- The Centre Region Active Adult Center is a vibrant,
inclusive, and happening location designed
for active adults 55 years and over to be social
and participate in new experiences while
also staying close to home.
We promote healthy aging through our many activities
and health forums, as well as lifelong learning
through classes and social interaction
that suit almost any lifestyle.
Whether you prefer line dancing followed by a walk
or a game of bridge and a meal,
the center is sure to have something for you.
Visit crpr.org for more info.
- You are watching CNET Center County's Government
and Educational Access Network.
- Sponsorship for this program is brought to you in part
by Town and Gown Magazine.
If it's happening in Happy Valley,
it's in Town and Gown Magazine.
- Hello, we are calling to order the meeting
of the State College Borough Planning Commission
for August 6th, 2025 at noon.
Roll Call. I am Zoe Boniface, vice chair acting as chair
because Ron Madrid is not present in the room.
Ron Madrid
- Here - Is present long over the internet.
Anita here. Dan man
- Here.
- Okay. He is also online. Tony Sapia Here.
Curtis Schulman.
Great approval of minutes from July 17th.
Any comments or corrections?
Hearing none. May I have a motion to approve?
Motion approve. A second. Second. All in favor say aye.
A Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay.
Sorry about that. We're not, we're still in session,
but the meeting, but the minutes are approved.
- Question on Zoom. - Did you have a question, Ron?
Or were you just approved? Yes,
- I had a, no, I had a, I had a change on the minutes.
- Oh, - But I'll,
- Oh, I'm sorry.
I missed that.
- You can go ahead and reopen. - Go ahead.
Yeah, we can reopen this. What, what is your concern?
- Page seven under PC comments. The fourth bullet.
My comment said increase building in regards
to building heights from two to five stories.
It should be nine to 11 versus two to five.
- Thank you. So
- Motion to, just a motion to approve.
- Can we make Yeah. Mo a motion
to approve the minutes with this correction.
So moved. So moved. Okay.
And we've got a second from Tony
and then we will go on.
Sorry about that Ron. I did not see your hand. Okay.
Chair report. I will only mention
that we have two more planning commission meetings
and two more meetings that are devoted to review
of these new
proposed Zoning matters.
And if you really care about this stuff,
this is the time to come talk
or to put comments
online, public hour.
If there is anyone here
or online who would like to speak
to the planning commission on a matter that is not
of today's agenda, this is your opportunity.
Come up and say who you are, where you live.
- And I would say pretty much all the
Zoning ordinances on the agenda.
So if it's about Zoning, save it for the presentation.
- I do have a few things which I do not think are covered in
the agenda minutes, but feel free
to stop me if that's not the case.
My name is John Gardner homeowner in West College Heights,
Hillcrest Avenue, Dr. John Gardner, excuse me.
And I'm also a member of the Transportation Commission
with Susan Vango back there.
So the thing that I specifically wanted to address is just
how boring, unpleasant,
and unattractive West College Heights is.
It has only ugly single family homes.
It doesn't have any shops, it doesn't have any restaurants,
it doesn't have any attractive apartment buildings.
And I think the thing that really should be looked at is the
buy right legalization of owner o operator corner stores.
This is something that is sweeping,
especially the West coast as they attempt
to re legalize stores that were already in operation.
I think the, the biggest places are Spokane and Seattle.
And what they did was way back in the day, historically,
there were always corner stores so the people didn't have
to hop in a car and drive all the way through town to get
to a mega box grocery store.
If they needed a, a quick cup of coffee
or, or, or some groceries.
They could pop down to the corner store
and make a, a walking trip instead of a, a driving trip.
But that's specifically my point about West College Heights.
There's nothing there. It's an absolute cultural desert.
The only good part of the neighborhood is the bicycle trail
to get out of the neighborhood,
to go to other places to do things.
It is exclusively an institutionalized bedroom.
And so I think that a really important thing, especially
for addressing climate change and a change
and improving the feel of the communities is
that you should really seriously address buy right corner
store legalization such that any corner lot would be allowed
to do, to have a corner store.
Not necessarily something that big developers have
to come into, but if somebody wants to convert a house and,
and make their downstairs into a coffee shop,
I see no reason why that shouldn't be something
of extreme importance.
And then also just in general, I think that R one
and R two should be completely abolished.
There's no reason for having ranch style homes in the middle
of a, a dense urban core.
And then the last thing I wanted to address,
which I don't think is on the agenda today, is students,
I know that a student occupation is extremely limited to,
to a very small area of downtown.
I personally found that very difficult and annoying
because when I moved here, excuse me, for graduate school,
I was under the age of 25.
And that extremely
and artificially shrank the number of places
that I was legally allowed, allowed to live
really only being penned into a a, a student, a stockyard,
or going obscenely far outta the Borough.
And that's ultimately why we ended up having
to choose the place where we did.
So I think that that is unnecessarily restrictive.
It is in the name State College.
The community thrives off of the university.
So we should therefore be welcome to the students
that allow us to exist.
So thank you very much. Those are my comments.
- Okay, - Zoe,
we do have someone online who'd like to speak.
- Okay, let's go ahead.
I don't see, I'll,
- I'll allow them to talk in a second.
- Okay. Alright. Okay.
- John Chu, you can go ahead and speak now.
- Yes. Hi, can you hear me okay?
- Yes. And I'm, I'm, I've been instructed
to put people on the four minute timer.
This is no comment on our first comment of the day.
Go ahead.
- All right. Well I've,
if you haven't been reading your emails,
I've been the reporter from the Daily Collegiate
that's been trying to reach out to a Mr.
Sapia for comment about the future land use map
from the CRPA.
I haven't gotten any responses back, so I just wanted
to remind you guys about it
and if you, any, if he's willing to speak about it
and if,
and if any of you guys are willing to speak about it
as well, you can just contact me at
JWC 64 ninety6@psu.edu.
That's all. I just wanted to say, this
probably doesn't have anything to do
with the agenda right now.
It's just wanted to put that out there.
So thank you for giving me the time to speak.
- Okay. Anyone else?
Hearing none, we will go on.
Okay. So we are now going on
to review our new Zoning Ordinance.
Today we are looking to re review the,
summarize the residential districts sections
that were introduced last month and,
and then we'll have some recommendation,
discussion and refinement.
Okay. The Ordinance is available online
and instructions
for submitting public comments are available on the webpage.
You can submit comments digitally at any kind
to zone State College at State College pa
us. Go ahead.
- Okay. Thank you Zoe. Good afternoon everyone.
So for today we're,
we'll do our normal introduction again just
to make sure everybody has the same information, both about
how to provide comments
and also to review the material that's online.
The, the page that we have
where we're putting everybody's
online comments is getting lengthy.
So if you have not had a chance to read any
of that, please take a look.
There's a lot of material in there.
We're also, as Zoe said, we're gonna focus today on
summarizing the comments that we've received related
to the residential districts.
We're gonna talk specifically about accessory dwelling units
'cause we just got that text right before the last meeting.
And then also just kind of preview
what we think will be happening for the eight 14
and 8 21 meetings.
And talk a little bit about transitional zones as well.
We had an opportunity to sit down with Susan Vanoni on some,
some of her map changes and comments.
We wanna run a few things by you as well.
So again, why are we doing this as far
as the major objectives for the rezoning revision?
And that is to increase housing opportunities period, both
for market rate and affordable housing
and tenants, both for home ownership and rental tenants,
and also for long-term residents and students.
I wanna just take a moment.
There's been a lot of comments about affordable housing and,
and I just think it's important and,
and Ron mentioned this at the last meeting
to recognize we're talking about increasing housing
opportunities, more units.
That doesn't mean that they will be necessarily affordable.
In fact, unless you're using something like the mandatory
inclusionary housing Ordinance, probably not going
to make them affordable.
So I just wanna be clear that this is
about creating more opportunities.
Those communities that have done significant increases in,
in, you know, significant changes in Zoning
to allow increases for more residential units, have seen
rates of rent not increase as fast,
but the idea that rent will be declining
and we see significant downward pressure.
I just wanna be clear, we don't think that we'll see that,
especially not early days.
So I just wanted to be clear about that
'cause there's been a lot of discussion about this, that
by doing the Zoning we
will suddenly have affordable housing.
And I, I think it's important to notice that, that that's,
these are large scale market forces.
You may see more affordable housing
outside the Borough further away
because you may seem, you know,
obviously there's more demand for housing,
especially student housing closer to campus.
So just wanted to be clear about that
because there's, we had a lot of comments kind
of all over the map related to that topic.
Second thing is to support, really try
to support our thriving downtown commercial districts
and walkable neighborhood business districts.
To Mr. Garner's point earlier, looking at ways,
and we're gonna talk later today about maybe being more
permissive with some uses throughout the residential zones.
And then finally to do a better job calibrating our parking
requirements since we, you know, we, we've tried to
reduce the amount of at least residential parking that's
required in the community.
Some other topics for the basis
for doing the Zoning revision
or the new ordinances to modernize it.
Make it easier to understand, to clear up ambiguities
and make the regulatory language easier to follow.
And also, again, maintain that diversity of,
of long-term residents and student re resident occupancy.
Knowing that the student housing market is so strong
that without trying to do other things to
maintain long-term residents, we would,
we would see a lot more of our single family
and duplexes convert to student housing.
A couple things about sort of when we're writing the code.
So we sort of, this is a test
for when we're looking at the Ordinance language
first, do we think it's legal?
And if we don't know if it's legal,
do we think we'd have a reasonable
expectation of success in court?
Obviously knowing that you never really know
until you're in court and a judge has made a ruling.
So secondly, is the language clear
and can it be something that staff can operationalize,
that we can enforce and can make sure
that the private sector understands what they are
and are not allowed to do with their property.
And then third is, is there a reasonable expectation
that these changes will actually lead to change,
that you will actually see the market respond
and build some of
what is now gonna be permitted in the Zoning
hunter view and comment.
So we have a entire Zoning page
dedicated to the new Ordinance.
And if you are interested in submitting, first of all, we,
we, this is, this is actually, it's gotten longer,
but this is where we're putting all of the public comments
as well as any petitions that we get.
And when I say petitions typically mean like a form email
where a lot of people send the exact same email just
with all the different addresses if you can,
we would really prefer the use
of a Excel spreadsheet to provide comments.
I'll be honest with you,
only a couple people have done that.
Both are in the room. And so for the most part we, we,
this is something we like,
but we, we know folks are not having the time to do it, so
just get us the, the best thing
that does help us is if you let us know the page
number that you're referencing.
We also provided some information to kind
of help you navigate the Ordinance.
So if you have comments, please provide 'em
to zone State College at State College, pa us
multiple staff, check that email frequently.
Also, we had the reporter ask about the Centre Region comp
plan and the future land use map.
So we did create a a page on our website that sort
of sends the viewer to the CRPA material.
And again, just to remind everybody,
if you have thoughts on the future land use map, please
go ahead and, you know, check into the online resources
that CRPA has provided.
Gonna go through sort of the timeline on where we're at.
So as Zoe said, we've got two more meetings after this
before hitting the deadline for recommendations
to Borough council.
So today we're gonna focus on summarizing residential, some
of the changes in the Zoning map and then ADUs
and a few other things like home occupations.
That's come up quite a bit.
The goal is to have a memo prepared.
We, we started it in sort of graphic form
or I'm gonna show you that at the end
of the presentation about what we think we're gonna be able
to provide, please see to help you guys make decisions on
the, hopefully on the 21st.
So our objective is to have a draft out to you
for the meeting on the 14th within having more time
to finalize it on the 21st.
We're on a show in terms of public involvement
and planning commission Zoning or vision committee in.
So this kind of the run of show is we're gonna go
through summary content related to residential
and ask for PC and ZA comments, then Public Comment.
Then we're gonna workshop the ADUs
and then we're gonna have some discussion on transitional
zones, a little bit on, on transitional.
So that those would be the three main chunks.
And again, finally we'll we will preview the agenda
for eight 14 and 8 21.
Does that make sense everybody? Alright. Okay.
So some changes to the Zoning map.
We've got it on the easel.
You're gonna see more, more zoomed in map soon.
So just hang in there. I know this is hard to see,
but I just wanna talk a couple broad things.
One is, one of the things that staff has wrestled
with is this mixed use district
and the fact that it didn't require more
than residential uses.
So we're, we're recommending that if we're doing mixed use,
that it should require at least two,
at least one non-residential use along with residential use.
And so thinking about that requirement led us
to move away from having mixed use up against the Highlands
R two district in the far eastern part of downtown
and instead just extending the RO zone,
which is already essentially where the, the area
around the, the, the church is.
So that that's one change.
The second is the RO area that is around boroughs, kind
of the 200 block the south boroughs right now
that's ro we'd be recommending that be mixed use
and it essentially that is able
to extend downtown another block in terms
of giving some more commercial uses based on the feedback
that we've gotten in the last couple meetings.
We also changed the map to move the
downtown central district up against the university
campus in the west end.
That seemed to be something that there was a lot
of discussion about as far
as wanting more density up against the university.
So it's reducing the West end district
to essentially just those parcels
that are fronting on West College
and then making the downtown central zone,
as you can see on the left hand side there,
run along basically the, the block
that is adjacent to campus.
So I think those are the main highlights on the changes.
And then again, we're gonna go over a few other things
as we get further into the presentation.
All right, just to, just to confirm,
we've discussed this a couple times now, is we wanted
to ensure that the dimensional standards
that are in the zone, there was a lot of back
and forth between how one family versus two family were
treated versus three and four.
So just trying to be consistent.
Also changing a lot with,
so we wanna talk a little bit about lot widths of
of going from 50 feet minimum lot width
and R two down to 40, talking about getting rid
of the R three B district and just sticking with R four.
Allowing R four to go to four stories with an incentive
for making sure the whole building is Lee Gold.
And also these neighborhood compatibility standards which
essentially limits the height of a multifamily or
or mixed use development
to three stories if it's within the R one
or R two zones within a hundred feet of the R one
and R two zones and to four stories within 150 feet.
So just to focus on the changes, what,
what we would recommend in the R two district you can see is
treating single family and duplexes the same in R two
and reducing minimum lot width from 75 feet to 50.
And then also doing the same with making sure that three
and four is also 50.
You can see maximum height in R two would still be two
stories and 28 feet In the R three district.
Dropping that minimum size from 50 down to 40.
And then again treating single family
and duplex the same, same thing in the R three H district
going from 50 to 40
and in our four we'd have,
we would actually create a minimum lot width of 40 feet
and then we would add an additional option to go
to four stories if there was a lead certification
for gold for the entire building.
Just to show that change of going from 50 to 40,
this is all of the minimum lot width at 50 feet
and you get about 4,500,
roughly 4,500 lots that are conforming.
If you go to 40, you end up with about another 400 lots and
and most of those are in our three H up toward the west end
or in the area that we call light's edition,
which is down sort of where Irvin Logan
kind of intersect with South Atherton,
Walnut, et cetera, Crestmont.
And these would be the areas that are R three B
that would go to R four and also
Foxdale, which is R three B.
And then again our suggestion is in that
that we change the neighborhood compatibility
to focus on R one and R two, not R three or R three H.
And this is where that would mostly then affect
increased height density.
So you see on the left side up on the west end.
So those parcels that are adjacent to R two on the far side
of west college that are
that west end district right now allows you to go up
to six stories in the Ordinance
because of that compatibility language
that would only allow those parcels to be three stories.
Same thing goes with the R four district at the edge
of the Highlands, that would be right now it,
the RO district allows up to four stories
because of that compatibility.
We only allow three stories in that area that's highlighted.
A couple other things that we've talked about
that we just wanted to get some clarity from planning
commission about is we've,
we've had some public comments about increasing standard
occupancy to go from
a family plus two unrelated individuals
to a family plus three
or to a total of four unrelated individuals in a property
and also allow third floor residence residential occupancy
and those that buildings that are existing.
So we have a lot of larger homes that are taller that go
above 28 feet
and above two stories,
which is the current minimum for our two.
And so this would permit that third floor occupancy.
We would suggest having some form controls in place
to manage, you know, fire escapes
or other egress, make sure that
that was not coming out the front of the building.
We would push that to the back,
but the numbers on the right kind of give you an idea of
how many additional housing opportunities
you would create by that change.
So you'd end up with a potential
of roughly 975 additional occupants.
Of those roughly 400 could be students
because of the properties that
that have student home permits.
So just graphical representation.
So a couple outstanding things
that have come up from public comments.
One is a number of folks have brought up the R one zone
and is that an opportunity to
increase housing opportunities?
Why do we still have the R one zone?
I can't tell you that answer as far as when it was created.
I haven't had a chance to go back
and look to see when that zone was originally created,
but it, it's a relatively small part of the Borough
and so there's been a number
of comments about just making everything R two
or in the end maybe we just make it all R one
with the R two standards.
We're trying to clean up some of the nomenclature of the,
of the districts as well.
Second is a question staff has is we've heard comments on
both sides of the equation about in in including
the deed restricted triplexes and quads in R two
or just removing that section from the Ordinance
or just removing it from R two and allowing it in R three
or some of the denser districts.
And we've had, there's been a lot
of comments on both sides of that equation.
So we would love to get some certainty from planning
commission on that in terms of what your recommendation is.
Third sort of discussion, there's been a lot
of comments about making home occupations more permissive.
I have a slide here a few minutes ago
and it's a little more detail on that,
but we'd like to get some direction on that.
Fourth, we've identified a couple places
where the neighborhood commercial Zoning district works
based on existing uses and so we're gonna show you that
but there it's really limited
and we're interested in if there's other ideas
and where to create that neighborhood commercial district,
which again is 3000 square foot maximum
building no more than three stories allows for mixed use.
But the idea being a small mixed use building
that would have commercial on the first floor.
And then finally discussing some of the additional form
and standards governing fraternities.
We've had a lot of comments on fraternities, so I wanted
to go over some additional revisions on that too.
Alright, so first is this is the R two
or the R one district, again the very light, light yellow.
And so there's been some comments about why and,
and right now you could really, from a use standpoint, most
of the uses are relatively the same in R one
and R two it's just different dimensional standards.
And R one has the country club.
So I don't think
that we're gonna see another country club created in R two.
So I don't see a whole lot of danger of making
that use permitted in R two,
but that, that's kind of the key difference
between R one and R two.
Besides in the draft,
R one does still have a minimum square footage requirement
for lots, which is 12,000 square feet
essentially just carries
through the standard center in today's Ordinance.
So just looking for some input if PC would like us
to remove this or leave it in and if so, any changes.
- Okay. - Anita,
- What I commented on was a lot
of R one looks exactly like R two if you drive through,
but parts of it out evergreen drive for instance, which is
the uppermost part of R one, there's a lot
of buildable land in there.
Now, if the homeowners
or landowners wish to keep it that way,
obviously they could.
But if we're looking for a place to put in more housing,
that one does seem usable.
- Okay. Anyone else from the planning commission?
Anyone else from the ZA?
Go ahead. Yeah, you can. Yeah,
- John Sep.
Okay, ed, I, I don't know if this is in the standards,
but historically there are some criteria in the R one
that carries through the other districts
and if you just, if you get rid of R one, just no.
- Yeah, so that, that's been one of the big objectives
for the whole Ordinance is if you'll permit me to geek out
for just one moment, our Zoning Ordinance is what's called
Euclidean and that is it, it builds upon e each district
as it gets denser or more intense.
And so a lot
of our Zoning is based on a whole lot of standards in R one.
Those standards have been pulled out
and actually done the right way,
which is a section of standards.
So it's not, I mean right now we have commercial standards
in R one, which makes no sense,
but that's just what's happened over time.
So yeah, to your point, a lot of, a lot of those things
that are in R one have been pulled into the standards
section and so they're no longer just in R one
that are standards that pertain
to whichever Zoning district they need to pertain to
or in a lot of cases they're now in use standards. So thank
- You.
- Yeah, so I'm just talking about R one from a dimensional
standard and a use standard standpoint.
So right now the basic difference is
that you've got larger lots and only single family homes.
- I, I should add too, a lot of cities have decided
that golf courses are not the best
general public community use of
land in densely built up areas.
Now we're talking about the country club land,
but there are other golf courses in this Borough
that could provide quite a bit of housing.
So that's something to think about.
- Well you also, we never know what this,
would the country club be interested in selling some
of their property for housing development?
You Well, yeah. I haven't had any
of those conversations. Yeah,
- Zoe, we do have Ron online with comments.
- Okay, Ron, - I, I move
that we leave the R one district the way it is
when we talk about the R two in the other districts.
I'll have a, I'll have a motion to do
that if we leave the R one the way it is and
because it has lots that can be
where ADUs and triplex and quadplexes could be put in.
If we leave it alone, that provides that opportunity.
If we include it in the R two,
that becomes a problem which I will address later.
So my motion is to leave the R one as is,
is there a second?
- It Second. Second. Tony seconds.
Okay. Any further discussion?
Come?
- Yeah. Eric Bell, wasn't it me?
I'd like to hear Ron's reasoning for not combining R one
and R two before you vote on deciding
to leave it one way or the other.
- Okay, go ahead Ron.
- My, my motion in the, my motion in the R two is
to exclude the R two for me to use plexes
and quadplexes because the R two
Zoning district includes most
of the established neighborhoods within the Borough.
But if we're gonna put in additional housing units, R one
and R three and four would be, would be
our, our notionally outside the established neighborhoods.
- Okay. Further discussion.
- I so I'm left confused or, or not confused,
but of two minds.
I see Ron's point,
but we're trying to vote on R one,
conditionally about talking about R two
and that does leave it up in the air.
- But if you leave R one alone at the moment,
and if my motion in R two is passed,
then no harm, no foul.
If my motion in R two is not passed, then you can go back
and change R one if you want.
- Okay. I mean we could always just,
I mean there's a motion on the table.
Yeah, you, you could table,
but you know, we're, we're just asking for guidance and,
and using motions as a way to do
that is good from a clarity standpoint.
But if, if you wanna vote on it now
and then whoever would vote,
actually my recollection is you have,
if it's somebody voted yes, would have
to then bring it back onto the table
after the R two conversation.
If I remember my Robert's rules from college
- Sounds like it would be a good
idea to table for the moment.
- Ron, how would you feel about tabling this motion?
- That would be fine.
- Okay, let's do that.
- Yeah, we do need a vote to table. Oh
- We do need a vote.
Okay. Vote to table. Anita.
Motions to table this motion. Do we need a second?
- Actually, yeah,
- I'm okay.
We just vote. All in favor of tabling Ron's motion.
Say aye. Aye.
- Aye. - Opposed? Okay. All
- Right, so let's go to the triplex.
'cause I think this is to Ron's point.
So the next item is,
as the draft is written right now, it would permit triplex
and quadplex dwellings only if those dwellings would be deed
restricted to prohibit university and college students
and prohibit short term rental use.
The deed restriction would be
approved by the planning department.
We've already talked to the solicitor about, you know,
drafting what that deed restriction would look like.
So we'd have a standard deed restriction
that everybody would have to use and we, you know,
the Zoning permit wouldn't be approved until we had
that deed restriction.
Essentially it would be recorded with the property.
And also if you recall, since we're getting rid
of minimum lot size, but for triplexes
and for quads, there would still be a minimum
of 10,000 square feet for minimum mo.
That's consistent with the current minimum MO size
for a single family home in R two.
So that's where the 10,000 comes from.
So we we're just looking for some direction
on planning commissions.
Do you want to see this in Ron suggested
that we pull it out of R two.
I'm just trying to get some clarity.
- Ron, go ahead. - I think we ought to include that
with the discussion on the A DU
'cause I think they're all linked.
- They're, they're definitely different
from a Zoning standpoint.
One is an accessory to a principle structure.
This is a principle structure. So no, I, I would disagree.
I think these are, this is a specific use type
that we either want it or we don't.
And then yes, there are similarities with ADUs,
but these are, they're very different things
from what can get constructed.
- Anita? I - Would agree.
I think I'm agreeing with Ron that we don't want
that in the older parts of R two for the simple reason.
It will lead to, I would guess lot consolidation
and tearing down perfectly good existing housing,
which is environmentally a very bad idea both in terms of
what the national trust calls embodied energy and landfill
and all the rest of it.
And it will, which disturb the equilibrium of the,
the older neighborhoods, which is
where there already is in effect a lot of this infill house
or extra housing because of past Zoning rules.
So if you pull it out of R two,
it does seem a much more reasonable idea
or at least the older parts of R two.
- Anyone else to speak now?
Somebody from the community?
- Well, let's, let's do Z RAC first.
- Okay. ZA. Okay. There is somebody from Z rac.
Okay, go ahead Susan Ney.
- I think you should leave it in R two
and have it in R one as well.
- And, and could you elaborate?
- I think, I think there are
a number of structures that probably have
outlived their useful life based on
prior Zoning decisions that took them from being a house
into being a rooming house
or, you know, a high
occupancy building and they've been rented and rented
and rented and killed.
So maybe something new in some
of those places would be a good thing.
We do still have the harb,
I don't think everything is just going to be torn down
and turned into quads and triplexes.
I, I just don't see that happening.
I do think though, that
some more housing opportunities could be
created in R two.
We're we're, we have R two, we, we treat R two.
Like everything is single family homes, you know,
and they're, it's not, it isn't.
And, and I think that not all blocks,
not all buildings,
not all streets should be treated the same.
And so I hope that you'll leave it in there.
Okay. From the community I,
- David Stone East Foster, also a member
of the Nee Valley Environmental Coalition.
And, and we're, we're looking at this closely, also a member
of the Highland Civic Association.
And this is an area
and I, I i i, it's, it's a very,
it's probably the most contentious
and legally fraught part of the changes.
And, and it it's great that it's being discussed.
I have to go back to my objection though.
There needs to be a due process compliant evidence-based
resolution to this if it, if it's gonna be put in,
if it's not gonna be put in.
And I think there are, are ways
to achieve similar housing opportunities without
tear downs on extensive scale of,
as, as people have said, perfectly good,
potentially affordable, accessible single family homes,
which can have ADUs internally
or rental units, however you wanna call it.
But it's complex. And so
I I I would urge people to, as a starting point,
send a clear message both on this
and on the need for counsel to, to take some sort
of an administrative law due process compliant.
And, and I, I don't see the clock running, so I don't know
where my minutes are, but I wanna go back
to the basis for Zoning.
I think it's relevant to this discussion
and it's really kind of strange.
It comes out of the police powers
and there's a lot of language about why you can do that.
And it has to do with, you know, clean air, clean water
environment, but also accessibility of housing.
It's, it's a very complex provision in the, in the code.
And that's why when you're doing alternatives analysis,
you want to have some kind of due process for either side.
And so you don't have the right
to do Zoning for certain reasons.
And part of the justification I have heard for the tear down
trip and quad aren't reasons which I believe are legally
justifiable under the municipal planning
code when it comes down to it.
Particularly because we are in a very unique situation
of having this charter that was passed by referendum.
So insofar as we can either minimize
the disruption, you know, disruption is considered a a plus
for a lot of people advocate
and they want to see tear downs.
They wanna see disruption. That's not legal.
That's not legal in my opinion.
I I don't think it's legal in a lot of lawyers' opinions.
There, there are things you can do to enhance accessibility,
but it's a balancing act.
It's an analysis. And so in administrative law,
whether it's a public utility commission,
nuclear regulatory commission, pendot,
they always do in one way, shape
or form a compliant alternative analysis.
And I, I think everything that's been done here is
constructive, but I don't think it rises to that.
And, and, and I'll, I'll double down on
that point about tear downs.
Tear downs can be very environmental devastation.
Not only in the environmental consequences of landfilling,
the stuff of, of the, of the loss materials costs
and the energy costs, but also to the,
the neighbors as it's torn down.
And there's a way
to very carefully interject some more accessibility.
I don't disagree with that,
but I think we need another process.
And I would urge you, no matter what happens on this vote
to do that as well, to call on council to create a process
where people have to come in, you know, establish standing
file contentions and they can do this without a lawyer
and to actually discuss some of this stuff.
'cause a lot of it's legal and we really need Terry Williams
sitting there to, to, to look at all this stuff
and to come up with the
best position for the Borough to be in.
Thank you.
- Do okay, Mr. Gardner. Dr. Gardner
- In two meetings, you already know my name.
Am I that disruptive? Okay.
- And I am gonna put on the,
I was told I should put on this. Okay.
- And - John, don't take that personally. Of course.
You should have done that for David too. So,
- Okay.
How do I get this started?
- I'll just use my time while the timer isn't ticking.
All right, we'll go with that. Okay.
H plus T housing plus transportation is,
is the generally regarded nowadays most important
factor in affordability.
And it, it, you may be entirely right
that if we legalize a ton of new building
and get many new apartment complexes,
that may not change the cost of rent itself at all.
However, if we build them close enough to campus
that people don't need to own cars,
we actually do in fact address affordability.
Last I checked, it costs the average person something
ridiculous like $18,000 a year to own
and operate a vehicle and insure it
and register it with the state and everything.
So if we don't build enough dense housing inside
of State College and people are, are forced to,
to live far out in like patent Township
and they have to have a car, then
that's an $18,000 a year extra cost on them.
Conversely, if they live in State College,
the rent can be up to $1,500 per month more
expensive than present.
And it would still be an affordability gain
if they lived in a walkable area
such as they didn't have to own a car.
Now as with respect to duplexes, triplexes, ADUs
and whatnot in R one and R two cars are also important.
I I ran the numbers myself.
They're, they're freely available on, on the, the,
the Federal Highway Administration website.
Cars are the number one source
of carbon emissions in the United States right now.
The private automobiles of just Texas alone are responsible
for 0.5%
of all planetary carbon in the atmosphere this instant.
If, if just SUVs, not small cars, not trucks, just
as if just SUVs were their own country,
they would be the sixth largest polluting
nation in human history.
So I understand that of course we do want to
minimize demolitions and that there is a lot of, of built in
energy put into buildings
and then also casting new concrete
does create new carbon emissions.
However, if we tore down every single family
home in the Borough right now
and replace them with multifamily houses
that people would not have to own a car for,
that would still end up in a net environmental positive.
So I think it's really important.
I single family homes the existence of that.
I personally don't think that they're good in any way.
I, I've lived in far too many of them in my entire life,
and they've always brought with so many problems,
not the least of which lawns I hate lawns, we shouldn't have
to pay to constantly beat back these annoying weeds.
We should just live in a nice building,
let the weeds be weeds over there
and let us be the humans over here.
But whether or not the concept
of single family homes is appropriate
or not, I think we can all agree that it,
they are not appropriate in a downtown core,
which State College is.
We are the center of a 150,000 strong metropolitan area
that is, again, very walkable to the university.
And so I think it's extremely important that we up zone
as much as we can in here.
If people wanna have a single family home, they can do
that in patent Township, college Township, hon,
but not within walking distance of the university.
I think that's the most important thing.
So I think it's really important to allow duplexes,
triplexes, and ADUs on every single
Zoning space within the Borough.
And then lastly, I I also do, I I'm strongly opposed
to the deed restriction
because if, if you, you all probably know,
so I'm probably mansplaining, but just in case not deed
restrictions started as a way to keep Jewish
and African American people from owning specific homes.
And so it, it's a highly problematic way
of going about things that, that is tied to, to really
immoral things in the past.
And at least in a sense, it's not as bad as a lot
of things happen in history, but this is technically ageist.
Again, we are State College, the students
drive this community, they also bring with them a lot
of wealth and spending power.
And so I think it's really important that we also kind
of mix that in more evenly rather than having only the
townie area and then only the undergrad area
and then a, a, a veritable border between them.
Yeah. 16 seconds ago. Yeah, that's good enough. Thank you.
- Okay. How do, how do I stop this? Just clear?
Okay. Learning the box.
And Tony, did you have your hand up?
Ron does have his hand up. Okay. Ron,
- Two th two things as far as the harvest is concerned
based, some people know how many,
how many bill historic buildings have been torn down within
the Borough that the council has approved based on requests.
- Zero. - So, zero
zero historic buildings have been torn down
- That the, that the Borough Council approved.
So we've lost historic properties that, for instance,
university club that was not covered
by the local historic district.
And obviously I think many of us feel that was a loss.
But as far as we, we had a request for a demolition
on East Foster Avenue.
Counsel denied that request.
We were, that decision was appealed to county court.
We successfully defended that at county court.
And the county court found that we,
that the Borough counsel was used the statute correctly
as far as enforcement.
So at this point there's been one request and one denial
and we succeeded in court. Eric was
- After.
Okay.
- Neil Sullivan. The - The other,
- Oh, sorry.
You got more to say.
- Yes. - Oh,
- Sorry.
And, and the other, and the other thing is there are many
different, there is that diversity of housing
opportunities already in the R two district.
All I'm saying is we don't need triplexes
and quadplexes in the R two.
You can put 'em in the R one three and four with no problem
because they're, and when we're talking about walkability
to the university, you're only
talking about three neighborhoods.
College Heights, Highlands and Holmes Foster.
When walkability is walkability in Tussy view.
Tussy view or, or south or in green Greentree.
And so again, it it's a, it's a focused area. Focused area.
And at this point I move that we take triplexes
and Quadplexes out of the R two.
- Is there a second for that motion? Second.
From a second for Anita. Okay. Discussion.
Neil, you had your hand up.
- This may be coming too late,
but I just wanted to remind the group
that when we started the Z rack, one of our goals was
to increase housing choice and housing affordability.
Adding the triplexes, quadplexes and other building types.
NR two certainly would allow that,
considering the R two takes up the
majority of the Borough land.
If, if we take it away
and we re we resort it down to R one, R three, R four, then
that's a very small percentage of land
that's available for this.
I'm sensitive to tear downs and rebuild
and I'm sensitive to the embodied carbon and,
and those tear downs.
However, it is more expensive sometimes
to renovate an old building to bring it up
to modern standards, especially for accessibility.
Sometimes it is cheaper to tear down and rebuild,
but I, I would rely on the harb
and another protection so
that our historic buildings are protected.
- Susan, - I would just like to add
also that the term walkability doesn't literally mean
walking every time.
It also means public transportation and biking
and scooters.
They're not legal, but everyone rides them.
So I mean, it's, it's other types
of mobility other than a car.
So walkability does have many forms.
- And just, just to confirm for everybody, the, the draft
as it is right now, the zone where the triplexes
and quads become a a use by right
with these D restrictions is in R two.
So as of right now, the triplexes
and quads are not permitted in R one.
So we could obviously make, you can make
that commend recommendation to change that.
But as of right now, it starts at R two.
- Anita - Two points.
The HAR protects houses in these neighborhoods built
before 1945.
It would not stop perfectly good houses built in 1955
or 65 from being torn down and lots combined
and all sorts of more construction added.
And I think those houses on the whole are as worthy
of protection as what's in the harm.
It's merely a matter of dates.
Second point is I hear about
buildings being passed their useful economic life.
Now that was what the owners of the Glen said
before it was converted into the hotel.
And that applies to a whole lot of houses
that have been converted basically into apartments
and not very well kept up.
Now I know a lot about this
because that's the only reason we were able
to buy the house we live in.
It had been run into the ground.
It was not habitable really though it was inhabited, I think
by about 12 students that's on the landlords
who have been taking money outta it and be,
and everybody said at the time,
nobody will ever buy those houses and fix them up.
Well I know of many cases that that's exactly
what has happened
and if the landlords do not wish
to keep those up, then eventually
COG will stop them renting them and they will sell them.
And that might be a way actually
of getting some home ownership into the Borough.
If we wanna talk about long-term consequences,
limit the tear downs, see what happens.
- I'm gonna take my turn to speak now.
I would like to go back to Dr.
Gardner's point that if you live within walking distance
of the university and you,
and you can have only one car, that it,
that is a major factor for affordability.
I live within walking distance of the university.
My husband works there.
We have had only one car for the entire time
that we have owned our home, which is at this point
about 38 years.
The amount of money that my family has saved
by having only one car
we recently calculated is something like half
a million dollars.
And it certainly has affected the affordability
of being able to, to maintain my home,
send my kids to college,
and all the other kinds of long-term things that
a person not seemingly in need of affordable housing
has been able to do.
Okay, go ahead.
- What would increasing,
increasing the square foot minimum lot area, what would
that do to, would lead to lot consolidation.
What that also would limit some of these lots that
are the, the tear downs.
So putting it at that's just under a quarter of an acre.
So putting it at a half an acre.
- Yeah, I mean right now the reason
that 10,000 square feet was chosen was
because it's the,
it's today's minimum lot size for a single family home.
So most of the lots that were built that were subdivided
and plotted after the war.
So it is definitely after 1959, but between 1959
and 1931, there was a 7,500 foot minimum.
So there you, you have most of college south,
the southern part of the Highlands, lots of Holmes Foster,
and then obviously green tree, you know, every,
everything kind of to the south.
Those, those lots will be at a minimum 75 feet
and most of them are 10,000 square feet.
So if you increase that minimum lot size to say 12 or 14
or 15, you'll just take more
and more lots out of the possibility of doing a triplex.
So you'll drive the quads
and the triplexes to properties
that are larger lots essentially.
And you know, we haven't run any analysis on which,
which lots that would look like.
We, we can certainly, if
that was important we could do that.
But that's why the 10,000 foot minimums in there,
there's been some folks who've advocated just get rid of it,
period, which would allow a triplex
or a quad to be on a 40 foot wide lot.
But
- I would like to also raise an another point about
increasing density
for a very long-term perspective.
In our area, I'm talking about
50 to 100 years.
There is speculation that
central Pennsylvania will become one of the very
best places to live in eastern America
because we will have water
unless the wind pattern changes, we will have water
because we get wind coming off of the area
of the Great Lakes.
And we also are a hun a thousand feet
above sea level elevation that will make
a difference in the ability to survive here.
Just temperature wise.
That means that we need to make room
for more people to come here.
And I'm talking about the, the much wider area.
And we also need to be able to protect our farmland
'cause all those people will still need to eat.
And I love living in a house that was built
before 1945.
I personally don't feel most ha structures
for me built after World War ii.
I would not miss,
although other people may feel differently about that,
therefore I personally would go for the ability to build
a triplex or a quadplex.
If there are concerns about
limiting the ability to do that, then I would focus on
discussing and defining those limitations rather than
wholesale outlawing them.
- Okay. If I, if I could, I mean, I,
I don't have the ability to call a question,
but we've got a lot, we've got hours more material
to go. So if we
- Okay, Eric
- And then Zoe.
We do have Ron online after
- That.
Okay.
- Sorry, ed, just wanted to point out to people that
Greentree is walkable.
I know a lot of professors that walked from there to campus
and managed to get through tenure
because they had that extra two hours of commuting time,
excuse me, half hour of commuting time each way
to decompress before they got home
and started yelling at their wife.
Thank you.
- Okay, Ron. And, and please excuse this number.
I don't know how to turn this thing off. Go ahead.
We can't hear you. Can we fix that?
I think you're on mute. Maybe
- I would request a Roll Call.
Vote on my motion.
- Okay. Re please restate the motion,
- Take out the triplex
and quadplex Zoning ability in the R two district.
- Okay. - Anita, are you seconding again?
- Second. - Anita, you second right. Okay.
- Seconded by Anita. Okay.
Calling the question and,
and requested with a Roll Call vote.
- Yeah, I'll, I can handle that. Okay.
So let's start with in the room. Tony. Tony,
- Keep, keep.
- So that's a, that's a no to the motion. No to the motion.
Okay. Ron Madrid.
- Yes. - Anita Genger. Yes. Zoe. A bonis?
- No, - Ker. Schulman.
Gotta gotta make a vote.
We will come back to you. Dan.
- No,
- Back, back to you.
Curtis.
- I guess that would be, - Curtis,
can you move closer to the microphone?
Yeah. So let me ask, turn it on too. Is is the that helpful?
Yeah. So is the issue about the deed restriction?
So right now it's about whether you wanna include triplexes
or quads, the ability to do them in the Ordinance.
We could discuss the deed restriction separately.
- Oh, I thought that section one was all one.
- The motion was, Ron's motion was regarding
quad versus triple and triplex
- Was to keep triplexes and quads in the Ordinance.
Obviously you could discuss d restriction
as a sec, as a separate item.
- I, I support the triplexes and quads. In in what?
The, in the R one and R two. I think it's
- Fine.
So that is a no vote for Ron's motion
- Or for Curtis? No, for Curtis.
- Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
And I think that means that the motion fails.
Do we want a separate vote on deed restriction?
- Yeah, I mean, we haven't debated that.
So I, I can tell you from the work that we did
with council last year, that the deed restriction
to student occupancy, short-term rental seemed
to be a, a high priority item.
And I, I think staff at least perceived that
there was only support for doing triplexes
and quads if the deed restrictions were in place, that
allowing triplexes and quads to be permitted
by right without a deed restriction would then lead
to additional student housing in the neighborhood.
And that seemed to not be the priority for, for council.
So I just wanna put that context out there.
That's why the deed restrictions are in there.
I will agree with a lot of the comments
that have been made about,
there'll be enforcement challenges.
We, I'm sure we'll have
to discuss staffing at some point depending
on how many of these get built.
I'm being very transparent about that.
But as far as the, the, that's the reason
that the restriction is in there to Mr.
Stone's comments, whether that would be challenged in court,
whether we would succeed in defending it or not.
I can't crystal ball that.
So I don't know whether this would be legal or not,
but the fact that you'd be accepting the deed restriction in
order to build the triplex
or quad, we would argue that you,
you're accepting a incentive to do so.
And I think Terry thinks it's supportive at this point from
a, a legal standpoint.
But again, we wouldn't know until we were challenged. So,
- Okay.
I think then we go on.
- Yeah, unless we want to have,
unless someone would like to make a motion about
removing the de restrictions.
- Not seeing that. Let's go on.
- Okay. All right.
So one of the themes that's been going on has been a
increase in more permitted uses that are not residential
in R two R three Zoning districts.
So this is a first stab at those.
And before anybody makes jokes about fortune telling
establishments, the, the, the reason for staff sort
of suggesting that these could now be permitted is
because there are things that could happen in the house
with minimal impact.
So if you wanna do a tarot card reading, it doesn't seem
to be that intensive to have somebody come
over and do a tarot card reading.
So that, that's just the rationale as far as why we,
you know, staff felt that these were all uses that were
really low impact
and so that we could permit those, something
that people could be doing in their homes.
We also had some discussion about more home occupation
and accessory use structures.
So right now there's, in the draft,
there's a clause about home occupation not being permitted
in single family uses
that have already have an apartment or short term rental.
I think we've heard comments about just removing that,
like why, and don't we wanna allow more uses in the house?
And also getting rid of the only one home occupation.
So if there's, you know, two that makes sense,
why would we prohibit that?
And also the onsite service or consultation with customers
or clients is prohibited.
We'd recommend removing that as well.
That seems to be in line
with a lot of the comments that we've heard.
So just wanted to get a sense from planning commission,
is this something you would recommend, you know,
that you would recommend in terms
of being per more permissive
or do you like some of these standards?
- Well, ed knows that I've made a lot of these comments.
- A lot of this is directly from Anita,
- Partly because partly it addresses
John Gardner's comments, but partly it addresses reality.
There have always been very quietly in my neighborhood.
I know everything from a barber shop
to a clothing alteration to a lawyer I know
of a psychiatrist in a different neighborhood.
And then you add in computer businesses.
And the rather, a lot
of this I think is based on the archaic assumption
that someone who is at home tending to children or
otherwise somebody who needs help are not,
are supported by a wage owner with a job outside the house.
And that's not true, never was with computers.
Everything has changed
and these businesses that I know of that have been
around in my neighborhood did no harm to anybody
and were quite popular with the neighbors.
Now the only thing I don't see there, at a quick glance,
I do know of a lawyer
who had a very small discreet non lighted sign about
this big ought to be that be two
and a half by 18 inches maybe.
And I don't see any harm in that either.
One sign per building maybe,
but no limit on how many occupations are going on.
It would also help either renters
or homeowners paying a mortgage if these sorts
of small businesses could be included.
Now, I'm not too sure about the corner grocery store
by the way, because that's a lot more traffic.
And the municipal planning code basically says that
small businesses in neighborhoods should not be a
problem to the neighbors.
So that's the only issue there.
- To be clear, the business has to be operated by the owner
of the house or they could lease out
- No, I would say by the owner of the house
or a, a tenant perhaps as in a rental,
in an attached unit or some sort.
- So the person living there has to be occupying.
You can't 'cause otherwise, if you don't limit right,
how many businesses there are
and it isn't clearly stipulated, that has to be the resident
of that space, then it can create a
weird and probably undesirable
- Situation.
Yeah. Not what we want.
I would say to limit the number of employees
because part of the issue is traffic
and not if there is an attached apartment,
say no home businesses either,
because both of those are really the same thing.
- Yeah. Right now the language has,
the business shall employ one additional
employee other than a family
member residing in the dwelling.
So there are some limits on employees coming in.
I mean we had a situation in the Highlands that took a lot
of Zoning enforcement and a lot of time there was a gym
that was illegally operating
and that the, the number of, the number of folks
who were working there was actually one of the big
sticking points in terms
of how we were able to shut it down.
So
- I am in favor of promoting,
allowing home businesses not only for all the reasons
that Anita named,
but both
of my young adult children are remote workers.
And I would hate for remote working to become illegal.
It would make a lot of trouble.
- I'm pretty sure the remote working isn't.
It's for operating the business.
So you can work from home at any point this would be
operating a business out of the space.
Correct.
- Okay. - Yeah. With clients coming
to the house, et cetera.
And staff. I mean, so the sense I'm getting is
that yes, okay.
Be more permissive. We'd like
to do some more work on fine tuning exactly what uses,
there's a live work section
that right now we are working at,
based on the comments we've had from Susan is looking at
expanding that, but also just making sure
that we're not opening up too many commercial uses in R two
for instance, or low density residential districts.
So there's still some fine tuning I think to do on it.
But if, I mean the sense I'm getting is
that there's a willingness to be more permissive.
Just we don't have all the final details yet.
Is that, is that a fair read? Everybody.
- Okay. Okay.
Anyone on the Z rack?
Susan?
- So just so we understand this is not,
the discussion we just had is not final.
This is going to come back.
I agreed with what you said about it needs to be
the occupant or it could just be it turns into a commercial
building that makes perfectly good sense,
but I don't, I I think we could take out six, seven, and 11.
- Honestly take out what please.
- Six, seven, and 11. - Okay.
- Yeah. That's essential what we're asking this like,
that seems to be the crux of it.
Okay.
- Oh, Eric Belton.
- Yeah. Question about number eight.
Why should a home business be required
to employ in a additional
- Employee?
No, we're gonna change that. I I think
that they just mis Yeah, they miswrote it, it should,
it it may, it makes it sound like you
have to have an employee.
So Yeah. We'll, sorry.
We, we, we had already fixed that in our head.
We just had, yeah, sorry.
- Okay. - Alright.
So next thing then is this neighborhood commercial district,
which is a minimum lot width of 25 feet.
There is a maximum lot coverage
of 65 max height is three stories.
This is really aimed at getting a mixed,
small mixed use building
that can sort of fit into the neighborhood.
It, it would be something along the lines of
what Dr. Garner had talked about as far
as maybe a corner lot recognizing that.
But again, the floor plate can't exceed 30,000 square feet.
So this gives us a fix for two
uses that I think are long cherished in the
neighborhood or in the community.
The Exxon on North Atherton and Graham's at Allen
and Old Burg.
So this is, this is two uses that would,
we can now make essentially permitted by right?
By using this network commercial.
We don't have any other suggestions for other locations yet.
We, we first just wanna check with,
with PC if you thought this was appropriate.
Secondly, we're we're, we're all ears for other concepts for
where this use or where the zone could land.
So if you wanna provide any comments to us
outside the meeting, we're happy to take them.
We, we, we just wanted
to flag it something we're wrestling with.
And are you guys okay with the,
those two locations at this point?
- I have a query. I thought
that we cannot do spot Zoning
for an individual lot an individual business.
- Yeah. That that's all not either hold
or as far as if it's something.
So spot Zoning is when you have something that is,
well actually there's like eight definitions of spot Sony.
It depends on what people conceive of it is.
The rationale behind this is, is
that this is a zone specifically intended
to be small scale commercial in a neighborhood.
And it's, it doesn't have to be, you know, it's not one
of the things where you need to have a large zone for it.
It's specifically tailored to be these individual kind
of corner lots or small limited areas.
So I, I think the logic is sound if somebody were to say,
I want to create this in the, you know, on the middle
of McCormick, that you can make an argument that, that
that could be spot Zoning.
But again, the courts are all over the map when it comes to
what exactly is spot Zoning
and most legal cases that claim spot Zoning don't survive.
- Okay. - The fresh
and fill, isn't that also neighborhood
commercial? Could be.
- Actually we've talked about that. So it's a corner
- Lot commercial - With makes perfect sense.
Yeah, we, we actually looked at that too.
So we, those are the kinds of
suggestions we'd love to, to get.
But yeah, I think the freshman field makes a lot of sense.
- Okay. I further discussion.
Let's go on.
- Okay. Fraternities, super fun.
This is a, we're being sort of, we've been wrestling
with the feedback that we've been getting
and also trying to be more clear.
I think many folks know that the,
the fraternity system in State College
and at Penn State is changing.
You've had a growth in independent fraternities.
Those are fraternities that no longer have,
they've walked away from Penn State.
They're no longer recognized.
They don't want to be recognized.
They've created their own independent IFC.
And so what we're proposing in the draft is
that we are very explicit that they need to have
national recognition if they do not have
Penn State recognition.
So that's what item number one is, is that,
and we need written confirmation from their national entity
that they're chartered and,
and they're recognized as a chapter
of the national organization.
We're in the process right now of, of working
with the eight independent fraternities to get
that national recognition.
I wouldn't be surprised if we end up in court on it,
but at this point, you know, we're trying to get that,
that essentially what's in this Sony Ordinance right now
or that's how we're approaching it at the moment to try
to get that national recognition.
Right now in the Ordinance, currently you need a major,
you need 50% of the members of the, the folks
who were residing in the fraternity, being members of
that fraternity staff is recommending going to 60.
We've had some comments from the public about going all the
way to a hundred percent requirement.
I I, I think that would certainly be challenged
by some of the fraternities.
What the perfect number is.
I don't know, but we started at 60
and of course if you'd want to increase
that percentage, we can certainly do that.
But we'd like to get your recommendation on it.
We've also been looking at, right now in the draft,
these are the uses that are permitted
for converting pre-existing non-conforming fraternities.
This goes back to 1971.
I think that the sixth section was first put in.
So we've been looking at, first of all, we'd like
to recommend just removing fraternities
as a permitted use in the R three district.
They currently are permitted,
especially if we end up looking at
expanding the R three district.
We just think fraternities need
to be removed as a permitted use.
Secondly, we're recommending going up to 60%.
Again, if PC wanted
to recommend a higher percentage, we can certainly do that.
I just don't know at what point does it cross over line
that we're gonna be in, you know,
in in we're gonna get challenged legally.
And then finally is the acceptable conversions
for preexisting nonconformities staff's been working at
adding some additional uses to try to, you know,
find other ways to reuse those properties.
So we're recommending that on to the right,
there's potential additional uses that could get added,
like personal care homes for adults,
vocational trade school conference
or training center art, music dance or martial arts studio
or school art gallery
catering establishment or commercial kitchen.
We, we actually, taproot has been trying to find a place
to do a commercial kitchen in, in the Borough for years
and it also hotel or motel.
So those are uses that we've come up with
as might make sense to add.
As again, these would be special exception going
through Zoning hearing board of a converted use.
Right now the only fraternity that's been converted
to a non fraternity use is the eye doctor on fraternity is
that Locust Lane and I think Fairmount.
Yeah. So, so that's the, that's the only one
that's been converted since
that section was included in seventies.
So that's just like, to get your feedback.
Do you like those, those changes? Do those uses make sense?
And if 60% is too low, what,
what would be an increased number that you'd like to get to?
- Alex? - Yeah, Alex
- Is, are you - On Alex Hanian?
I just had a question for clarification.
I think to direct directed to you Ed, with some
of these new rules, for example, the fraternity having
to present a charter or,
or you know, some evidence that they recognized, how would
that apply to existing fraternities?
Because they're already grandfathered, right? Yep.
So, so you know, we're considering these things.
Are they going to be retroactive
or basically if it's a fraternity right now,
the the thinking is that they'll be able to continue whether
or not recognized whether or not they have 60% members.
Because, because of the previous operating history, the
- Pre, the preexisting nonconformities
is for a fraternity use.
And so those properties, remember that in R two, which
where most of the fraternities are located,
fraternity use is not permitted today it
has been permitted in decades.
So all of those properties are preexisting nonconformities
as a fraternity use.
What we're trying to get at here is what is the definition
of a fraternity use.
And so what we're saying is you have
to be a Greek letter chartered entity, either recognized
by the university or recognized by your national charter.
If you're not, then you're not a fraternity use.
And then it becomes a matter of are we legally able
to pull the permit on the occupancy
for the, for the fraternity?
Because it's no, for the building
because it's no longer fraternity use.
It's essentially operating as a rooming house,
which is also illegal NR two.
So you may have a situation where there is a fraternity
that's lost Penn State recognition,
lost national recognition.
And then we would be in a position where we would,
depending on what the manager or counsel
and the solicitor wanna do,
whether it would be entering legal challenge
to basically pull the occupancy permit
'cause it's no longer a fraternity.
- Okay. Yeah, that's really what I was trying to get at.
Yeah. So this is, this is an attempt to take those, those
potentially, right, the, the buildings
that have organizations in them that have sort
of been kicked outta the university system
and are doing independent in this case.
You know, you could now say you're no longer a fraternity
use 'cause that's not our definition and
therefore you're not allowed
to rent the building anymore. Correct?
- Well they would have to, they,
it would have to become permitted use.
So frankly they were, they would have
to get national recognition
or Penn State recognition. So Yeah,
- Or, - Or what, what we're trying to prevent
is 42 rooming houses
because you have to be able to define the difference
between a fraternity and a rooming house.
We, we believe that the municipality has the right to say
what is, what is a fraternity.
I think that if you look at the definition in the
dictionary, a Greek letter, you know, a Greek letter group
that has some kind of affiliation,
we also then are gonna be requesting the membership roles
to try to get to that occupancy limit.
We have not historically done that.
We're gonna have to figure out how
to approach that systematically.
I can't treat one property different than the other. So.
Okay. We're probably asking, you know,
at least the independent, we'll probably in the,
in the end have to ask 42 property owners
to provide their membership roles and their leases.
So you can imagine the staff time involved in that.
- Tony - And it will have to be and
or permitted by Penn State.
- Yeah, it's, it's mutually and national charter.
They're inclusive. So it could be one or the other or both.
So you gotta have to have it,
you need at least one. Oh, okay. Yeah.
- Can you make it that it has to have be two?
- We would, we would lose. Okay.
Hands down because we already lost once on
requiring Penn State recognition.
Alright
- Susan, I'm always interested in enforcement
whenever we write things like
how do they actually end up happening?
So how often would these recognitions be checked?
Is this every year when you get
- Yeah, we already do that every year.
So I get a list from Penn State
and I just got one last week that has the fall 2025 numbers
as far as those properties that,
that they recognize. So there're
- No, no, I meant all like I'm speaking as a whole,
the independents
and the Penn State recognize like to the Borough, it seems
to me that they would all be the same.
- Yeah, we, we are only checking the properties
that Penn State has indicated are no
longer recognized by the university.
So those are the ones that we've reached out
to say we need a national letter.
Interesting. Because I, because I have something from Penn
State saying that the other 36 ish are,
are recognized by the university. So,
- Okay, so well
I can't help but ask, so if it's, I don't know, February
and a fraternity loses both Penn State and
- National.
That's a really great question for Terry Williams.
- Thank you. Okay.
I didn't think you would want to answer that.
And then why not year round at 60%?
Why is it just based on the academic calendar
- That goes back, that's been that way for
60 years in the Ordinance.
I mean the original Ordinance had allowance for spring for,
for summer occupancy.
- Okay, well but this is a new Ordinance so you know,
- There's no way we're gonna be able to enforce 42 univer
to, to be able to say who's living in there for the summer.
Like I like we could write it but we're not enforcing it.
- Just photo desk. Neil,
- Under potential
- Additional uses, did you consider transformation
of these fraternities into town homes or apartment
- Buildings?
Yeah, the multifamily use was specifically removed.
So in 71 when that original section was created,
multifamily was a permitted use
to be converted somewhere along the way,
and I haven't gone back to find out when,
if you look in the existing Ordinance,
there's a little asterisk under one of those items
that asterisk was multifamily.
So council specifically removed
that ability at some point in
the probably eighties or nineties.
So we did not look at including that back
because again now we're into a,
a multifamily rooming house use situation.
So if counsel wants to do that,
we can certainly change that.
But we, since there had been a pretty concerted effort
to remove the ability to convert
to multifamily, we let it lie.
So
- Alex, - Well to pick up on what Neil is saying, maybe
that's a situation where you could deed restrict those
in order to get the multi-family use
- In order to what?
- So permit multi-family but no student. No, no student.
- Yeah. I mean, you know, if if the aversion
to a rooming house and a boarding house
that there'll be students, then maybe that's a place
where you could have a rehab that allows non-students
to live just a, I mean, you know, kicking things around
- Anita, - Two points, I don't know all the ins
and outs of the cooperative housing stuff
that Zoe has talked about.
- Yeah, we're still doing work on that.
We don't know either. That
- Seems like a possible use for some of these buildings.
Yeah. And secondly the 60% allows
for a 40% rooming house.
- Yeah, I mean currently the Ordinance allows
for 50% rooming house. Yeah.
- So, and that seems like a very odd hybrid if we
don't want rooming houses.
- Yeah, I think - Maybe 10% would be reasonable.
And I do understand about the summer occupancy.
A friend of mine owned about 1971 who was a woman,
got cheap housing in a fraternity through that.
But you know, that wasn't a problem. Well it was, oh god,
- That's okay.
But we are, we are doing some research on other college
towns to see if they have these kinds
of restrictions related to the occupancy percentage to see
what maybe some other Big 10 and SC C schools are doing.
So we're doing some research on that to see if we've
got any ideas about what seems reasonable.
I know that, you know, I met with two owners
or two representative fraternities with Tom a few weeks ago
and one of the conversation sounded like there was maybe 20,
30% and one of the fraternities was not members.
So I also know other fraternities that are a hundred percent
so it, it really comes down to the size of fraternity
and size of the fraternity building
and are they getting enough, getting enough members,
- I'll make a comment.
I think that we should deal with
some very specific matters
with this particular Zoning change at this time.
The whole phenomenon of fraternities
changing their nature
and not wanting to be affiliated with the university
or losing affiliated affiliation with the university
or are they,
or are they not affiliated with a national chapter
that is a societal change
that is beyond us.
Also the desire for rooming house space
or cooperative living space that is not focused on students
also may an evolving matter
and let's not try to predict the future.
I would love to learn more about what's going on
with the changing nature of fraternities,
but I, I don't think that we are
in the position in the course of passing on this
Zoning within two weeks onto the,
the next step in its process to sort out this issue.
And I, I think what we ought to do personally is
take the, the proposed Zoning
as it is currently written
and acknowledge that in the future we are going to have
to tackle this particular issue.
Again, there are going to be amendments
- I would think, as another potential additional use
unless that would be considered somehow in the hotel motel
piece would be a bed and breakfast.
Just because the transition, if you're gonna invest in it,
would lend itself well
and probably be relatively reasonable compared
to other construction costs.
- Okay. Any other comments on this one?
- Appears not. - Okay.
- Alright. Accessory dwelling units.
So Ron, now we're back on this topic.
And again, I, we we're from staff standpoint, we're trying
to treat these separately
because they are, this would be an ex,
an additional unit on a property for,
on a one family detached dwelling.
And I just wanna point out this is, this is clearly
for a single family home.
So we're not talking about a duplex or a triplex or a quad.
So you'd only be able to put an A DU on a one family home.
This, it also specifically excludes a mobile home
manufactured home camper or an RV as an accessor drawing.
We've had some advocates who have been,
who who've advocated pretty strongly for ADUs on wheels
that can be wheeled in this specifically precludes that.
So just to go through some of the general standards
that it has it's accessory to a one family dwelling
and that it's no no more than one A DU on the lot
that it has to be, that the A DU has
to be in the same district as the one family home.
That there's only a couple lots
that are split zone like that.
NADU is needs
to meet the minimum lot width in the Zoning districts.
You can't, I mean one of the goals of this has been to get
to make most of the lots conforming.
So in this case that's kinda what we're doing here as far as
you know, we, hopefully we've made enough conforming lots
and now the A DU would be permitted on it.
You can't subdivide the A DU off.
So you, you know, we wanted
to make sure someone didn't come in, build an A DU
and split it in on essentially it's a single family home
do require that the A DU has to use the utilities on site
so we don't have composting toilets.
And then also that you have
to access it from the assisting driveway
or if you're coming at it from another right of way,
like an alley, you can access it from there.
We were specific about the A DU having to have a kitchen,
a living room area, a sleeping area,
at least one bed bedroom
and it can't have more than two bedrooms
and that there needs to be at least one parking space
provided for the A DU Also that
there Claire and included some language
that we don't believe is actually legal in Pennsylvania when
it comes to requiring colors
and architectural design to be similar to the existing use.
And we're gonna recommend that gets removed.
I have a list of a couple of
staff recommendations here in a minute.
And also that there is a requirement that the A DU that the,
the permanent full-time residence of the owner of the lot.
So either the single family home or the A DU.
So this is specifically written to prevent a situation
where you've got a landlord with a tenant in the single
family home, then builds an A DU
and rents out the A DU to another tenant.
This is specifically written to prevent that also
that the A DU cannot can't be condoed
and sold separately from the one family dwelling that
there's no variance that can be approved for the A DU.
So if you've got a situations where there's maybe a lot
that's dimensionally not quite compliant,
we can't have an owner going
and getting a variance to allow the a DU to be constructed.
And as with the triplexes
and quads, there'd be a deed restriction
for no short-term rental use
and a deed restriction for college
or university students as tenants.
And we have some additional standards related to the size
of the A DU, no more than the lesser of either 25%
of the gross area of the single family home or 600 feet.
And we had talked about this with council
before, they wanted to go up to 800 that seemed
to be agreed upon number.
So we, we have a couple recommendations along this line
and also that the access to the A DU
can only be from the side of the rear yard.
So we didn't want a situation
where someone's coming in from the front.
That's something that I like.
I'm not sure that's a huge issue that that could be removed.
That might end up being precluding some good opportunities.
And also just some language about interconnecting with how,
how it's interconnected with the single family home.
And then some similar language on the detached ADUs as well.
So a couple suggestions from staff
and that one is again, back to what council agreed on is
to go to 800 square feet.
The both for the internal, so they, the E attached a DU,
the internal A DU to the property
or a detached A DU allow up to two bedrooms
and 40% of the principal structure size 25%.
Just from a staff standpoint, when we started looking at,
at sizes of houses, you, you, you 25%, you would end up
with like some 200, 250 square foot ADUs.
We just felt that that would potentially be too,
that would be too limiting and too small.
We just had some clarification language you need about,
there was some, we didn't know why clearing had written
that it was one A DU
or one dwelling unit for the whole thing
and then later on said no, it's an additional dwelling unit.
So there just needs to be some cleanup in the language.
So just removing the reference to the regulation
of the appearance character color, we don't believe
that we have the legal authority to do that.
And then finally also just specifically require
that the ADUs to be constructed with a foundation.
It might be belt and suspenders,
but we just felt that we wanted to make sure that was clear.
So that's all I've got on that section. Any suggestions?
Any we, we didn't,
we didn't necessarily prepare this for summarizing tonight.
It was more of a, you know,
do you have specific things you'd like to see changed
or if you'd like to see
that section pulled out in its entirety,
it was definitely written to be encapsulated
or maybe you include the attached ADUs
but remove the detached ADUs.
A lot of different ways we can go,
but just wanna get your input.
- I think as far as we talk about affordability
and different ways that we can get families downtown,
I don't see the benefit of deed restricting detached a
eds whether or ADUs a ADU regard
- EDU's a sewer.
- Yeah, we should restrict that for sure.
No, there shouldn't be deed restriction on ADUs in my
opinion because if the principal, if the principal residence
and it's a way for them to make secondary income,
there's not really a negative consequence
to having a student in a detached structure
or even a short term Airbnb.
I think that's a objectively different
circumstance when people say, oh, the town was taken over
by all the single fame hamms and now students
or now they're all Airbnb's.
I think that freedom to use the, their space
and their property as they want to, allows 'em
to have income benefit in a way
that's no different than operating a a separate business
or outta their home.
So I would recommend removing that in that circumstance.
- Anita, how would it be enforce
that the owner is a full-time resident
and what does that even mean?
Does that mean somebody who's here Oh, for the summer
- Or, yeah, we, we always have this problem with
what exactly does that mean?
So in our short term rental Ordinance, we say eight months
and a comment that I have declaring is we need to tighten
that up a bit as far as exactly what that means.
But that is an enforcement challenge.
As far as principal residency, we get lied
to an awful lot about people who, you know, say they're,
it's their principal residence, but
they're living in New Jersey.
No offense in New Jersey.
- Oh, okay. Another question.
Getting back to what Curtis said,
My experience with students is we have students in our house
and in the backyard, both quite legally.
And we've learned that if we say upfront, okay,
we live on this property, if you're not prepared to deal
with your landlord being right there
to know what's going on, you probably don't wanna live here.
Now I don't know if that would apply to everybody or not,
but the Airbnb, the problem with that has been in a lot
of neighborhoods just far too much coming and going
and partying of people who don't live there permanently.
And it's been very hard on the neighborhood.
So I would say not Airbnb,
but I'm also wondering if 800 square feet,
I know we have three apartments that are much smaller than
that and they're readily rented to, well two,
two working people and one grad student
and we've never had any problem filling them.
So I, I don't know if that's necessary
or a good idea or not.
- Susan, just a couple
questions for clarification.
What's the difference between an A DU and an apartment?
- Yeah, we're trying to get away from, we're,
we're considering it an accessory dwelling unit.
Either the attached or attached.
So the, the, the attached would be an internal,
so you'd have an 800 square foot separate unit
that could be in the basement, that could be on the back
of the house, et cetera.
We're, we're trying to get away from this single family home
plus apartment and just say, what, what is the apartment?
Okay. It's an, it's accessory dwelling unit,
whether it's internal or external.
Again, there's some different standards for that,
but that's how we're training it.
At least that's how this Ordinance treats it going forward.
- And that's what I thought.
And so then you could have a
attached A DU, but then you could not have a detached
- A DU and that's a great policy' question as far as what,
what the preference is right now.
It's written, you get one.
But if you wanted to have an internal and,
and a detached, that's certainly something
that could be written and we just need guidance on that.
When we talked about it last spring, it seemed
to be just one,
but yeah, people can change their minds. So,
- So, so the question for me,
I'm it was leading up to when does it become then a duplex?
If you have an attached a DU, when,
when does it become a duplex?
- Yeah. And that's, there are building code issues relative
to firewalls, et cetera.
As far as, and I don't, I'm not gonna try
to play Walt, but Right.
You know, I know that there are structural
issues with the duplex.
I, I wanna get a little more clarity on exactly,
because I've been asked this
by a couple folks in the last couple weeks.
So I think we need to do a little bit more work to be able
to explain that exactly as far
as what's required from a building code
standpoint for it to be duplex. So
- I would like to lend my support of,
I think there are a lot of really large houses
and there could be opportunities for an internal
or attached a DU and a detached.
I think there would be nothing wrong with
that in certain circumstances.
Also, a question about the deed restrictions.
Wouldn't the student home rule apply
with the separation requirements?
And so, I mean, wouldn't I'll leave it a town?
- Yeah, no, we, we've looked at that.
The way that the student home rule is written right now, it,
it wouldn't cover the A DU, it doesn't mean
that we couldn't add it in.
So this was a cleaner way just to say no,
because then you're not into, I mean, do, do,
remember there are some places you could have a new student
home in State College?
I don't, not gonna, we don't have a map specifically,
but we have a pretty idea where they are the, at the end
of the day, we just thought it was cleaner to, you know,
just what do you want, do that in the code?
Do do you want to prohibit student
rentals from the ADUs or not?
The sense I'm getting is
that maybe student rental is okay in the ADUs,
but not short term rental use based on neighbor impact.
But we're, we're just looking for some guidance on that.
That's what we thought we got coming out
of the joint meetings last spring.
But obviously that's a policy' decision.
It could go a different direction.
There certainly will be a lot more of a market
for student occupancy in ADUs for sure.
- There's also a shocking amount of people
that principally live here 12 months a year
than eight weekends a year.
They Airbnb their place.
And although I, I think you'd be shocked
how little disruption there is in these neighborhoods
because when it's a single family home
and it's a nice well-maintained home, they get a premium.
But there are also people that are then dumping
that money back into the community
and they're living here principally.
That's one thing a lot
of people do in a lot of people I know do.
And I think that we have
to be careful when we set these guidelines.
'cause that does impact people's ability to live here
and afford here and kind of make a life
and make impact in our community.
- I want to raise a question about the status of
a paper alley and access to these things.
I have a paper alley behind my house.
The, my, the area right around my house
has long and relatively
narrow lots.
And how would, if somebody wanted
to do an A DU attached
or detached, how's that gonna work
with a paper alley? Yeah,
- That's, we'd really need Terry to, to talk about that.
As far as what, what could a property error compel
as far as access goes?
I don't want to, that's not, that's a legal area
that I don't have experience with in terms of
what could be compelled for access.
So that's a question for him.
- By the way, a paper alley is an alley
that was plotted but never built.
And the one
behind my house is in my block.
There are some very big trees growing in that paper alley.
Basically the land belongs to no one,
although supposedly every resident along who
who has access to the paper alley is, is entitled
to access the back of their property using a vehicle.
- And I, I think I promised this before, we need to go back
and find the, when Terry came
and gave, I think he gave like an hour long
presentation on the topic.
So we will, we need to go find that recording
and get it back out to everybody.
- Okay.
Anyone else?
- All right. So what, what will process?
- I is did you have something else? Go ahead.
- Speaking as somebody who has a couple ADUs,
I think they all new ones should be built
and required to have air, air conditioning.
- Yeah, I don't think we can require that.
- Okay. You can try. I thought I'd bring it up.
The item about no residential units,
no residential units should be for the heat and the gas
and the sewer that made it look like it had
to be connected to the house.
- Yeah. So we have questions.
Steph has some questions about the wording of that.
I I know what they intended, which is
you've gotta be on sewer.
No. Yeah, so I, yes, there needs to be
- Some words there.
We're fine with that then. And I think there should be
a minimum square footage. Some of the
- Yeah, there would, sorry.
There would be, if so in order
to have it be occupiable from a building code standpoint,
you would need at least 70 square feet for the bedroom.
And I don't remember what the common area
is, but it's around a hundred.
So yeah, there are some minimums based on building code.
- I think we should also add, well I noticed some
of the studios in the high rises are 300 square feet
and that is the bare minimum
that I'd like wanna put anybody in.
So maybe increase it more than
- That.
I, I just wanna be hesitant
because we had a lawsuit with HUD based on our,
our occupancy limits were increased based above
what the building code requires
and we actually had to settle with HUD to reduce them.
So I didn't know that. Yeah.
- Okay. Anything else on this topic?
Hearing none, let's go on.
- Okay. Just to highlight what we, we're gonna want
to talk a little bit more about
some of the transitional areas.
We, again, we had a really good meeting with Susan.
So the, just trying to get an idea of
what the appropriate boundaries are
and then also some appropriate heights
and densities in those districts.
So I just wanted to point out a couple areas.
Again, making a suggestion to go to RO on the eastern part
of, you know, where Beaver turns into high
and then also over in the west where West End is
kind of looking at that as, you know, there's, we're,
Adrian is actually doing some renderings right now to try
to get an idea of what it would look like over there in
terms of the differences in height, going from nine stories
to six to two,
and just sort of give an idea of what that would look like.
And then also kind of highlighting the,
what planning staff always calls the Pugh spine in terms
of running from downtown down to easterly.
That's an area that's had a lot
of debate over the years about what's the appropriate level
of, of, of density and height.
So we wanted to bring that back up.
If there was any thoughts on, you know, we,
we looked at maybe converting that to R three instead
of R three H would,
which would allow three stories instead of two.
You have a lot of preexisting non-conforming apartment
buildings in that area right now, some
of which are 5, 6, 7 stories.
So looking at maybe going to R three
and also kind of the area that is south of OOCC and,
and the Baptist church.
As you get into Fairmount
and Prospect as you go down the hill, they're sort of
between Burroughs, Fraser and Alan.
That was another area that we had some discussions.
So we're not really necessarily prepared right now
to give any suggestions.
We wanted to flag it as something, we'd like
to talk a little bit more on the 14th.
So if anybody has opinions, thoughts, wants
to see specific changes, we we're wrestling with this
as a staff standpoint, so we'd love to get your input.
And Ron's asked me a couple times, what, what,
what are we gonna be preparing for you as far as
some recommendations to go to council?
What would that look like? So this is our first shot at it,
kind of a topic then to the status bar would be removed
because we'd hopefully be, we, we'd have got
through them all and gotten your input
and in some cases votes.
So what we are looking for is these would be specific
recommendations and we'd be putting in this kind of table.
So you'll see a more elaborate version of this on the 14th.
But this is kind of the way we're tackling it.
So does this make sense?
You know, anybody have any opinions, kind of
what we thought might be the easiest way.
And then as Ron kind of started today,
if there are specific motions that are needed to get votes,
we would kind of anticipate on the 14th
and the 21st, kind of going through this to make sure
that if there were areas
where there was differences opinion on planning commission,
that we would get some motions made
to finalize what would be recommended.
So how does that all sound? Good? All right.
All right. And then just for those following at home
and we're, we're getting to the end
of the planning permission process, I just wanted
to put this timeline back up in front of everybody.
You saw it at the beginning of the summer,
but as we get to recommendation, so we're at
that August 21 slot.
As far as PC making recommendation, this would go to,
this would then go to council on September 8th
and start a september october process.
We have pretty much a drop dead October 20 date for
when we would what?
When we would need counsel to tell staff exactly
what they do and do not want in the Ordinance,
if they wanted revisions, changes whether they agree
with pc, whether they disagree with PC
and what, you know, what what the, what do they want.
We then have, we'll transmit that to the consultant team.
They'll have about a month to make revisions
and then we have kind of a drop dead date
of sending this to review.
At Centre County Planning.
There's the statutory 45 day review that they have.
They have an MOU with Centre Region Planning.
So Centre Region Planning will also be doing their
review at the same time.
So that will happen throughout the holidays.
So Merry Christmas to that staff.
And then at the end of the day, we will hopefully have
something back from them in the middle of January
with a anticipated going
to Borough Council at the first meeting in February,
asking them to authorize the advertisement
for the Public Hearing, which will be March 2nd,
and then adoption at the end of March.
I'll also point out that there is a statutory requirement
for a Public Hearing for the planning agency
preparing the Ordinance.
So that's been advertised for August 21st.
So that'll meet the statutory requirement
that Planning commission has a Public Hearing.
So any questions on timeline?
- Just one question. Is there any chance that any
of this will come back to the Planning Commission
after August 21st?
- I mean, there's always a chance, but my understanding from
council is that once PC's done
with the recommendations, they're gonna take it from there.
So the statutory, the, the statute, the MPC requires
if there are substantial changes
after that advertisement of the hearing.
So when we get to that February 2nd meeting,
the anticipation is that we would have a final draft.
Counsel would authorize staff to advertise.
Once that advertisement happens,
there really can't be substantive changes.
So there's a Public Hearing.
Then on March 2nd, if council wants
to make substantive changes from there, the statute requires
that they would re advertise for a new Public Hearing.
So we could end up in a series of a, a number
of public hearings going through the spring
or summer, if that's what council wants.
There's no statutory requirement for them
to send it back to Planning Commission.
They could if they want it, but they're not required to.
- Okay. Okay.
Then it looks like we are onto official reports
and correspondence. Borough Counsel,
- Nothing from me.
- Zoning Hearing board, - Nothing Upcoming.
- Upcoming Land development plans,
- Nothing upcoming.
- Staff updates, - You're looking at it.
- Okay. Okay. Centre Region Planning Commission.
It's quiet Summer. Okay.
Upcoming meetings next Thursday,
Octo August 14th at 7:00 PM
and Thursday, August 21st at 7:00 PM
May I have a motion to Adjourn?
Motion to Adjourn Adjourned.
- Sponsorship for this program is brought to you in part
by Town and Gown Magazine.
If it's happening in Happy Valley,
it's in town and Gown magazine.
- Clearwater Conservancy has been committed to conserving
and restoring the natural resources of Centre County
and beyond for more than 40 years.
In 2022, we purchased 10 acres on Spring Creek in Hauser V.
We have a 20 year relationship
with this land having restored the Streamside forested
Buffer in 2004.
This property in the heart
of the Spring Creek watershed is the site
of our new permanent home
and our local conservation restoration
and education programs.
The public will be welcome to explore the stream, as well
as use the community meeting room
for partnerships and collaboration.
Clearwater's dedicated volunteers will see firsthand the
positive impact of their efforts.
Your support ensures
that our conservation work thrives protecting our natural
resources for everyone.
As an accredited land trust, we promise
that residents will enjoy clean water
and natural areas for many years to come.
Your support is essential in preserving our natural
resources for future generations.
Visit clearwater conservancy.org to learn
how you can get involved.