planning in a reactive (rather than pro-active) manner end up with sprawling systems, often through lower density areas, that are expensive to build and more expensive to maintain over the long-term. As the sewer growth chases the development, growth 6

13 can occur in areas inappropriate for higher densities and intensities, bringing additional unwanted growth with it. Other unintended consequences include the need for transportation improvements, new parks and new schools that otherwise would be unnecessary. Providing sewer infrastructure within the designated growth areas, and limiting it to this area, directs new development to the most appropriate areas while limiting unnecessary sewer extensions, reducing the total miles of infrastructure to be maintained. Providing the infrastructure up-front also reduces the location costs of new commercial businesses and industries, making the region more competitive and attractive from an economic development stand point. Outside of the designated growth area is the rural resource area. Having the ability to designate rural resource areas from a regional versus a municipal perspective is essential because natural resources do not respect political boundaries. Designating rural resource areas on a regional scale can provide protection to sensitive watersheds, concentrations of significant farmland or woodlands or unique geology across municipalities. As concentrating commercial development can be beneficial, concentrating farmland can be just as valuable. By 1) maintaining the rural character around operating farms, 2) reducing nuisance complaints, and 3) allowing farm operators to take advantage of economies of scale through equipment sharing or allowing a single farmer to rent and operate multiple farms in close proximity, farming in the region will remain more viable over time. Using rural resource areas as a way to establish a greenway system can also benefit a region by protecting key water supplies while creating important recreational opportunities for residents and maintaining an overall high quality of life. INCENTIVES FOR REGIONAL PLANNING Beyond the inherent benefits of regional planning, including communication and coordination, changes to the MPC in 2000 also provided some very specific incentives for regional planning and the use of cooperative implementation agreements. Sharing Land Uses In southeastern Pennsylvania, the ability to share land uses is one of the primary motives for municipalities to participate in regional planning. Absent participation in regional planning, municipalities are individually required to provide their fair share of land area for various residential housing types as well as opportunities for the development of a variety of non-residential uses. 7

14 Many municipalities have had to deal with challenges to the validity of their zoning ordinance because a landowner believes their existing zoning ordinance prohibits them from using or developing their property in the manner they desire. Most of these validity challenges are brought because a landowner believes the municipality has not provided enough land for the full range of residential land uses or doesn t permit a specific nonresidential land use at all. Typically, a landowner will file a curative amendment that is intended to cure the ordinance and eliminate the exclusionary aspects. Regional Planning Provides Protection from Validity Challenges: Sections 916.1(h) and 1006-A(b.1) of the MPC authorize the sharing of land uses when municipalities have adopted a regional comprehensive plan and are implementing it with a generally consistent zoning ordinance. Specifically, the MPC says that the Zoning Hearing Board or the court in any zoning challenge: shall consider the availability of uses under zoning ordinances within municipalities participating in the multi-municipal comprehensive plan within a reasonable geographic area and shall not limit its consideration to the application of the zoning ordinance on the municipality whose zoning ordinance is being challenged. Beyond the cost of defending an ordinance, what makes the prospect of a curative amendment so troublesome for a municipality is that the proposed fix to the ordinance is site-specific. This means that the use allegedly being excluded would be permitted on the landowner s property, regardless how inappropriate that site may be for the proposed use. Successful curative amendments that allow uses or development in inappropriate areas can undermine good planning and greatly alter the character of a community. Municipalities have long been permitted to enter into joint zoning as a way to logically provide for and distribute land uses across municipalities, while avoiding validity challenges. However, the complexity of joint zoning, and perceived loss of local control by individual municipalities, has resulted in very few being adopted. The amendments to the MPC in 2000 changed the way in which municipalities were authorized to share land uses. These amendments permit municipalities that have adopted, and are implementing a regional comprehensive plan, to reference the uses permitted in the zoning ordinances of all participating municipalities when defending a validity challenge. While this relieves individual municipalities from having to allow for the full-range of 8

15 residential and non-residential uses, the combined ordinances of all municipalities participating in a regional comprehensive plan must still provide for the region s fair share of residential growth and reasonable use of land for nonresidential purposes. One local example of shared uses involved billboards. In the Pottstown Region, one municipality was challenged because their zoning ordinance did not permit billboards. However, several municipalities participating in the regional effort do permit billboards, allowing the town s ordinance to be defended on the basis that the use was not excluded from the region as a whole. Transfer of Development Rights One of the primary purposes of regional planning is to allow for the distribution of land uses more sustainably, considering the natural environment, historic patterns of development, and existing infrastructure to name a few. The sharing of land uses, as previously discussed, is one way this can be accomplished. A complementary approach to sharing land uses is the Transfer of Development Rights. Sections and 1105(b)(2) of the MPC permits two or more municipalities, upon written agreement, to transfer development rights across municipal boundaries. This can be an especially effective tool for regional planning since most regional planning efforts specifically designate growth areas and rural resource areas. The example shown in Figure 1.3 uses TDR to send development rights from parcels around the two historic villages to receiving properties within the main village area. This will establish a greenbelt around the historic villages while allowing for more development in the main village where public sewer and water are provided. From a regional planning perspective, a rural township, designated by a regional comprehensive plan as a rural resource area, may want to transfer development rights to a borough or suburbanizing township that has been designated as a growth area. This benefits the region by preserving the rural landscape, and associated farmland or woodland, while placing development in a more appropriate location with better transportation access and available sewer and water infrastructure. Composing a transfer of development rights program is a complex task, involving detailed technical analysis and an economic valuation of development rights. It is not a tool widely used in Pennsylvania and none of the existing programs have involved a transfer of development rights across municipal borders. However, transfer of development rights remains a powerful tool that should be considered in the context of regional planning, especially as it 9

16 becomes more generally accepted and new applications of the tool are developed. Specific Plans Specific plans are authorized by Section 1106 of the MPC and were added as part of the 2000 amendments. Specific plans are applicable to areas designated for commercial, industrial or other nonresidential development and are intended to implement a specific vision for an area covered by a regional comprehensive plan. Specific plans are only authorized for municipalities participating in a regional planning effort and the specific plan must be consistent with the regional comprehensive plan. The specific plan provides details regarding the provision of sewer and water, the location and types of transportation facilities, building intensity, resource preservation and overall design standards. Specific plans are implemented by ordinance, repealing the applicable zoning regulations for that area. Specific plans provide municipalities a process for implementing their Figure 1.3 Example TDR Program 10

17 regional comprehensive plan in a way that allows them to work with landowners and developers to establish a detailed and well-planned consensus vision for an area. Any landowner or developer seeking to implement the specific plan via subdivision or land development may go directly to final plan approval, provided the plan is consistent with both the specific plan and the regional plan. This tool is particularly useful for pre-planning the development of office parks, new town-centers and redevelopment areas. Revenue Sharing A key tool for the implementation of regional comprehensive plans is the Cooperative Implementation Agreement. One specific power authorized by the MPC for regions adopting a cooperative implementation agreement is the sharing of tax revenues and fees. Revenue sharing may be appropriate for a region that has planned to concentrate commercial or industrial development in one or more municipalities. Concentrating a region s nonresidential development to the appropriate area(s), considering transportation access and community facilities, will likely improve the marketability of those areas. In addition, presuming some municipalities would forego nonresidential development due to a lack of transportation access or infrastructure, concentrating commercial and industrial development within a region could reduce competition between participating municipalities for new ratable development. By allowing some percentage of revenue from new development to be distributed among participating municipalities, the implementation of revenue sharing would help create some equitable balance for those municipalities forgoing nonresidential development. Revenue sharing, however, remains a delicate subject in most corners of Pennsylvania. In addition, it may not be necessary in all situations. For example, the Indian Valley region made a deliberate effort to concentrate new industrial development into two of the region s six communities. These two communities have the best access to transportation and have existing community facilities with the capacity to meet the needs of new development. However, revenue sharing was deemed unnecessary since the region is served by a single school district. This means that no matter where the new development occurs in the region all six municipalities will benefit from the increased school district tax revenues. In terms of municipal revenue, municipalities without the pressure for significant industrial development will not have to undertake expensive 11

18 transportation or infrastructure improvements, reducing their need for additional revenue. State Agency Reviews Municipalities that have adopted a regional comprehensive plan and have a zoning ordinance that is generally consistent with the plan are entitled to special consideration by state agencies. First, Section 1105(a) (2) requires state agencies to consider the policies of adopted regional comprehensive plans when reviewing applications for the funding or permitting of infrastructure or facilities. This would be most applicable to the implementation of sewer planning policy. If a municipality has established a sewer growth area through its regional comprehensive plan, and has implemented it via zoning and Act 537 planning, it is unlikely that the state would approve the funding or permitting of centralized sewers outside the established growth area. The MPC, in Section 1105(a)(3), also requires state agencies to consider giving priority to applications for financial or technical assistance for projects that are consistent with a regional comprehensive plan. Establishment of Regional Planning Organizations Regional Planning is not a one-sizefits-all proposition. The MPC provides significant flexibility regarding the establishment of regional planning organizations. The process and options for establishing regional planning in Pennsylvania are discussed in the following sections. The Planning Area There is no limit to the number of communities that can cooperate on a regional comprehensive plan. Across Pennsylvania the number of municipalities participating in a single regional plan ranges from just two communities up to fifteen. The only requirement for regional planning is that the municipalities are contiguous or all part of the same school district. Within the IRPC, three of the five regions are primarily focused around a single school district with a mix of townships and boroughs, while the other two regions involve multiple townships with a large borough at its core. While these are typical scenarios for regional planning, the MPC is very flexible regarding the establishment of a planning area for regional comprehensive plans. Other possible options for establishing a planning area could involve a watershed-based approach or organization around a specific transportation corridor. Whatever the rationale for establishing the physical limits of the planning area, the purpose of regional planning is to bring together communities with similar concerns and shared interests and to foster greater communication and cooperation. 12

19 The Planning Organization The MPC does not require the establishment of a specific regional planning organization in order to cooperate with other communities for the development and implementation of a regional comprehensive plan. While it is possible for municipalities to cooperate and plan using their existing bodies, all of the regions participating in the IRPC, as well as most across the state, have elected to establish a separate body for the purpose of preparing and overseeing implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Establishing a separate body creates a more formal and direct foundation for communication and elevates the importance of regional planning at the municipal level. In addition, given the amount of work that goes into developing and implementing a regional plan, existing boards may be stressed for time at already busy meetings and unable to give regional planning issues due consideration. Without a centralized body, there would also be the added burden of establishing new lines of communication and procedures between the various boards charged with overseeing the regional comprehensive plan. Therefore, based upon the experience of the IRPC municipalities, a separate regional planning body, established to deal with issues of regional concern without forfeiting direct municipal oversight and control, provides the greatest opportunity for success. The Cooperative Planning Agreement Once municipalities determine that the establishment of a regional planning body is the best course of action, some structure for cooperation needs to be established. Section 1102 of the MPC specifically authorizes municipalities to enter into planning agreements so long as they conform to the general requirements of Pennsylvania s Intergovernmental Cooperation Law (ICL). The purpose of the planning agreement is to spell out the processes for developing and adopting a regional comprehensive plan. All of the regions within the IRPC developed planning agreements prior to initiating the regional comprehensive plan. These agreements created the regional planning body and delegated each participating municipality s authority to develop a regional comprehensive plan to that organization. The planning agreement is meant to be adopted by ordinance in each of the participating communities. Some key elements of the planning agreement include: Establishing the specific powers and duties that the regional planning group has been delegated to carry out, including the power to hold public 13

20 meetings, prepare a comprehensive plan and make recommendations to the local planning commissions and governing bodies. Defining the group s membership, such as how many representatives there will be from each community and whom they should represent (i.e. governing body, planning commission, general public). Creating officers for the regional planning group, including the number of officers, how officers are selected, municipal representation, and the terms of office. Establishing how decisions will be made, such as what constitutes a quorum and the voting rights of participating communities. Setting-up terms for record keeping, administration and the expenditure of funds. Establishing specific requirements for participation and withdrawal. The planning agreement is set-up to develop the Regional Comprehensive Plan and shepherd it through adoption. It should not be confused with the Implementation Agreement that is approved by all participating municipalities following adoption of the comprehensive plan. The purpose of the Implementation Agreement is to layout the rules for implementing the plan and, along with generally consistent zoning ordinances and municipal actions, establishes the Regional Comprehensive Plan s legal status, enabling all the protections offered to communities by the MPC. The Implementation Agreement is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3 of this Handbook. 14

21 CHAPTER 2 REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Background The fundamental requirements for a municipal, regional or county comprehensive plan are contained in Article III of the MPC. While the MPC provides some additional planning options for regional comprehensive plans, the MPC for the most part requires the same elements as a typical municipal comprehensive plan. Article III covers the basic elements that should be part of a comprehensive plan, including a land use plan, housing plan, transportation plan, community facilities plan and a plan for the protection of natural and historic resources. Article III also covers the comprehensive plan adoption process, the legal status of the plan and how often the plan should be reviewed and/or updated. Within this framework, municipalities, regions and counties can develop a comprehensive plan that reflects their particular goals and unique physical, cultural and political circumstances. For example in some planning areas, farmland and the preservation of natural resources may be the driving force for development of the comprehensive plan, while in other areas economic development and downtown revitalization may be the plan s primary goal. To ensure the plan addresses the issues most important to the community, the planning process should also include opportunities for public participation. The only MPC requirement for public participation comes at the end of the planning process in the form of a public meeting held by each municipal planning commission and a public hearing of the governing body, including any advertising required by the MPC. However, regions in the IRPC planning area have found that involving 15

22 the public early in the planning process, typically in the form of town hall meetings, citizen surveys or both, provides significant insight into the issues most important to the community. An active public participation process helps to define and focus the regional plan in ways that make the plan more practical and often contributes to greater support of the plan when it reaches the adoption stage. The regional comprehensive plan, in almost all instances, takes the place of a municipality s local comprehensive plan and becomes the primary planning document for that community. In some cases, however, unique circumstances have led several communities to retain their local comprehensive plan. Municipalities are permitted to have both a local comprehensive plan and regional comprehensive plan provided the local plan adheres to and is generally consistent with the regional plan. Required Comprehensive Plan Elements Each municipality participating in regional planning continues to have its own local planning commission. All of the standard planning commission responsibilities, including plan review and ordinance development, remain under its purview. The only role that the local planning commission delegates to the regional planning organization is the development and oversight of the regional comprehensive plan. Therefore, for the regional planning organization to be successful, every member needs to understand not only what elements are covered by the plan, but what planning purpose they serve in establishing land use policies for the region. The comprehensive plan elements required by the MPC, including the specific language from the MPC for that element, are discussed in the following sections: Goals and Objectives MPC Section 301(a)(1) A statement of objectives of the [region] concerning its future development, including, but not limited to, location, character and timing of future development. The MPC requires regional comprehensive plans to include a statement of objectives. This requirement is typically addressed in the Goals and Objectives chapter. Goals and objectives are developed with direct input from the local governing bodies and planning commissions of the participating municipalities to establish a framework for the plan s policies. A regional consensus on the goals should be established considering the specific municipal-level and neighborhood-level issues facing each community. The goals and objectives should also consider the need and interests of other local stakeholders and the general public though the public participation process. As the foundation for the plan s policies, all municipal implementation activities should be supported and justified by the plan s 16

23 goals and objectives. In fact, as regional planning organizations review municipal activities like zoning changes for general consistency with the regional plan, decisions often come down to how well the proposed action conforms with or advances the plan s overall goals and objectives. Typically, goals and objectives are organized in a way that reflects the specific plan elements required by the MPC, and are summarized in the following sections. For example, the Indian Valley Regional Comprehensive Plan listed the following goals and objectives for transportation: Transportation Goal The Indian Valley Plan intends to promote a safe and efficient transportation system throughout the region. Objectives Identify problematic traffic areas and develop mitigation strategies. Encourage sidewalks in new development where appropriate. Develop a local and regional trail network. Explore mass transit options. Consider centralized and shared parking facilities in established and new commercial areas. Land Use Plan MPC Section 301(a)(2) A plan for land use, which may include provisions for the amount, intensity, character and timing of land use proposed for residence, industry, business, agriculture, major traffic and transit facilities, utilities, community facilities, public grounds, parks and recreation, preservation of prime agricultural lands, floodplains and other areas of special hazards and similar uses. Typically one of the comprehensive plan s final chapters, the Land Use Plan is a summary of the policies established in the other elements of the comprehensive plan. Additionally, the cornerstone of this chapter is typically a Future Land Use map that reflects the plan s policies by depicting the spatial distribution and concentration of land uses proposed throughout the region. Based upon the land use designations shown on the Future Land Use map (see Figure 2.1), the text of the chapter explains what range of uses, residential densities and non-residential intensities are permitted within that area and whether or not the area will be served by public sewer and water. Building upon information from the other parts of the comprehensive plan, the land use plan should accommodate the region s future housing needs while protecting natural and historic resources in consideration of the transportation, recreation, and employment needs of existing and future residents. 17

24 Figure 2.1 Example Future Land Use Map and Land Use Designations 18

25 When it comes to implementation of the regional comprehensive plan, and establishing general consistency between the plan and municipal planning and zoning decisions, it is the land use chapter that is first consulted. Municipalities must be certain that their local zoning reflects the policies of the land use plan in terms of permitted uses and densities. Any proposed zoning changes that are not deemed to be generally consistent with the policies of the land use plan, and other applicable sections of the comprehensive plan, will require an amendment to the plan prior to adoption. The land use plan also serves as the starting point for the regional planning organization when reviewing developments of regional significance. More about this process and the role of the land use plan is discussed in Chapter 3. Housing Plan MPC Section 301(a)(2.1) A plan to meet the housing needs of present residents and those individuals and families anticipated to reside in the [region], which may include conservation of presently sound housing, rehabilitation of housing in declining neighborhoods and the accommodation of expected new housing in different dwelling types and at appropriate densities for households of all income levels. One of the greatest incentives for regional planning offered by the MPC is the sharing of land uses. Unlike individual municipal land use planning, where every municipality must alone provide its fair share of high density housing, regional planning permits this obligation to be shared by all participating municipalities: individual municipalities may go without zoning for high density housing as long as the region provides for the reasonable Figure 2.2 Example from Pottstown Metro Housing Chapter 19

26 development of high density housing. Therefore a major role of the housing plan is to ensure that the region can accommodate the housing needs of its future population, including opportunities for different dwelling types at appropriate densities. To develop a housing plan that meets the needs of existing and future populations, most housing elements analyze the existing housing stock in the region. This analysis looks at the age, condition, value, distribution and affordability of housing throughout the region. Beyond this, the housing plan analyzes projected population growth for the region and relates that growth back to the number of new dwelling units required to accommodate those additional residents. Section 1103 of the MPC, which permits the establishment of designated growth areas and rural resources areas within regional comprehensive plans (discussed later in this Chapter), suggests designated growth areas be able to accommodate growth projected for the next 20 years with residential and mixed use densities of one unit or more per acre. Transportation Plan MPC Section 301(a)(3) A plan for movement of people and goods, which may include expressways, highways, local street systems, parking facilities, pedestrian and bikeway systems, public transit routes, terminals, airfields, port facilities, railroad facilities and other similar facilities. The direct relationship between transportation and land use is easy to understand. More people and more businesses always result in more traffic. How this increased traffic is handled directly impacts the quality of life for the region s residents. In addition, an efficient and functioning transportation system is critical to retaining and growing new businesses within a region. No business wants to locate in an area that is difficult to reach or requires additional transportation improvements. A good transportation plan establishes a functional classification for all streets and identifies needed roadway improvements, including new roads, widening of existing roads, intersection improvements, and installation of traffic control and traffic calming devices. These recommendations will be based upon an analysis of existing conditions as well as projected growth and development patterns. While existing public transportation, other than buses, is limited within the IRPC area, the transportation plan should consider alternative forms of transportation. It should include a plan for walking and biking and should consider both the facilities needed for these alternate forms of transportation and land use patterns that will minimize the number of vehicle trips required. As an example, the Central Perkiomen Valley region revised and expanded their transportation plan in This 20

27 supplemental plan not only provided updated analysis on key intersections throughout the region, identifying improvements for problem areas, but extensively analyzed the connection between transportation improvements and community character. Using input from the participating communities and several public visioning sessions, the study classified roads (i.e. rural, village, suburban) based upon the character of surrounding development. The plan then laid out specific design considerations for roadway improvements for each roadway classification. Using the concepts embodied in the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation s (PADOT) Smart Transportation initiative, the plan encourages flexibility in roadway design to ensure it fits into the surrounding area. This new strategy is intended to reduce the onesize-fits-all design mentality that too often results in roadway improvements that destroy the look and feel of the intersection they were intended to improve by being larger and more costly than needed. The recommendations of the transportation plan feed into the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for each municipality and often reflect the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. The transportation plan may also lay the groundwork for a joint municipal impact fee ordinance as authorized by Section 508-A Figure 2.3 Example from Upper Perkiomen Valley Transportation Plan 21

28 of the MPC. Transportation impact fees are the only mechanism in Pennsylvania to recover the proportional cost of off-site improvements attributable to new development. Impact fees are implemented by ordinance and require developers to contribute to a transportation fund, based upon the number of residential units or non-residential square footage, which will be used to pay for future roadway improvements identified in the capital improvement plan. Plan for Community Facilities and Utilities MPC Section 301(a)(4) A plan for community facilities and utilities, which may include public and private education, recreation, municipal buildings, fire and police stations, libraries, hospitals, water supply distribution, sewerage and waste treatment, solid waste management, storm drainage, and floodplain management, utility corridors and associated facilities, and other similar facilities or uses. The provision of community facilities in an area should directly correspond to the region s land use plan and designated growth areas. While regions that are primarily rural won t need to plan for the full range of community facilities, all of the region s participating in the IRPC have significant areas designated for levels of growth that will necessitate the full array of community facilities. The two most significant community facilities requiring good planning are sewage and water facilities. In particular, planning for sewage facility needs is the direct responsibility of municipalities in Pennsylvania and is required to be consistent with the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act (Act 537). Sewage facilities planning, however, must not be done in a vacuum and should be based upon the policies outlined in the municipality s land use plan. For example, the Land Use Plan should clearly designate areas for growth, typically at densities greater than one unit per acre which often require the provision of a centralized sewage system, and areas for rural resource protection that are intended to rely upon on-site disposal systems. Once areas designated for sewer service have been delineated, the method(s) for sewage collection and disposal are evaluated as part of the Sewage Facilities Plan. Finally, to ensure public sewer service is contained to the designated growth area, good sewage facilities planning establishes management guidelines for on-lot systems in the rural resource areas. These management guidelines help to ensure the long-term operation and maintenance of the on-lot systems which is vital to maintaining strong growth boundaries. Municipalities that have concentrations of on-lot system failures will eventually need to serve those areas with public sewer. While the MPC permits public sewer to serve existing villages or to protect public health within areas designated as rural resource, it may make it politically harder for a municipality to avoid expanding the growth area. To prevent this, Sewage Facility Plans 22

29 should have strong incentives for maintaining on-lot disposals systems to ensure they remain the long-term disposal option for a community s rural resource area. Public water service within designated growth areas is just as important as the provision of public sewer. While the issues surrounding water supply, including both quality and quantity, are complex, they are typically dealt with by a municipal authority or department or a private water company regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PUC). In addition, public water supply systems are required to comply with regulations of the state s Safe Drinking Water Act and the local River Basin Commission. Like sewage facilities, the real issue for the regional plan is establishing strong boundaries for water service areas and working with the water purveyors to protect areas designated as rural resource. Identifying important groundwater recharge areas and protecting water supplies in the rural resource area is also necessary to prevent the need for expansion of public water into those non--growth areas. On a related note, Section 301.b of the MPC also requires every comprehensive plan to include a plan for the reliable supply of water, considering current and future water resources availability, uses and limitations, including provisions adequate to protect water supply sources. Coordinating the planning for water supply and the provision of community facilities should be done in tandem. Given the direct connection between land use and community facilities, it is imperative that regional planning commissions maintain close coordination and communication with the local sewer and water authorities and departments. Plan for the Protection of Natural and Historic Resources MPC Section 301(a)(6) A plan for the protection of natural and historic resources to the extent not preempted by federal or state law. This clause includes, but is not limited to, wetlands and aquifer recharge zones, woodlands, steep slopes, prime agricultural land, floodplains, unique natural areas and historic sites. The plan shall be consistent with and may not exceed those requirements imposed under [other applicable state and federal laws]. Regional planning is well-suited for protecting natural resources, such as wetlands, woodlands, agricultural soils, steep slopes and floodplains, because these areas do not adhere to municipal boundaries. Just as the regional comprehensive plan designates appropriate areas for higher density residential development, transportation improvements and the provision of sewage facilities, certain natural resource areas are deserving of protection and are not as appropriate for higher intensity development. In fact, the protection of important resources is such an important part of regional planning it is one of six specific purposes of the regional compre- 23

30 Figure 2.4 Example Natural Resource Mapping hensive plan listed in the MPC: regions may plan for the conservation and enhancement of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic resources within the area of the plan. For municipalities wishing to adopt land use controls that protect natural and historic resources it is essential for the comprehensive plan to document the importance of each resource. Specifically, the regional comprehensive plan should include mapping that depicts the location and distribution of natural and historic resources throughout the region. The plan should also contain a description of each resource, including its important economic and/or ecological functions. For example, prime agricultural soils are an irreplaceable resource that provide higher production crop yields, allowing more efficient use of land, and also serve as the foundation for economic activity (farming and related agri-businesses) that many regions depend upon. In addition to the benefits of protecting significant natural and historic resources and providing the justification for resource-specific land use controls, the comprehensive plan should also discuss the specific limitations and hazards of these areas. While the dangers of developing in floodplains and steep slopes are often wellunderstood, the developmental concerns with unique geologic features are not always clear. For example, 24