[0:00] - We are the Community Diversity Group.
[0:02] Our mission is to foster an inclusive
[0:04] and interactive community, which attracts
[0:07] and retains a pool of potential employees
[0:09] and residents from underrepresented groups.
[0:12] We accomplish this in many ways,
[0:14] including sponsoring events like the Community Resource
[0:17] Fair, publishing, a monthly resource flyer,
[0:20] and providing public training and educational
[0:22] and networking events.
[0:24] You can find us online@communitydiversitygroup.com.
[0:30] - The Centre Region Active Adult Center is a vibrant,
[0:32] inclusive, and happening location designed
[0:34] for active adults 55 years and over to be social
[0:37] and participate in new experiences while
[0:39] also staying close to home.
[0:40] We promote healthy aging through our many activities
[0:43] and health forums, as well as lifelong learning
[0:45] through classes and social interaction
[0:47] that suit almost any lifestyle.
[0:49] Whether you prefer line dancing followed by a walk
[0:52] or a game of bridge and a meal,
[0:53] the center is sure to have something for you.
[0:55] Visit crpr.org for more info.
[1:01] - You are watching CNET Center County's Government
[1:03] and Educational Access Network.
[1:12] - Okay, call to order the Centre Region
[1:17] Plan Commission meeting dated September 3rd, 2026.
[1:23] And the first item on the agenda, is there any public
[1:27] that's signed on at all?
[1:29] Nope. No public in here. Okay.
[1:35] New agenda items. Is there an item that would like
[1:40] to be added to tonight?
[1:42] And if it is, if you look at your packet,
[1:44] it gives you the directions
[1:46] and the instructions as to
[1:47] what could be added at this late stage.
[1:51] Normally items get added well
[1:53] before this is published and things like that.
[1:57] Any recommended items to be added?
[2:00] And if not, we'll move on.
[2:02] Let's move on to regional interest items.
[2:05] And this is where you have the opportunities to
[2:10] discuss activities within your municipalities.
[2:14] I don't generally do this, but I'll lead off.
[2:16] We've, we haven't had a meeting, probably the last two
[2:18] to three meetings have been canceled in ours
[2:20] because of lack of agenda items and, and things like that.
[2:23] I think there might've been a lot of vacations
[2:24] and lack of quorums and things like that too, as well,
[2:27] but there wasn't actions item that necessary.
[2:29] But with this stating Bill, if you'd like to lead off,
[2:35] - Ferguson Township is dealing with three, three things
[2:40] that I'm gonna report to this board.
[2:43] The data center thing is still alive and well.
[2:47] And Ferguson
[2:49] and staff at Ferguson is working on an
[2:53] Ordinance related to data centers.
[2:59] I understand that at
[3:01] - Our next - Planning commission meeting,
[3:06] the intent is to have that on the agenda.
[3:12] So I have not seen it
[3:14] and probably won't see it until, until that night
[3:19] or close to that night.
[3:21] The second thing is, and, and it it, it may
[3:26] or may not affect us long term,
[3:28] but of course this whole business of the flock cameras,
[3:33] the li automatic automated license plate reader function
[3:39] is being challenged by one of the Supervisors.
[3:43] And he will be having discussion time
[3:49] on that with all of the Supervisors at their next
[3:51] supervisor meeting.
[3:54] He's particularly concerned about the, the, the automated
[4:00] license plate reader capacity of, of that
[4:04] particular brand.
[4:06] And third is that
[4:11] there has been and will be a discussion on
[4:16] changing some of the wording in our ordinances related to
[4:21] accessory dwelling units.
[4:23] ADUs, there is a proposal coming
[4:28] forward in the Supervisors
[4:33] to modify the definition by a word or two.
[4:37] And, and the intent of what I understand the intent of the,
[4:42] of the discussion is to
[4:46] make it a little more a DU friendly
[4:52] in Ferguson Township than
[4:55] what our current Ordinance allows for.
[4:58] That one will probably see the light
[5:01] of the planning commission in Ferguson
[5:03] because it's related to a Aldo and,
[5:05] and all of those other kinds of documents
[5:09] that we are responsible for.
[5:12] So that's all I have to report.
[5:14] - Okay. An interesting thing on the flock
[5:18] is most recently I just heard that the governor
[5:21] is looking at it very carefully and
[5:23] - I understood he banned it - And, and he's, I think he's
[5:27] - In all state.
[5:29] - He's, I think he's moving in that direction.
[5:32] So what the data centers?
[5:34] - No, the flock. The flock.
[5:35] - Cameras. Cameras, cameras.
[5:37] I read this thing on the data centers too, which, and, and,
[5:40] and in some cases I think
[5:41] what was happening is they were setting them up
[5:46] without advertising them in, in the construction zones.
[5:49] A lot of times you saw mobile enforcement in, in place
[5:54] and would let you know that they were there.
[5:57] But then they're kind of expanded and gone beyond that.
[6:01] And I think that's where they,
[6:03] they're having some issues and problems.
[6:05] So that's gonna be interesting. Yeah,
[6:07] - I, I find it's gonna be interesting the difference
[6:09] between I got ticket the public domain
[6:11] and the private domain
[6:13] because clearly there are concerns within the
[6:18] private domain for being able
[6:21] to identify Bad actors.
[6:27] And, and there are a lot more cameras around in our current
[6:33] public, private,
[6:34] private domain than than many people realize.
[6:38] And I don't know how this Ordinance, if it goes
[6:42] to an Ordinance and a ban, I don't know
[6:44] how Ferguson is going to deal with the fact that
[6:48] there are a number of them that exist now.
[6:50] Yeah. School buses, at one point, some school buses
[6:55] in some states had the automated license plate
[7:00] readers for people who violated the school bus passing laws.
[7:04] Now, I don't know whether State College does
[7:07] or whether our state, you know, anyone in the state, but,
[7:09] but that was a, a clear use of them
[7:15] long before maybe flack came on the market.
[7:21] - Okay. - So it'll be interesting. Yep.
[7:23] - Jeff, nothing from Harris Township.
[7:25] Our next meeting, September 14th, Tim
[7:28] - Half Moon Township still working on
[7:30] updating the industrial Ordinance includes data centers
[7:33] and utility scale solar.
[7:36] Okay. I mentioned that last time.
[7:39] - Bill, are you online, William?
[7:44] - I am online. Just gimme a second
[7:46] to find some place to fly it.
[7:47] - Okay. - So, so go ahead
[7:51] and skip me while I find a place to quiet.
[7:56] - What did you say? Skip 'em. Skip 'em. Okay. Okay.
[8:02] With that, that moves us to the
[8:08] CRP activity report. Chopan.
[8:12] - Yep. So August, we have
[8:17] been working on through the comprehensive plan,
[8:19] but I'm gonna talk more about that and,
[8:20] and the update later on the agenda.
[8:24] CRPA did participate in the Centre County Listening Sessions
[8:29] related and facilitated by CEC COG
[8:32] to develop a new five year comprehensive
[8:35] economic development strategic strategy
[8:38] for the 11 county region.
[8:40] So C COG Centre County is part of Cedar COG
[8:44] and Cedar COG does a lot of economic development portion
[8:48] of the work for Centre County.
[8:49] So we participated in one of the listening sessions
[8:52] to provide information related to economic growth,
[8:56] resiliency, workforce development on the transportation
[9:00] side, the Centre County Crash Dashboard.
[9:02] I don't know if any of you have seen that or heard of that,
[9:06] but that was updated.
[9:08] So now we have data from 2018 to 2025,
[9:10] and if people are interested, we could send that
[9:13] a link to it afterwards.
[9:14] But it's, it's a useful tool on the transportation
[9:18] planning side to making sure we're looking at safety,
[9:21] which is one of the things we talk about
[9:22] in the comprehensive planning.
[9:25] And then what you may recall if you're at the meeting is Ann
[9:28] Mesner was here earlier and talked about two guides
[9:33] and those are finalized on our website.
[9:35] So there's the Centre Region employer guide to biking
[9:37] to work and the guidelines for municipalities
[9:41] to maintain bicycle facilities.
[9:42] So she took the feedback
[9:43] that she got from different stakeholders
[9:45] and those documents are now available on our website.
[9:50] That is the update.
[9:52] - Okay. Very good. One quick question. Question.
[9:55] - Yep. I haven't followed
[9:57] or read the, the minutes of all the meetings.
[9:59] What was the final result at the COG meeting with regard to
[10:04] the DRI? For the
[10:08] - State? A RL?
[10:10] - No, no, the Tussie. Tussie.
[10:13] - So Tussie had its first general form meeting at the
[10:17] August general form.
[10:19] Yeah, we just presented the,
[10:20] for the first time at the August general form.
[10:22] The municipalities are now discussing it
[10:25] to determine if they have additional questions,
[10:28] need information, and it will come back at the
[10:31] October general forum for the Okay. Process of
[10:35] - Approval.
[10:36] I'm just glad I didn't miss that. Yep.
[10:37] General forum vote iron a
[10:40] - No, that'll be in October.
[10:41] Okay. So there's a two step process for the general forum,
[10:44] the presentation, general information, then it goes
[10:47] to municipalities and then it comes back. And
[10:48] - Is a RL the same - A RL has been approved.
[10:51] Okay. That one did go through general form approval.
[10:57] - Hey, deal. Okay.
[11:07] With that question, it moves us to Consent Agenda.
[11:12] Okay. At this point in time,
[11:15] hopefully everybody's got a chance to review the minutes
[11:18] of the August 6th, 2026 meeting.
[11:22] And the question I have is, is there any major changes, nits
[11:27] errors that need to be adjusted or corrected for
[11:33] - Actually, Mr. Chair?
[11:35] - Yes. Thank you William.
[11:36] - I thought, I thought it was, I apologize.
[11:38] I am at a open house for back to school night, so
[11:43] I found a lot of teachers rooms
[11:44] to quickly give the Patton Township report here,
[11:48] we have not had our meeting this month.
[11:50] As the first Monday is gonna be next week
[11:54] we'll be going over the, the, the data center
[11:59] letter that's being sent back by CRPC.
[12:02] I believe that's my understanding of one of the items
[12:04] that we'll be handling next week as far
[12:09] as well as a report from the school, I believe on the status
[12:13] of moving the large copious amounts
[12:16] of dirt from the new middle school.
[12:21] And just to get it out of the way.
[12:24] As, as well for the committee report from MPO,
[12:28] that meeting was canceled.
[12:30] So if I lose connection, you, you have the information.
[12:34] - Okay. Thank you William. Appreciate that. That feedback.
[12:37] Since we did jump back into the regional interest items,
[12:40] Neil, is there anything that you would like to add?
[12:43] - I'll just say we opened up a new classroom building
[12:45] and time for the start of the school year.
[12:47] And it was like a record pace building construction.
[12:50] I think we broke around and had opened in 18 months.
[12:55] I don't recommend it, but I think it was, you know,
[12:58] we were able to do it just 'cause we hired a really good
[13:00] team, really good architects, good contractor.
[13:02] They worked well together.
[13:04] If it was just a bunch of strangers just meeting
[13:06] for the first time, I don't think we
[13:08] would've pulled it off. So.
[13:10] - And what's the name of - It? It's called the
[13:12] East Classroom Building.
[13:15] Waiting for a donor. Waiting for a donor. Okay.
[13:20] - Okay. Very good. Okay, that moves us back.
[13:25] Now we'll go back to the Consent Agenda, which has to deal
[13:28] with the minutes from the August 5th, August 6th meeting.
[13:33] If there is no additions or changes or edits necessary
[13:38] and it's acceptable, I'll take,
[13:40] I'll accept a motion for approval.
[13:42] Move for approval. Do we have second?
[13:45] We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye.
[13:49] Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Okay.
[13:56] All right. Moves us to the action agenda items
[13:59] and the first item on there is the College Township Zoning
[14:02] map amendment, which is the 60 acres
[14:05] that they're changing from UPD to PRBD.
[14:09] Jenna, you're up.
[14:15] - Alright, so first one tonight we have College
[14:18] Township Zoning map amendment.
[14:20] So you all may be familiar with the
[14:24] Penn State A-R-L-D-R-I requests.
[14:26] This is in relation to that, as Pam noted that went through
[14:29] and was approved by general forum.
[14:31] This is that next step in the process to rezone the,
[14:36] this area from UPD
[14:39] Subdistrict 14 over to the planned research business park
[14:44] district that is pretty much full of innovation park.
[14:49] So I've summarized just past actions.
[14:53] You all, I believe saw this at February 5th
[14:56] meeting earlier this year, general Forum did act on
[15:00] that July 27th.
[15:02] College Township Planning Commission has recommended
[15:05] approval of the request of rezoning
[15:06] with the condition on Penn State providing a subdivision
[15:10] plan within six months of approval.
[15:13] So those are the big items for this Zoning map amendment.
[15:18] We have reviewed this, it is consistent with the 2013
[15:23] comprehensive plan update
[15:24] and we are recommending approval for their questions.
[15:30] - So questions with regards to that?
[15:35] - I have a simple kind of processing question.
[15:37] I'm curious about the, the, the writeup
[15:41] says approval based on condition on A PSU providing a
[15:44] subdivision plan within six months.
[15:46] And I'm just curious, how was
[15:47] that operationalized in the actual Ordinance
[15:49] that when I look at the Ordinance here,
[15:51] it doesn't say anything about that requirement?
[15:53] - Yeah, it's an interesting one.
[15:55] It was included in the staff report
[15:56] that Lindsay provided to me.
[15:58] Okay. I mean, operationally, if the council were
[16:01] to move forward with making this Zoning map change
[16:04] that is in place, okay.
[16:07] I would imagine
[16:08] and write could comment on the concern from planning
[16:11] commission without that subdivision in place,
[16:14] knowing the exact outline of this area is kind of
[16:17] where we're all wondering.
[16:19] Okay. I'm assuming based off
[16:22] of the master plan drawings that we have seen are kind of,
[16:27] we need to identify these edges.
[16:28] Exactly. But Right.
[16:30] Most of the development is gonna be in
[16:31] towards innovation park. So,
[16:34] - And I I wanna be clear,
[16:35] I have no absolutely no concerns at all about, I'm just kind
[16:37] of curious how, how that operational Yeah,
[16:40] - For the record, we're not gonna subdivide the property
[16:43] because it's Penn State property
[16:45] against Penn State property.
[16:46] We're just gonna parcelized the property.
[16:49] So I already emailed her about that terms subdivide
[16:52] and Okay.
[16:53] She said, I get it.
[16:55] You're not gonna, you don't have to do it, but you have to.
[16:58] We're gonna, the property survey, we're gonna have it
[17:02] as a parcel that be separate.
[17:07] - So it's really gonna be like tracked from an
[17:10] outside perspective.
[17:12] It's a view of everything together, but it's parceled. Yeah.
[17:15] And that's all it is. It's,
[17:19] - Yeah, it's a boundary within real state property. It,
[17:23] - It's a, it's, it's a line you have to deal
[17:25] with. Not anybody else.
[17:26] - Yeah. But, but the EPD
[17:29] and the growth boundary is gonna follow
[17:30] that right parcel as well.
[17:33] Yep. Just a, is
[17:36] - A RL gonna own the land
[17:38] or are they just leasing it from Penn State?
[17:40] - It's Penn State property. So AOL does not own property.
[17:43] - Do they own the buildings? - The
[17:45] university owns buildings.
[17:48] - So they're just there. - Yeah.
[17:51] - Do they pay rent? - No.
[17:54] - So they're just there. - Yeah.
[17:56] So A A RL is obtaining the funding through their grants,
[18:00] through their sponsors
[18:02] and then through e even though they obtain the funding,
[18:06] the university builds the buildings and
[18:08] - Maintains the buildings.
[18:09] Yeah. Because they have independent funding. Right.
[18:11] And so how do they pay Penn State
[18:14] where Penn State just gives 'em the land and the buildings
[18:17] and they get to keep all their
[18:18] funding? Or how does that work?
[18:21] - Errol's funding is used to pay
[18:22] for, to build the buildings.
[18:24] Okay.
[18:26] - It's probably a major indirect cost as well.
[18:28] I assume that the a RL receives it goes directly
[18:32] to the university homes company
[18:34] expenses. So
[18:38] - Yeah, - They're separate but not separate.
[18:42] - Yeah. I mean it's all, it's the
[18:44] - Way I look at it, - You know, it's
[18:45] - All because a RL is its own thing
[18:48] and get, I don't know, $450 million a year
[18:51] or something like that from grants?
[18:53] Yeah. Mostly military contracts. But
[18:56] - They, they do fall within the Penn State framework under
[18:59] the senior vice president research
[19:01] - On the research.
[19:07] Okay. Okay.
[19:11] Any other questions?
[19:16] And if not, like I said, DRA was approved
[19:20] and everything else that, that was a, that was a part
[19:23] of the process on that.
[19:24] I think you've gotten some information on that.
[19:27] We're looking for a motion for an approval
[19:31] for forwarding a letter of support
[19:35] with our, with our comments.
[19:38] You make that motion. Okay. And a second.
[19:42] Second, second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?
[19:48] - I'm gonna have a stand. - I got it. I understand. Okay.
[19:51] Okay. Very good.
[19:57] - Let's see here. - All moves us to the next action item,
[20:01] which is Harris Township Chapter 11, subdivision
[20:04] and land development chapter 12, Zoning amendment.
[20:09] - Alright. So Harris Township will,
[20:11] has two amendments in front of us.
[20:13] First one we are going to cover is the amendment
[20:17] to the chapter 11.
[20:18] There's, they're proposing an amendment
[20:21] to require shade trees within New Street right
[20:24] of ways when certain conditions are meant.
[20:26] So under their current Ordinance,
[20:28] street trees are optional right now.
[20:31] They're also adopting the regional tree list by resolution.
[20:35] So that will be referenced.
[20:37] And since it is by resolution, it's I'd say more easily able
[20:41] to be updated as opposed to put it in your Ordinance.
[20:45] And as a reminder, that regional tree list, it was a
[20:50] regional effort by all the arborists that came together
[20:54] and identified what works here for us.
[20:58] And having that consistent list across all the Centre Region
[21:01] municipalities was the end goal for that one.
[21:05] So it's up to you chair on how you want to do this.
[21:10] Technically, these are two different amendments. Okay.
[21:12] They're both compliant.
[21:14] I can roll into the next one,
[21:15] or if you want action on this individual
[21:18] one and comments on this.
[21:19] And then another one
[21:25] - For clarity and transparency,
[21:27] why don't we just separate it Okay.
[21:28] And have two different, and then this way
[21:31] it's, it's noted that way.
[21:32] Yep. It's in the documents that way and Sure.
[21:35] There shouldn't be any questions afterwards.
[21:38] - All right. So for this one, yes we have reviewed it
[21:41] and it is consistent
[21:43] with the 2013 comprehensive plan update
[21:47] and we're recommending approval.
[21:50] - So again, the, the proposed motion that would come out
[21:53] of our organization would be a, a letter of support
[21:57] along with any comments.
[21:58] Is there any comments with regards to
[22:01] the Shape Tree requirements
[22:02] and using the list and everything else?
[22:04] We've, we've seen that before. Go ahead, bill.
[22:09] - The only comment I have, and,
[22:10] and it's almost as if it, it's the same comment regionwide
[22:18] as our tree planting process throughout the region,
[22:24] on, on, on right of ways and so on have progressed.
[22:29] We've had it around long enough so that a number
[22:32] of those trees are reading our, are meeting mid maturity,
[22:37] if not full maturity levels.
[22:42] And they are in some areas
[22:47] conflicting with streetlights in the sense of
[22:52] what the streetlight covers.
[22:56] And part of that is the relationship between
[23:02] streetlight standards and their height
[23:07] and mature tree standards
[23:10] and their eventual heights.
[23:13] Some of 'em have to do with proximity
[23:16] one's too close to the other.
[23:18] And in other cases it has to do with species choices.
[23:23] And, and a little more attention needs to be paid with that
[23:28] because as they mature, you're getting to the point where
[23:34] it's impacting on what I consider to be part
[23:38] of the safety,
[23:44] the safety senses of, of, of the streetlights
[23:49] at corners intersections. So
[23:53] - I'm gonna cut to the chase here.
[23:55] Are you specifically referring to past trees
[24:00] that have been put in, that weren't part
[24:03] of the Shade Tree requirements
[24:05] and the changes that the arborist made under this new study?
[24:10] Or are you talking about the new list?
[24:12] And if you are, be very specific about which trees you feel
[24:16] should not be on that list.
[24:18] - I'm not, I'm, I don't want to get in the weeds of, of
[24:22] - Species and - All that stuff,
[24:24] but I, I think, I think it's more
[24:27] of a general comment about the Ordinance
[24:29] and its wording itself so that the section
[24:34] of the Ordinance that talks about where streetlights go
[24:39] isn't in conflict with
[24:41] or having a eventual impact on, on trees
[24:46] and lighting and safety.
[24:50] I, I refer you to, and that's been the past.
[24:53] And I, I, as, as townships are
[24:59] updating it, I'm asking that they, they consider
[25:03] the relationship between trees
[25:08] and streetlights to dictate some
[25:12] of the planting locations
[25:13] because they're very specific at some point every 30 feet.
[25:18] - Well, when we discussed this in College Township,
[25:21] I'll just let you know that I was the first to turn around
[25:23] and I looked at the rest of our commission members
[25:25] and I said, is there anybody on our commission
[25:28] that is a tree expert or an arborist?
[25:32] And there was not a one.
[25:35] And therefore when we ask questions similar to that, we have
[25:39] to believe that when they did this survey
[25:41] and they did that, they were looking at some of the points
[25:45] that you had in there.
[25:47] If you want though, that can be included in our comments
[25:50] that it be reviewed again to look at it
[25:54] and say, Hey, if there's an issue with regards to conflicts
[25:58] with lighting and streetlights,
[26:00] that could be included in our letter of support.
[26:03] Or you can vote not to support it however you want to do it.
[26:06] - I guess I'm just concerned about the fact
[26:08] that in the past, because now these trees have major
[26:13] or gotten nearer maturity in the past, it didn't appear
[26:17] to me that anybody was paying attention.
[26:20] - They probably weren't - To that issue.
[26:23] And I don't need to be an arborist, Jeff.
[26:25] - So one of the things that's interesting in Burg is that
[26:28] some of this trees we're gonna lose some
[26:30] of our big trees on Main Street.
[26:31] 'cause they think that they're very old.
[26:33] But you know, the Township inherited those trees.
[26:37] They did not plant them.
[26:38] They were planted a hundred years ago
[26:40] and they were, that was private property at the time.
[26:43] Mm. And those trees were part of private property
[26:45] and then the Township widened the street
[26:47] and took over property and now they own the trees
[26:50] and so they're responsible for it.
[26:51] So they're responsible for maintaining 'em, trimming 'em.
[26:53] Right. Cutting them down. Yeah.
[26:56] So it's just kind of historical perspective
[26:59] of an old town, what happened?
[27:00] Oh yeah. Well,
[27:01] - And and, and my sense is that in a town like Burg
[27:06] where we have heritage trees as part of our
[27:10] landscape on roads, I'm not talking about that,
[27:14] but I am talking about in the future,
[27:17] let's pay some more attention to the relationship between
[27:23] required streetlights.
[27:25] - Well that was, that was brought up in ours.
[27:27] And that was part of what the,
[27:30] or the information they were seeking from the arborists,
[27:33] the tree specialists from that standpoint
[27:35] to make the proper recommendations as to
[27:38] what trees would be good street trees
[27:41] and wouldn't interfere such as what you're talking about.
[27:44] Are they perfect? I don't know.
[27:46] I I, I, I'm gonna, I'm gonna be the first
[27:48] to throw my hands up and say I'm not an arborist
[27:50] and I'm not a tree specialist.
[27:51] So I couldn't, I couldn't argue their points
[27:54] - And, and I'm not either.
[27:55] All I'm saying is that somewhere there ought
[27:58] to be some wording if you're playing with this streetlight
[28:02] and tree Ordinance that alerts somebody
[28:07] to review that issue.
[28:11] - Well this is, this is going more regional too, isn't it?
[28:14] - Well, list itself is,
[28:16] and the list doesn't specify, you must plant one
[28:21] large tree every 30 feet
[28:24] and two shrubs every five feet.
[28:27] The tree list is just a species list
[28:30] of all appropriate trees for a region.
[28:34] The choices on the size canopy, et cetera,
[28:39] that comes down to the individual
[28:40] ordinances at the municipality.
[28:42] - So each municipality has control of that. Yeah.
[28:45] - My recollection of Harris, well we did a lot
[28:49] of work on the landscaping Ordinance when I was working
[28:54] for Harris and it, it was more of a
[28:59] pullback because the old Ordinance that they had,
[29:02] it was more of a reforestation Ordinance
[29:05] and it wasn't really resulting in successful
[29:09] buffer plantings.
[29:11] So,
[29:13] - Okay.
[29:14] - Well with that said, now is the opportunity,
[29:17] since we did separate this, is there support
[29:21] within our group to send a letter of support
[29:25] to this Township with regards
[29:26] to their shade tree requirements changes with the fact
[29:31] that we could, if you want to plus
[29:33] or minus the comments that Bill just made with regards to
[29:38] possible and potential conflicts with street lighting?
[29:42] - Yeah, I support, I think what Bill said just makes sense
[29:46] that, and hopefully the town arborist is already
[29:49] paying attention to those issues.
[29:52] - Okay. So we have a motion
[29:56] to s send a support letter with those comments.
[29:59] Do we have a second? Second, second. I'm fine.
[30:04] Okay. All in favor say aye. A Aye. Aye. Opposed?
[30:08] Okay, very good.
[30:11] Moves us to the second part of that,
[30:13] which is the developmental notice
[30:14] requirements, signed requirements. Yes.
[30:17] - So this is an amendment to chapter 11, their seldom
[30:20] and chapter 12, their Zoning Ordinance.
[30:23] So Harris Township, they're proposing an amendment
[30:25] to add requirements
[30:27] to these ordinances directing developers post development
[30:30] signs when the developments are proposed.
[30:34] I believe there's recent infill project, it kind
[30:37] of scared a lot of the neighbors.
[30:40] And Harris, I, I know the Borough has requirements,
[30:44] Ferguson has requirements, patent does,
[30:46] typically when you get a land development plan,
[30:48] subdivision plan, something like that submitted,
[30:52] you are required to post that property.
[30:54] Harris never had those regulations in place
[30:56] and now they are updating their Ordinance to include
[30:59] that requirement for the applicant
[31:02] to do that for public notice.
[31:04] So neighbors understand what's going on.
[31:06] - Okay. Questions, concerns?
[31:15] Okay. Is there a motion to send a letter of support?
[31:23] - So motion. - Okay. Do we have a second? We have a second.
[31:28] All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right.
[31:34] - He's from Harris. What's that?
[31:37] Can you make the motion if you're from Harris?
[31:41] - Okay, next item on the action agenda item is the State
[31:45] College Borough, chapter 19, part D, Zoning
[31:49] and land development and Ordinance amendment
[31:52] to modify the maximum height
[31:54] of structures in a general commercial Zoning
[31:57] district. Yes, Jenna?
[31:59] - So the Borough has received an application from Prime Core
[32:03] for the property at one 20 East Beaver Avenue, also known
[32:08] as Addison Court as more familiar to most,
[32:12] so currently within 200 feet of the 200 blocks.
[32:15] South Allen Street height is capped at four
[32:18] stories or four, five feet.
[32:20] Even though in that sea district
[32:23] you pretty much have an underlying height
[32:26] of 65 feet as permitted.
[32:29] The proposal submitted by that applicant is to reduce
[32:33] that buffer of that 200 foot down to a hundred feet.
[32:37] And I have a visual shortly
[32:38] to explain this a little bit better.
[32:41] So the effect, it's almost a step back effect in many ways.
[32:47] So the visual here,
[32:48] and this is what we're kind of working with.
[32:51] So Addison Court, it's a preexisting non-conforming
[32:55] building for height.
[32:58] So it is taller than the current 65 foot cap,
[33:03] but really the 200 foot for
[33:07] that 45 foot cap pretty much includes both Addison Court
[33:10] and the Schlow Library.
[33:12] The applicant is proposing to change that pretty much
[33:16] to only be applicable to slow.
[33:19] So they have the ability when they redevelop Addison Court
[33:23] to build the entire building 2 65 feet in height.
[33:29] I, I believe we have Dan here as well to confirm and deny
[33:33] and explain to me this,
[33:34] but in essence it would just be applicable to the length of
[33:38] where the Schlow Library building is.
[33:41] So a little history on this property,
[33:42] it was originally developed through
[33:45] the federal government low income
[33:47] housing tax credit program.
[33:50] And that established an affordability period for the unit.
[33:53] So as in courts, an 89 unit lie tech apartment building.
[33:57] And that started in 94
[33:59] and the occupancy is restricted to persons 62
[34:04] and older and with disability
[34:07] and in that affordability range as well.
[34:12] These units,
[34:14] the Borough has received a land development plan submitted
[34:17] that was in December of 25.
[34:22] They, I would say staff is assuming
[34:24] that if this Ordinance amendment is granted,
[34:27] the applicant will resubmit the land development plan
[34:30] to comply with this new height allowance.
[34:34] The Land development plan does propose market rate student
[34:37] housing units
[34:39] and it will include inclusionary
[34:41] units in the building as well.
[34:44] Both Borough planning staff
[34:46] and Borough Planning Commission recommended against granting
[34:49] the text amendment Borough Council
[34:52] nonetheless elected to proceed with Public Hearing
[34:54] and county review.
[34:55] That's why we're looking at this as well, the primary basis
[34:59] for opposing this amendment throughout the comprehensive
[35:04] Zoning and SDO rewrite
[35:06] that they've been working on for many years.
[35:10] Overall, I would say
[35:12] that the Borough has maintained this idea
[35:14] of the historic town area where they do not want
[35:18] to permit a lot of height.
[35:20] So that's why you will see pretty much the core Allen Street
[35:24] and maybe two plus blocks coming up from there.
[35:28] Beaver College, they're typically lower buildings.
[35:31] So then you see the student housing development coming up
[35:33] around on the outer edges of town
[35:36] and it's to maintain that historic fabric of town.
[35:40] And essentially this amendment would not align
[35:44] with the current draft Ordinance that they are reviewing
[35:49] that is not yet adopted by allowing this type
[35:52] of height in this area and dance here.
[35:57] - Okay. First of all, welcome Dan. Thank you.
[36:00] Glad you're here. Pleasure.
[36:01] You may not be, but yeah, we're glad you're here
[36:05] at this point in time, are there any questions with regards
[36:08] to what was just presented?
[36:13] Go ahead, Tim. Actual
[36:15] - Question, I thought within the last week
[36:16] or so, the CDT reported
[36:18] that the Borough purchase status in court, or did I misread
[36:20] - That?
[36:21] Yeah, I'm, I'm happy to provide a little additional context
[36:23] because yes, that well and
[36:26] - Follow up then if so, is this, is this,
[36:29] - It's still on the table.
[36:30] Hasn't hasn't been officially withdrawn yet, but yes.
[36:32] The August 31st council meeting council approved a motion
[36:37] to enter into an agreement with Prime Core to essentially
[36:42] have the workings of an agreement to purchase the Borough,
[36:45] to purchase the building and then lease it back
[36:47] to Prime Core while pursuing the y tech tax credits to
[36:52] ultimately preserve the building
[36:54] as an affordable housing project.
[36:56] So there's, there's a lot of additional steps there, a lot
[36:59] of ifs, a lot of things that need to fall into place.
[37:01] But something that if, if you were to go back
[37:05] and watch the June planning commission presentation,
[37:10] the representative, excuse me,
[37:11] representative from Prime Core essentially said
[37:14] that they were still seeking the, the tax amendment,
[37:16] even though they were also pursuing the Lex
[37:20] Litech tax credits as well.
[37:21] And, and part of that was in the event that the
[37:25] tax credit application is not successful,
[37:27] then essentially there's, there's a fallback plan
[37:29] that they could still pursue. Okay.
[37:31] - So - Yes, lots of lots
[37:33] of changing situation on the ground.
[37:39] - Okay. Other questions, thoughts?
[37:42] Why you wanna buy Addison Court?
[37:46] I hear it's half empty, it needs extensive remodeling.
[37:51] No developer would want it.
[37:55] - That's - So you're gonna basically Borough money
[37:59] and put it into a sinkhole.
[38:04] Wow. Where was the question? Dan?
[38:07] Welcome to our meeting again. Yeah, I
[38:12] - I would, I would perhaps direct you towards the,
[38:15] the CNET recordings for the recent council meetings.
[38:20] Yeah, there is. I would say that there was,
[38:22] there was very strong turnout
[38:25] to the planning commission meetings, the council meetings.
[38:28] There was, there was a lot of clamoring to,
[38:31] to preserve Addison Court.
[38:33] I, I think, I don't really have
[38:34] to go into the, the, the details.
[38:35] I think having affordable housing in the heart
[38:38] of downtown State College is,
[38:40] is not something the market's gonna build on its own.
[38:42] So we're basically, this is kind of
[38:45] where things have landed so far.
[38:47] - So you can't find anybody to buy it the way it exists.
[38:53] - Me, I haven't been looking.
[38:55] - Well, I'm just saying there's no other bid out there
[38:57] for the way it exists now.
[39:00] There's no free enterprise market guy going,
[39:02] I'm gonna buy Edison Court and keep it as affordable housing
[39:05] and I'm gonna pay this amount of money for it
[39:07] and it'll be a really good business move on my part.
[39:12] - Well I, you know, yeah, I'm, I mean I'm not privy
[39:14] to all the, all the, the conversations that have been had,
[39:17] but my, my understanding is that the, the the with the plan
[39:20] that's, that's currently being pursued,
[39:22] that the current building would, would be rehabilitated
[39:25] and then ideally it would be, I am,
[39:29] I'm a little foggy on all the specifics of Litech,
[39:31] so if I speak outta turn, hopefully I'll get corrected.
[39:34] But my understanding is the, the original
[39:36] affordability term was 30 years.
[39:39] I think with this new tax credit application,
[39:43] it would then go into like a 40 year affordability period.
[39:46] I, I believe believe that's the updated term.
[39:48] It's not 40, but, so with
[39:50] - The line tech developer is interested
[39:52] - In doing it.
[39:53] There is a developer that is willing rehab,
[39:56] - They get the tax credit.
[39:57] - In this case it's prime court,
[39:58] it's the same applicant seeking the tax amendment.
[40:01] They, they're the ones
[40:02] that would be entering into the agreement
[40:03] with the Borough to, to do this.
[40:06] - Okay. - Okay.
[40:10] - Bill, my initial sense of all
[40:15] of this is from an outsider looking
[40:20] in the Addison court issue is one
[40:25] of those huggable issues.
[40:27] In other words, you know, it, looking at the nuts
[40:31] and bolts, the, the, the, the financing, the realities
[40:38] has not been a part of the discussion.
[40:40] Probably because the community
[40:44] has overwhelmingly in my mind, outspoken
[40:48] or spoken about re keeping this property.
[40:53] But I'm going to indicate that at the moment I'm against
[40:58] this request being made until
[41:04] and wait until the,
[41:08] the Addison Court future
[41:12] has been determined.
[41:16] I think this is is a, a premature kind of thing.
[41:20] I don't know whether the borough's gonna end up buying it
[41:22] or not, but I, I would prefer that
[41:27] we know what the future of that building is going to be
[41:32] before we make some Zoning changes
[41:37] in this case height, height changes in that area.
[41:41] That's my sense at this point in terms of
[41:46] I would be voting against this request.
[41:52] - Other thoughts on that from other members?
[41:55] - Yeah, I have a thought. I I I was reading the,
[41:58] the small front and it seems like planning
[42:00] commission is against this.
[42:03] The Borough council overruled.
[42:04] Said no, let, let's put it to vote.
[42:06] So it sounds like it's an eternal issue.
[42:08] Like I don't know why we need to be weighing in.
[42:11] I'm a Borough resident. I I've been part
[42:12] of the Z RAC rezoning committee
[42:14] and building heights is a very contentious issue in the
[42:18] Borough and why, why is it coming to us?
[42:22] It's like, it seems like their whole house is not in order
[42:27] and I don't really realize why we have standing here.
[42:33] - Okay. - I appreciate you saying that.
[42:36] 'cause I've been trying to figure out is a resident halfway
[42:38] Township, why am I being asked
[42:41] to give feedback on this proposal?
[42:43] - Well, any amendments too Zoning marcalo for any
[42:47] of these six State College municipalities that is
[42:51] this committee role or commission's role content on those
[42:55] - To bill's point, and again, I'm not a developer,
[42:58] but like if we grant this,
[43:00] then the land becomes more valuable.
[43:04] Absolutely. You get more density. Absolutely.
[43:06] And so as the developer doing that in the wheeling
[43:09] and dealing to the Borough, I kind of like bill's point,
[43:11] like let's table this until things are sorted out
[43:16] between the, the purchase if the
[43:18] borough's gonna purchase this or not.
[43:22] - Okay. Is - It more density
[43:24] or is it just keeping it as dense
[43:26] as it has been even though it's out of current zone?
[43:28] It would depend how bad of shape if it is in, like,
[43:33] if it is just rehab,
[43:35] it's already taller than your 65 foot permitted.
[43:39] But if you're talking demo, we're building a new building,
[43:42] they're gonna lose two stories to meet current regulations.
[43:47] - Right. But the value
[43:48] of the property is based on development potential regardless
[43:51] whether they do the development or not.
[43:59] - Okay. Commission thoughts.
[44:03] I mean one of the things we can do,
[44:05] there's, we can go two routes.
[44:06] One, They're still gonna be working on things
[44:11] and they're still gonna be pursuing things
[44:13] whether we send a letter of support
[44:15] or not at this point in time.
[44:19] So if we send a letter, a, a letter of support saying yeah,
[44:22] we support it and we were, we're gonna have the belief
[44:26] that somebody's gonna do things in, in good conscience
[44:28] and due diligence and everything else
[44:30] and the proper decisions that could happen.
[44:34] We can also indicate that
[44:36] after our discussion at this time
[44:40] the CRPC does not feel like they could support
[44:45] without certain things.
[44:48] Whether the identification as to what's exactly gonna happen
[44:51] to this building or not.
[44:53] We, we can put those constraints in there
[44:55] and explain why we're not supporting it.
[44:58] And that would be my recommendation.
[45:00] 'cause it appears that there's several people
[45:02] that are looking at questioning
[45:03] and saying that, well then let's say
[45:08] we don't support this at this time from the CRPC standpoint
[45:12] and here's three things or two things,
[45:14] or here's a couple things
[45:15] that we feel should be addressed prior
[45:18] to it coming back to us.
[45:20] Does that make sense? Yes. Do we agree with that?
[45:26] I can, yeah. I can't support it. Okay.
[45:28] - I can offer a - Bill, you're up
[45:33] - The Centre Region Planning Commission
[45:36] recommend against granting the request
[45:39] until the future long-term status
[45:41] of Addison Court has been determined.
[45:48] - Is there anything else that should be added to that?
[45:50] Cons in constraints?
[45:52] I thought there was something else we had in there.
[45:56] I don't think it should, the building should get any bigger.
[46:01] I don't. Okay. We don't
[46:03] support a change the building height.
[46:05] I don't think it should change the building height. Okay.
[46:07] Not in that section of town. No.
[46:08] Let's be transparent so
[46:10] that this way they know, hey, guess what?
[46:12] And they're still gonna have the ability to do kind of
[46:16] what they want at some point in time.
[46:17] They're gonna force things through. Yeah.
[46:19] But at least they're gonna realize that guess what?
[46:22] There were some people that gave us some thought
[46:24] and did, did weren't in line with what your line
[46:29] of thinking was when you did this.
[46:30] Well part of that, my opinion was
[46:32] that I do not believe it is fully teed at this time period.
[46:37] You know, so why are we making it bigger?
[46:40] - Well I think the point was originally
[46:43] the developer was gonna demolish the building
[46:44] and build student housing and he
[46:46] wants to build a taller building.
[46:47] Right. It's not that they're gonna put an ad on top
[46:50] - Of the existing No, they can't.
[46:51] Right. They have to knock it down. Yeah.
[46:53] - Well if they're knocking this building down right now,
[46:56] it will at least be two stories shorter.
[46:58] Right now it is taller than what is permitted at the
[47:01] - Zoning district.
[47:02] Right. Just to clarify, since they're,
[47:03] since they'll be putting inclusionary housing units in,
[47:05] - They would get, oh, they will get the height,
[47:06] they would get
[47:07] - An additional story from - That.
[47:08] So, so what, what, what way is the best way to word this
[47:11] where we want it to stay?
[47:14] Basically what the height and size is
[47:17] and be renovated, which it can be
[47:22] that would that that to me would be the,
[47:24] what I would be pushing for.
[47:28] - I don't think you're gonna find a development
[47:30] that's gonna want run that, but that money into it,
[47:32] - Honest, - I mean with all due respect,
[47:34] I don't know if I agreed with your point
[47:36] like about the height. Like
[47:38] - We can have that debate later,
[47:40] - But to me, like I don't even want
[47:41] to have that debate yet because
[47:43] - They haven't made up their
[47:44] mind whether they're gonna buy it or not.
[47:45] Right.
[47:47] - I understand that. - I think there's a lot
[47:49] of time available and the Borough is working on that draft
[47:53] Zoning Ordinance,
[47:54] that comprehensive update which is not aligned
[47:57] with this amendment and they're still working out.
[48:02] The Borough is gonna buy it or not.
[48:05] And maybe whatever they want that area to be,
[48:08] they address it in the draft Zoning Ordinance.
[48:11] I think it's supposed to be adopted by the end of the year.
[48:14] - I'm not gonna speak to that. Right.
[48:18] But exactly to your point, the reason that
[48:21] both staff recommended against the tax amendment
[48:23] and planning com to speak on behalf
[48:26] of planning commission at my own peril, I believe the least,
[48:29] and they also voted against it was
[48:31] because there was a deliberate recognition that there needed
[48:35] to, we needed to separate these two questions,
[48:37] both like future Madison in court,
[48:39] but then also this text amendment kind
[48:41] of weighed on its own merits.
[48:43] And having heard from council
[48:45] in discussions about the new Zoning Ordinance
[48:47] that they wanted to maintain lower heights, this,
[48:51] this text amendment seemed to be indirect kind
[48:55] of conflict with that intent.
[48:57] So that was really the rationale.
[48:59] - So what I've heard so far is that
[49:02] that future long-term status
[49:04] of Addison court should be determined before we can support
[49:08] and that there is not support for the building height in
[49:11] that section of town getting higher. Well
[49:14] - I don't, I'm an asterisk on that.
[49:16] I don't agree with that last piece.
[49:18] - So, you know, that's what I didn't know that was the one
[49:20] that, right.
[49:22] What is the plan? That's what Jeff said.
[49:24] So what is the majority?
[49:27] - Well, and I kind of like what was just said in terms of
[49:30] there are really two different issues here and,
[49:35] and that's why I guess I started my comments
[49:39] with the huggable one.
[49:41] There's the huggable issue and,
[49:44] and what should happen in this location.
[49:47] And then there's the, the building height, Zoning issue
[49:52] with regard to the Borough.
[49:54] And, and I think, you know,
[50:03] I think that the huggable issue has to be resolved first
[50:09] in order for them us to look at
[50:11] or the Borough to look at if they want to change
[50:14] their height restrictions
[50:18] or height requirements
[50:20] for the, for the
[50:24] building. Jeff,
[50:27] - Who owns this building?
[50:29] - Prime court. Prime - The development.
[50:31] So Prime Court wants to do this
[50:34] and they want you to buy it for a certain amount of money,
[50:36] but it's not rent, it's not renting to that amount of money.
[50:39] And so they'd like it to build higher
[50:41] because then they have a piece of property
[50:42] that is worth a lot more money and they can build higher
[50:45] and knock the building down.
[50:47] It sounds like they, if they need to sell it, they need
[50:51] to lower their price so they can get the renovations done
[50:54] and hopefully then it, it would rent.
[50:58] - Well what I, what I can say is based on the
[51:01] August 31st council meeting, the, the agreement
[51:04] that's currently being pursued is for the Borough to buy it
[51:07] for 15,750,000.
[51:11] So there's already basically an agreement
[51:15] that's being pursued there. So there, there's,
[51:16] - There's And can they renovate it for that amount of money?
[51:18] - My, again, without knowing the full, full workings of,
[51:22] of the agreement, but my understanding is that
[51:25] that would entail, rehabilitation
[51:28] Borough would lease it back.
[51:30] So Prime Core would then manage the building again,
[51:34] presumably for the, for the full period.
[51:36] The full term. And I'm sure there's a lot
[51:39] of legalese in there too, which again,
[51:41] I can't speak to, but,
[51:46] - So maybe the response is that we need,
[51:50] there can't support
[51:52] because the future long-term status needs to be determined
[51:55] of Addison court before we look at the height requirement
[51:59] requests or you take a stance.
[52:04] Yeah, well we know where Neil and Jeff are, but that's,
[52:07] - Yeah, I look at the, the, the Borough is, is also,
[52:11] you know, 95% hopefully finished
[52:16] with their whole rezoning effort.
[52:20] It's been a long, long time coming and,
[52:25] and I feel that that I want
[52:28] that rezoning in the furrow to kind of dictate where,
[52:33] where the future of this
[52:35] or something else is gonna be rather than, I,
[52:40] I hate to say at the last minute, but at the end
[52:44] or near the end of the rezoning process to, to
[52:50] make some, some changes that may be contrary to
[52:55] the new Zoning design
[52:58] and adoption that they have in mind.
[53:06] So I think there are a couple of reasons
[53:07] for not supporting that.
[53:09] And, and one of 'em could be that, that it needs
[53:14] to be in compliance with the new, the the the,
[53:19] they can always change the draft.
[53:22] They can always change the draft. Oh
[53:23] - Yeah. Right. This is advisory.
[53:25] - So it's just, you know,
[53:27] but we could also include in there that we would like
[53:31] to see consistency that when the final draft comes out,
[53:35] that whatever they propose is consistent with
[53:38] what their draft says it's gonna have.
[53:42] So if there's agreement with the communication
[53:47] that we're talking about, sending them
[53:49] that we're not in support at this time,
[53:53] we can take a motion on that from that standpoint.
[53:56] That this is where we're at. We're not supporting it
[54:01] - Because of not having the long-term status
[54:05] of Addison court determined
[54:07] and that we believe it should be consistent
[54:10] with the new Zoning.
[54:12] Yeah. That way we're not saying what the height should be,
[54:15] we're just saying it should be consistent.
[54:17] Right. Yep.
[54:19] - I would agree with that. Yeah.
[54:20] - I buy, I buy that
[54:22] - Feeling a little bit lost here if I understand
[54:24] what you're saying or what we've been saying is
[54:27] that the height restriction only applies if the building is
[54:30] demolished and a new building is built that
[54:33] if it's simply rehabbed,
[54:34] it's grandfathered and the old thing.
[54:35] And so the, the only way that this Ordinance is,
[54:39] or the only situation this Ordinance is relevant is if the
[54:42] building is demolished and a new building is built.
[54:44] If, if what you're saying is the Borough buy, lease it back
[54:48] and the existing building would be renovated,
[54:50] there's absolutely no reason to do this at all.
[54:53] But whereas doing this creates the opportunity for
[54:56] the building to be demolished.
[54:59] Right. If you don't, do I
[55:00] understand that correctly. Yeah. If
[55:01] - You don't come up - With the money, the building will
[55:03] - Be gone.
[55:04] Yeah. And actually to go into a little bit more detail,
[55:07] so they've submitted a land development plan
[55:09] under the existing Ordinance and,
[55:11] and again they're, they are petitioned
[55:13] to get the text amendment so that they would be able
[55:15] to resubmit with the increased height again,
[55:17] under the existing Ordinance at present,
[55:21] if the draft Zoning Ordinance were adopted as written today,
[55:25] they would actually be even losing more entitlement again.
[55:29] It would be actually, again,
[55:30] the height would be brought down even further than
[55:31] what's permitted today.
[55:34] So in a sense, there again, there's like a lot
[55:37] of moving parts here, but so
[55:40] - They have a plan that is vested under the existing height
[55:44] - Regardless.
[55:45] It's, it's, it's not vested yet either.
[55:46] Oh, so they're still preliminary plan approval stage
[55:48] or it's not yet approved.
[55:50] They're preliminary so they're not yet vested.
[55:53] - Well, and, and, and I guess and,
[55:55] and I'm certainly not well versed in financing
[56:00] of any kind when it comes to this municipal stuff,
[56:03] let alone the Borough, but I certainly would like to see
[56:08] how the Borough intends to pay for the 15 million
[56:13] - Taxes - Because, well, you know, I've heard a lot of,
[56:18] already the rumors have started, you know, well,
[56:21] we'll we'll be asking each of the municipalities
[56:24] to kick in a little money and all.
[56:26] Yeah. But 15 million is a lot to raise
[56:30] and I'm not sure the finances of the Borough are such,
[56:34] I mean certainly there's a borrowing capacity
[56:37] and certainly there's an opportunity to, to get some good
[56:42] financing percentages in terms of, of rates
[56:48] for this kind of activity.
[56:51] But I really would
[56:55] just having gone, I hate to bring it up,
[56:57] but just having gone Well I
[56:59] - Think at this case, the game we've,
[57:01] we've determined we're we're not,
[57:03] we're not gonna support it.
[57:04] Yes. So let's, let's, and I'd like her
[57:07] - What you, I think your wording, let's,
[57:09] - Let's let's move in that direction.
[57:12] Okay. And,
[57:13] and if it comes back to us then it could be
[57:15] for further discussion and future discussion
[57:18] and, and go from there.
[57:21] So is, is there a motion to send the, the clear message
[57:26] and the recommendation coming out of our commission
[57:28] as it was stated here?
[57:31] And if there is I'll need a motion
[57:32] and a second I motion So, okay.
[57:35] One second. Got a second. Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye.
[57:40] Aye. Opposed? Okay.
[57:46] Okay.
[57:54] All right. Moving off of that,
[58:00] we now have moving
[58:05] into the policy agenda and the comprehensive plan update.
[58:10] - Alright, so we have met at all the municipalities.
[58:14] So we are tonight gonna look at things from a
[58:16] more regional perspective.
[58:18] Some of this will be familiar
[58:21] but we're gonna walk through it at more of a regional level.
[58:26] We're gonna talk about the future land use map
[58:29] and the process for
[58:31] how it gets incorporated into the comprehensive plan.
[58:35] We'll review the draft future land use map so
[58:37] that not only are you seeing your own municipality,
[58:40] but all the pieces together.
[58:42] We'll go through the open house results on the
[58:45] prioritization of the goals, talk about criteria
[58:49] for future growth areas,
[58:51] then pivot a little bit into shared land uses as that's one
[58:54] of the things that's coming next.
[58:57] So first for the future land use map, that is a component
[59:01] of the comprehensive plan.
[59:03] We've been through all the planning commission meetings
[59:07] to go through
[59:09] and talk about the joint meeting
[59:10] that was held earlier this spring or summer.
[59:13] And those dates are on the left tonight
[59:16] we have the draft future land use map that you'll be seeing.
[59:21] The governing bodies are now in the process
[59:25] of reviewing the PC recommendations, right?
[59:28] All the PCs have moved it forward to their boards
[59:31] or councils and those meetings are on the right
[59:35] because of the timeline.
[59:38] CRPC will see the final draft at their November 5th meeting,
[59:43] at which time we'll be looking to get that approved so that
[59:47] that's incorporated into the comprehensive plan.
[59:52] So here is the future land use map as proposed.
[59:57] If you recall the land use classifications are on the
[1:00:00] left of the different colors.
[1:00:02] You'll see the regional growth boundaries. That black line.
[1:00:05] So outside of the regional growth boundary
[1:00:07] as we talked about is
[1:00:08] where there is less land use classifications.
[1:00:11] 'cause that's not an area that's focused on growth.
[1:00:14] It identifies what's there
[1:00:17] inside the regional growth boundary.
[1:00:19] What is where we've got designated growth.
[1:00:22] So those classifications, there's a lot more variety
[1:00:27] and all of the municipalities have been looking at data
[1:00:32] and the capacity within.
[1:00:35] And most of them have, in fact all
[1:00:37] of them have been looking at
[1:00:38] how can we designate more growth within looking at where
[1:00:43] there are available parcels
[1:00:45] and changing some of those land use classifications
[1:00:48] for more density, more efficient use of the land.
[1:00:51] And also looking at what the needs are of their community.
[1:00:56] You can see that College Township has identified some future
[1:01:00] growth areas and that little inset there
[1:01:04] says future growth areas, designate locations
[1:01:07] beyond the regional growth boundary sewer service area
[1:01:09] that may accommodate longer term residential
[1:01:12] and employment growth, including higher density
[1:01:15] and more intensive uses.
[1:01:18] Should future conditions warrant expansion
[1:01:20] of the regional growth boundaries sewer service area?
[1:01:23] And should infrastructure
[1:01:24] and public utilities be extendable to support such growth.
[1:01:28] So just wanna note that it is not saying
[1:01:31] that these future growth areas are a saying
[1:01:34] that we're expanding now, it's just we're starting to plan
[1:01:38] for where future growth should be when
[1:01:41] conditions warrant it.
[1:01:44] So it's again, just important to understand that we went
[1:01:48] through and
[1:01:49] provided data at these joint meetings
[1:01:51] to talk about the red cap report
[1:01:53] that looks at the capacity within
[1:01:55] and recognize that there's sufficient capacity
[1:01:58] to support the projected growth.
[1:02:01] However, we don't control the build rate, market demand,
[1:02:06] who owns the property, who's willing to sell.
[1:02:08] So it makes sense to look at some future growth areas
[1:02:12] and plan for where we want future growth.
[1:02:17] And if you look at where growth is happening in Centre
[1:02:20] County beyond our Centre Region,
[1:02:22] it is happening in that area.
[1:02:24] So those two areas are designated as future growth areas.
[1:02:30] You might also recall
[1:02:31] during the joint meetings we talked about some long-term
[1:02:33] sewage issues related to older septic tank
[1:02:37] type failure potentials.
[1:02:39] And that we've decided that it's
[1:02:42] these situations we're not gonna identify all those on
[1:02:45] the future land use map.
[1:02:46] It's really, we're gonna address those
[1:02:48] through existing planning and regulatory mechanisms.
[1:02:50] It will be discussed in the comprehensive plan
[1:02:52] as a future action for planning that needs to occur.
[1:02:59] So that's a future land use map.
[1:03:01] I'm gonna go through the whole thing
[1:03:03] unless you guys prefer that we stop and talk about this
[1:03:05] and if there's any comments,
[1:03:08] - Thoughts, I reluctantly am going
[1:03:12] to make a que ask a question of staff,
[1:03:16] but I I I don't want to turn this thing on its head.
[1:03:20] Was there any discussion either
[1:03:25] internally with staff
[1:03:27] or with Ferguson Township in terms of their staff
[1:03:32] at connecting the primary growth area between where it is
[1:03:37] and Pine Grove Mills?
[1:03:39] The fact that Pine Grove Mills is an isolated area.
[1:03:43] I don't have a zoo map,
[1:03:45] but it's the, the yellow area down at the bottom
[1:03:48] and it is disconnected from the rest of the
[1:03:53] primary growth area.
[1:03:56] And was there, was there any discussion about that area?
[1:04:01] - The area was discussed at the joint meeting
[1:04:05] and it was, I believe, position that if we had to grow
[1:04:11] we should look at that area to make that connection.
[1:04:14] But given the red cap data, Ferguson has
[1:04:18] three over 3000 approved units
[1:04:23] existing within the regional
[1:04:24] growth boundary that aren't built yet.
[1:04:26] And they did, at least the board didn't think that it's time
[1:04:30] for them to consider additional growth
[1:04:33] when there is so much within
[1:04:36] - The, the land between the two folks is,
[1:04:38] is almost all agricultural land.
[1:04:42] And of course Ferguson has a major commitment to ag land,
[1:04:48] but I didn't want to get in a situation given the length
[1:04:52] of time of our comprehensive plan
[1:04:54] and how far out that is that if something were
[1:04:59] to develop where it becomes logical to make
[1:05:04] that connection, that the statement would be made
[1:05:08] by the regional staff to say that this is not in compliance
[1:05:12] with the regional plan.
[1:05:15] - Yeah, I would say Ferguson
[1:05:17] and Half Moon identified future future growth areas
[1:05:20] that we'll keep in our records
[1:05:22] but that we're not ready to be on the future land use map.
[1:05:26] And that's one of the areas.
[1:05:28] - Okay. Thank you. I feel better about that.
[1:05:31] Yeah, like I said, I I, I don't want
[1:05:33] to turn things upside down, but it just seems
[1:05:36] - Yep.
[1:05:37] Yeah, this is where we are now,
[1:05:37] but we do, we'll be keeping a file that says future
[1:05:42] growth areas for the next round.
[1:05:43] Like, so that that documentation will exist. Okay.
[1:05:49] - Just curious, would you, I know you this at the municipal
[1:05:52] level would, in what ways your thinking about
[1:05:56] how this relates to potential bicycle routes
[1:05:59] and transportation and stuff?
[1:06:01] 'cause I'm looking at, I've noticing there's a lot
[1:06:02] of green areas that are,
[1:06:03] that are non non-designated growth areas,
[1:06:06] but yet relatively close to the kind
[1:06:08] of the commercial industrial core of the region.
[1:06:11] And I would think it would be beneficial
[1:06:13] to have those areas have residential development
[1:06:16] earlier than some of the places more farther out as a way
[1:06:20] to be able to manage traffic
[1:06:21] and have more opportunities for a bus
[1:06:23] and other, you know, bicycle transportation.
[1:06:25] Yeah.
[1:06:28] - What areas specifically?
[1:06:29] - Yeah, so you're, say that again.
[1:06:33] Like where are you at? Give an example
[1:06:35] - Green spot.
[1:06:36] The, the, the large green spot directly north of,
[1:06:37] I'm assuming that the blue kind
[1:06:38] of Penn State University up here.
[1:06:41] No, to the right. The light green just right there.
[1:06:44] Yeah, right there. Yeah.
[1:06:45] - How is the hollow - Yeah, that's, that's big, big hollow.
[1:06:50] So there's it, it's a,
[1:06:54] - And I think difficult - Area.
[1:06:56] - I wanna be clear, I'm not, I'm not arguing one way
[1:06:58] or another to, to talk about these,
[1:06:59] but in the process of putting this together, just yeah,
[1:07:03] be thinking about those elements in there. Yeah.
[1:07:06] - Yes. I think logically we all want to try to fill in
[1:07:10] where we can before we look to go out even
[1:07:14] - Further. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[1:07:16] - But yeah, that area and I actually think
[1:07:18] - Looks like the, the
[1:07:19] quarry assuming is the gray area there.
[1:07:20] Yeah. That the whole area.
[1:07:22] And I know there's some topographical issues
[1:07:24] and stuff, but, and
[1:07:25] - I clearly want to compliment the staff and,
[1:07:28] and what the work that, that everybody has done on staff
[1:07:32] to come up with the data to verify
[1:07:37] that we don't need to be, you know, blowing up hundreds
[1:07:42] of acres into, into development that we have
[1:07:46] what is projected to be our growth
[1:07:49] well covered at the moment.
[1:07:51] Because there was a lot of, there's a lot of talk about,
[1:07:55] about, oh, you know, we need more room and we need this
[1:07:58] and that and the other thing.
[1:07:59] And, and I, I wanna compliment you guys on, on doing the job
[1:08:03] that you did to, to come up with some of that data.
[1:08:07] 'cause 'cause that really shuts down some
[1:08:11] of this other growth stuff that,
[1:08:14] - That isn't really appropriate.
[1:08:17] Jeff, show me your arrow
[1:08:20] where the sewage treatment plant is.
[1:08:23] - Sewage treatment plant
[1:08:24] - Is, there you go.
[1:08:25] That makes sense now
[1:08:27] because you're not, it's an awful long way
[1:08:30] to put a sewer line at the end of Ferguson Township.
[1:08:32] Oh yeah. Property values would be 400,000 an re
[1:08:37] unless they build a whole nother sewage treatment plant.
[1:08:40] So I don't think you have to worry about
[1:08:42] that part down there.
[1:08:43] That makes them most Well they had one of their owns.
[1:08:46] Yeah, they had one of their own at one time.
[1:08:48] If Pine Grove Mills,
[1:08:50] - That's why Pinegrove - Failures,
[1:08:53] but that's gone, right?
[1:08:55] - Yeah. There is failure.
[1:08:56] All right, so that's the draft bloom.
[1:08:58] If more questions come at the end, you can
[1:09:01] keep asking and think about that.
[1:09:04] So as part of the joint meetings.
[1:09:06] We had an open house prior to each municipal meeting,
[1:09:10] and then we also had one open house at the general forum
[1:09:13] to invite anybody who may be missed their individual one.
[1:09:16] And so we had over 200 people participate in the
[1:09:19] open houses overall.
[1:09:21] And I'm gonna go through the big ideas where we asked
[1:09:25] all participants to identify their top three
[1:09:28] priorities among the goals.
[1:09:30] So these are the goals that we've identified.
[1:09:33] And what we are, we're looking for is feedback on, you know,
[1:09:38] priorities from the community,
[1:09:39] but also whether we have the right goals.
[1:09:41] We asked what, what's missing?
[1:09:43] And then yeah, what's missing?
[1:09:45] And are these goals the appropriate?
[1:09:48] So first big idea is fostering housing variety.
[1:09:52] And what you can see here is that there's, you know,
[1:09:55] interest in all of these at different levels
[1:09:57] and that they really want more types
[1:09:59] of housing available, right?
[1:10:01] So when we look at developing strategies,
[1:10:03] we're gonna be looking at actions that address both sides of
[1:10:07] housing choices, more diversity as well
[1:10:10] as affordability, right?
[1:10:12] So that's kind of helps us see,
[1:10:14] but again, there's not a clear winner.
[1:10:16] There's the first three, get the highest three points,
[1:10:20] but they all are relevant.
[1:10:22] Then the big idea for connecting beyond cars for this one,
[1:10:28] what you see here is really a lot of support for all
[1:10:31] of them, and it's pretty well blended.
[1:10:34] So it really is about making it easier
[1:10:36] and safer for people to get
[1:10:38] around the region in different ways
[1:10:39] and making good use of the infrastructure we already have.
[1:10:42] And so, to Tim's point, what some of the strategies
[1:10:46] that we should be looking at is on connectivity
[1:10:49] and filling in the gaps
[1:10:51] and trying to help people be able to make transportation
[1:10:55] decisions like walking, biking,
[1:10:56] and transit more practically
[1:11:01] for the big idea on partnering for a thriving future,
[1:11:06] this one, again, there's the,
[1:11:09] the biggest one is sustaining the Centre Region
[1:11:12] as a vibrant, liv livable place to live, work, and grow.
[1:11:16] So what we're kind of seeing here, depending on
[1:11:19] how you wanna interpret it, is
[1:11:20] that residents aren't necessarily asking
[1:11:22] for growth for growth's sake.
[1:11:24] They're interested in quality of growth
[1:11:27] and what it contributes to the community.
[1:11:32] But again, that sustaining the Centre Region
[1:11:34] as a vibrant place, that's an important quality
[1:11:36] that the residents want to continue to see.
[1:11:39] That being part of the planning process for the big idea,
[1:11:43] advancing purposeful community design,
[1:11:47] this category produced one of the biggest, right?
[1:11:50] 47. So that repurposing
[1:11:52] and revitalizing existing infrastructure was a repeat
[1:11:56] that we've definitely been hearing throughout this
[1:11:58] comprehensive plan process.
[1:12:00] It gets back to the future land use map discussions
[1:12:03] that we've been having about supporting infill
[1:12:05] and reinvestment in existing communities.
[1:12:07] These, and then lastly,
[1:12:11] the fifth big idea is cultivating environmental stewardship.
[1:12:15] Again, when you look at this, there's broad support for all
[1:12:18] of these, but this is really about people expecting us
[1:12:22] to plan for growth while also protecting the resources
[1:12:25] that make the Centre Region what it is, right?
[1:12:27] Protecting our water natural and agricultural lands.
[1:12:32] So when we look at all these, you know, they've been
[1:12:36] reviewed through the municipal joint meetings,
[1:12:38] staff round tables is how we, you know, we're working
[1:12:41] to get these and the public open houses, we don't,
[1:12:45] we didn't see any gaps.
[1:12:46] We nobody put something that we were, you know, missing.
[1:12:51] So before we move into full strategy development, we wanted
[1:12:54] to get CRPC, the opportunity to react to these
[1:12:58] and see if you had something that you think were missing
[1:13:00] or that doesn't make sense to you related to these goals.
[1:13:05] So, I don't know if you have any thoughts on the goals
[1:13:09] and what we heard from the community,
[1:13:13] - See anything missing from the results
[1:13:15] that are been proposed?
[1:13:18] It's in your packet.
[1:13:25] - All right, I'll keep going.
[1:13:29] So, as we talked at the municipal level,
[1:13:33] we are looking at, you know, planning for future growth.
[1:13:37] And so what we're interested in is creating this two,
[1:13:41] two-tiered approach for analyzing when
[1:13:47] and where we should be growing
[1:13:49] this growth suitability framework can be used
[1:13:53] and helpful for when municipalities are evaluating where
[1:13:56] and whether to expand the regional growth boundary.
[1:13:59] Currently we have a regional growth boundary sewer service
[1:14:02] implementation agreement that's that DRI process.
[1:14:06] And what we would look at af you know, as,
[1:14:09] as this gets incorporated into the comprehensive plan,
[1:14:12] is updating that implementation agreement to try
[1:14:15] to identify these criteria on the left as the first
[1:14:19] to see whether it makes sense to include it.
[1:14:22] And then also making sure we're dealing
[1:14:23] with these environmental
[1:14:25] and infrastructure issues on the right.
[1:14:27] So if there are things that you think are missing
[1:14:31] or that we should be considering, we're looking
[1:14:34] for feedback on that to make sure that we continue
[1:14:39] to plan for future growth in areas
[1:14:42] that we want and support that.
[1:14:44] And recognizing that we have a lot
[1:14:47] of prime soils in this region.
[1:14:50] We also have cariology, so we're,
[1:14:52] we know we can't completely avoid things,
[1:14:55] but that's where the planning
[1:14:56] and trying to look at best practices to minimize
[1:15:00] the negative impacts.
[1:15:07] So then we'll pivot a bit into shared land uses,
[1:15:10] which is one of the things that's coming next.
[1:15:12] And we talked at the municipality PCs
[1:15:16] to give this update on the benefits
[1:15:19] of shared land use, right?
[1:15:20] We've, we've been regionally planning,
[1:15:23] we've had regional comprehensive plans that give us
[1:15:26] the sense of sharing of land uses.
[1:15:29] But what we are looking in this comprehensive plan is
[1:15:33] to actually identify a list of shared land uses
[1:15:36] and an implementation agreement
[1:15:38] that talks about the process.
[1:15:40] And these shared land uses can help the Centre Region
[1:15:42] coordinate growth, avoid conflicting land use patterns,
[1:15:46] and ensure that the needs are met without requiring every
[1:15:50] community to accommodate every use.
[1:15:52] So it gives us more consistent policies,
[1:15:55] it's stronger Ordinance, defensibility,
[1:15:57] and then those development patterns that can align
[1:15:59] with each community's character and capacity.
[1:16:02] So we are trying
[1:16:04] to make sure everybody understands the concept
[1:16:07] and that really it's taking what we're already doing
[1:16:09] and codifying it
[1:16:11] and allowing the municipalities to be able
[1:16:14] to really hone in on what they can specialize in.
[1:16:19] This is a list of some shared land uses
[1:16:23] that are being considered right now.
[1:16:24] We've been talking at the staff municipal level
[1:16:28] since probably June.
[1:16:30] We're narrowing the list down, trying
[1:16:32] to make it a reasonable list.
[1:16:35] This is completely subject to change
[1:16:38] as there are definitely gonna be some negotiations of
[1:16:42] who is going to do what, what
[1:16:45] and what each specialty, you know, area
[1:16:48] where things are going to belong.
[1:16:50] So we are not bringing to you today the list
[1:16:54] of shared land uses,
[1:16:55] we just wanna make sure there's understanding
[1:16:57] and then here if there concerns
[1:16:59] or questions so that we can make sure
[1:17:01] that those are being addressed.
[1:17:04] So basically what's next, the future land use map is going
[1:17:08] through the approval process
[1:17:10] and should be getting wrapped up.
[1:17:12] The shared land uses is another leg
[1:17:15] of the comprehensive plan that we are trying to make part
[1:17:18] of this comprehensive plan.
[1:17:19] And that will go through the end of the year.
[1:17:23] In the a future meeting,
[1:17:25] you should be seeing probably the November one, a draft list
[1:17:28] of shared uses and the implementation agreement.
[1:17:31] Basically we're getting staff
[1:17:32] and municipal agreement, then solicitor discussion,
[1:17:36] then it'll come to the planning commission
[1:17:42] - Question, Pam, in terms of, I'm all in favor
[1:17:44] of shared use, I mean a hundred percent,
[1:17:48] but my big concern is we're a bit awkward
[1:17:53] in this region at, at agreeing on
[1:17:58] multiple municipalities kinds of things
[1:18:03] in a shared use agreement.
[1:18:07] If, if Ferguson is in that agreement
[1:18:11] with College Township
[1:18:14] and there becomes a need may, maybe three townships,
[1:18:19] there becomes a need to change the,
[1:18:23] the wording in the Zoning
[1:18:28] district that we're sharing use.
[1:18:30] Does that mean that all three of us then have to agree
[1:18:36] and, and you know, publicly vote on making
[1:18:40] that change? So
[1:18:42] - The municipality who is the one, the owner if you want
[1:18:47] to call it, will be able to make their decision.
[1:18:51] The regional Planning Agency commission will have to review.
[1:18:55] 'cause if they're reducing or taking it away, we have
[1:18:58] to do an analysis to make sure that the region is covered.
[1:19:02] But the owner can change a definition if
[1:19:06] that's what it is,
[1:19:08] - Or add a - Definition or add a definition.
[1:19:11] You know, you learn best practices, you learn things
[1:19:14] that you want to tighten it up.
[1:19:16] Then the other municipalities who are sharing that will have
[1:19:19] to update to, to match.
[1:19:21] But if they're looking at removing that land use,
[1:19:24] then it impacts everybody.
[1:19:26] But again, they are able to do it.
[1:19:30] But C-R-P-C-C-R-P-A would have,
[1:19:33] we'd be looking at it as well.
[1:19:35] Now that can't be a shared land use, so we would have
[1:19:38] to adjust the implementation agreement.
[1:19:40] - It would seem to me that we've got to, we've got
[1:19:44] to come up with an agreed upon protocol, right.
[1:19:47] To have that happen.
[1:19:49] - And that's in the implementation agreement.
[1:19:51] So there is a document that documents using the
[1:19:55] MPCs requirements and understanding how we'll do it.
[1:20:00] For example, college and Patton currently have an agreement.
[1:20:04] Yep. So, or the
[1:20:05] - Industrial - Course and there's some in the Poconos
[1:20:07] area that have agreements.
[1:20:09] So we will be looking to make sure it's understood, which is
[1:20:13] what the solicitors will be looking at.
[1:20:14] - I guess the only frame of reference that I have is when
[1:20:19] regional growth boundary issues, the agreement that
[1:20:23] that exists, it's, it's starts to get awfully cumbersome
[1:20:27] and awfully con.
[1:20:31] - Yeah. So we've identified,
[1:20:34] I think if it's a definition change that doesn't change the
[1:20:38] analysis of the right sharing, it's just gonna come to CRPC,
[1:20:42] kind of like your SDO amendments do.
[1:20:45] If it's a major change we're,
[1:20:48] it hasn't all been worked,
[1:20:51] but we're trying to make it like there's going
[1:20:54] to be amendments and improvements
[1:20:56] and minor changes that will just come
[1:20:58] through like SDO and Zoning.
[1:20:59] If there's some big change,
[1:21:02] then it might have to be justified
[1:21:03] - And it, and it might be as easy as having one category
[1:21:07] of changes called minor changes.
[1:21:10] Yep. And we all agree to how those all happen.
[1:21:14] And then another category of changes that would require some
[1:21:20] action by the elected officials in order
[1:21:23] to be implemented. Right.
[1:21:25] - And that's kind of the balance that we're trying
[1:21:27] to figure out in the implementation agreement.
[1:21:30] If we are going by the MPC, this body is the one
[1:21:34] that we will have that additional
[1:21:37] analysis when we review these amendments that we saw today.
[1:21:41] Not relevant to any land use sharing type of changes,
[1:21:45] but if there were to be those down the road, we would,
[1:21:48] on the back end staff level, have a massive Excel sheet
[1:21:53] of all of the land uses, who has what, how much acreage
[1:21:57] and does this amendment impact
[1:22:02] specifically the shared uses?
[1:22:05] If you're not sharing it, we have less
[1:22:07] of a concern about it.
[1:22:08] Right. But those shared ones,
[1:22:10] that's gonna be where we need to,
[1:22:11] - That's the two step a step.
[1:22:13] The first step is identifying the uses that could be shared.
[1:22:17] Yes. And then the second thing is,
[1:22:19] is if you're gonna share, how are you gonna implement?
[1:22:21] Yes. So that's, that's all to be determined.
[1:22:24] - Yep. And, and yeah, that's fine. Okay.
[1:22:27] - But yeah, it's good feedback. But I'm
[1:22:29] - Concerned the - Original implementation agreement
[1:22:30] that we saw from the consultant didn't have that.
[1:22:32] And we last time just talked about like, we'd have ones
[1:22:36] that are simple and then the more Yeah.
[1:22:39] Kind of having a two minor changes, major changes.
[1:22:43] Because if those shared land uses are going away,
[1:22:46] that impacts the municipality, they might need more time,
[1:22:50] different things like that.
[1:22:51] - I just think about the regional growth boundary thing
[1:22:54] gets ugly sometimes.
[1:22:55] Right. And I don't want this right to mirror that.
[1:23:00] - Agreed. And we've learned,
[1:23:01] 'cause we've just been, you know,
[1:23:02] we haven't talked about a regional growth boundary service,
[1:23:05] service area extension.
[1:23:06] And we've had two this year.
[1:23:07] So we've, we've learned a lot about that.
[1:23:11] So there's shared land uses, there's future land use map,
[1:23:14] and then there are these goals that we've now reviewed
[1:23:19] and gotten out in the public
[1:23:20] that now we're gonna start developing strategies
[1:23:22] that's gonna make up our chapters for each big idea.
[1:23:26] We do have the draft chapters for one, two,
[1:23:29] and three that we're gonna start reviewing with
[1:23:32] municipal all staff
[1:23:34] and they'll be coming back to you as well.
[1:23:35] So there's kind of the writing of the plan, shared land uses
[1:23:39] and the future land use plan.
[1:23:40] But we're looking still on track for adoption
[1:23:45] approval in the first half of 2027.
[1:23:47] - Okay.
[1:23:54] Guys, we're having discussion over there.
[1:23:55] I figured you'd have a question.
[1:23:56] You know what we're talking about.
[1:23:58] What's that? We know what we're talking about. Okay.
[1:24:01] You got the answers?
[1:24:03] No, but we know what we're talking about.
[1:24:05] Okay. All right. If you got the answers, share 'em.
[1:24:08] Shared use. Okay.
[1:24:14] All right. Well if there's no other questions on
[1:24:15] that update the conference plan update, that'll move us
[1:24:19] to the question. Sorry.
[1:24:20] - Sorry. Just a quick question.
[1:24:22] When you talk about taking into account infrastructure
[1:24:25] and stuff, does that include school district,
[1:24:27] the school capa, the capacity surplus capacity and schools?
[1:24:32] If, if not, I would suggest that that it should. So we do
[1:24:35] - Have a pipeline of communication between the schools
[1:24:38] as far as, so that part of that and yes. Okay.
[1:24:40] - Excellent. Thanks. - Yeah, it's a MPC requirement
[1:24:44] for land development plans proposing.
[1:24:46] - Right. So that they get family
[1:24:48] - Homes. We have to provide that
[1:24:49] - To the city district.
[1:24:52] Moves us to committee and liaison reports.
[1:24:55] First one is the CCMPO.
[1:24:58] - Yep. And Bill reported that they did not meet in August.
[1:25:01] - Okay. Next is the State Borough Water Authority.
[1:25:05] - I attended that, but nothing to report
[1:25:07] - I Water authority.
[1:25:09] Go ahead. What are they doing in the park in, is
[1:25:12] that from a wellhead in Lynden Hall
[1:25:15] up at the softball fields?
[1:25:17] - Oak Hall. - Oak call. I'm sorry. Oak
[1:25:19] - Hall.
[1:25:20] So called Township. That's called Township Water Authority.
[1:25:21] And I don't regularly go to those,
[1:25:22] but I know that they are doing an upgrade.
[1:25:25] - Oh, massive. - Yep.
[1:25:26] - Massive. Yep.
[1:25:27] And it goes, they come right through the middle of
[1:25:29] that park going down to,
[1:25:31] I know I call it Lower brushes Valley Road,
[1:25:33] but I think it's called Oak Hall.
[1:25:34] - Yeah, I can find out for sure.
[1:25:36] But I know College Township Water Authority is doing
[1:25:39] improvements I'll say, or upgrades to their current Well
[1:25:43] - To, because that's the wellhead up at the top, right?
[1:25:45] Yes it is. Yeah.
[1:25:51] Okay. UAJA,
[1:25:53] - I did a presentation on the Act 5 37 plan to educate their
[1:25:58] board members since long-term sewage planning.
[1:26:01] So I gave a comprehensive plan update
[1:26:03] and then we focused in on the long-term sewage planning.
[1:26:07] - Okay. Anything with Park and Recs.
[1:26:10] - So if people are interested,
[1:26:12] the Millbrook Marsh survey results
[1:26:15] were presented at the Parks
[1:26:17] and Rec authority meeting on August 20th.
[1:26:19] If you go to the website, it's on the agenda packet there.
[1:26:22] And they did get 710 responses so you could see
[1:26:25] what people are saying about Millbrook Marsh,
[1:26:28] basically related to the boardwalk
[1:26:30] and what they, you know, it's helping
[1:26:32] to inform the decision making on what comes next with the
[1:26:36] failures that they've been seeing at the,
[1:26:38] with their boardwalk.
[1:26:40] - Is there any intent,
[1:26:43] and I don't know procedurally whether this is appropriate
[1:26:46] or not, but to possibly ask them to,
[1:26:49] to give us a report here or overview or something
[1:26:54] - On Millbrook mark. Yeah,
[1:26:56] - I mean that's, that's a fairly hot bucket,
[1:27:00] hot button item with regard to costs and,
[1:27:05] and you know, and I don't, I
[1:27:09] - Don't, yeah, they've asked me to report,
[1:27:10] so I can certainly talk to Christie
[1:27:12] to see when the right time is, when they have information.
[1:27:15] 'cause I, I don't know, we'd be interested in if that,
[1:27:19] if other people agreed
[1:27:20] and they'd be interested in getting a report, we can put
[1:27:24] that on a future agenda item when we have space on the
[1:27:27] agenda and they're at a point where there's something
[1:27:30] to share beyond just the survey results.
[1:27:32] - Are they flooded now - From the most recent?
[1:27:37] - Well I know Mulheim downtown flooded.
[1:27:40] I know that if you're out at Sears Dam,
[1:27:42] you can't get to your boat.
[1:27:43] - Yep. - That's how high the dam is.
[1:27:46] So I was wondering if Millbrook Marsh is,
[1:27:48] - I know Marengo underwater, Marengo Road,
[1:27:51] it's not across the road between BAILEYVILLE
[1:27:55] and five 50, but it's up to the road.
[1:28:00] - Yeah. I don't know if they're,
[1:28:01] - Yeah, because I wonder about they're gonna rebuild all
[1:28:03] those platforms and
[1:28:05] what are we five inches over our normal rainfall
[1:28:09] and we still have four months to go in the year
[1:28:13] and you wonder how they can plan for rebuilding those things
[1:28:17] as it seems to get wetter and wet. Yeah.
[1:28:19] - And they're low end I recognition of that.
[1:28:21] So they, yeah, there's a couple, there's several projects
[1:28:24] that are going on that there's gonna be a time in the future
[1:28:27] where will make sense for them to come here.
[1:28:31] Yep.
[1:28:32] - Okay. Moves us to other business.
[1:28:38] Next CRPC meeting will be on Thursday, October 1st, 2026
[1:28:45] at 1215.
[1:28:47] So just make sure it's a joint
[1:28:49] meeting at this point in time.
[1:28:52] So it's a joint meeting with Lucy
[1:28:56] also that, just be aware, read
[1:28:59] through the other other business things about the completion
[1:29:03] of the review of the flu and joint meeting summary report.
[1:29:07] There's a, that schedule that was up on the, on the
[1:29:12] overhead is is in there as well.
[1:29:16] There's also still three
[1:29:19] of the four free trained hosts would've been completed.
[1:29:23] There's one more that's gonna happen.
[1:29:26] It's gonna happen on November 10th, 2026 from 5 36 30 in
[1:29:31] the general forum building if you want
[1:29:33] to attend that training session.
[1:29:37] And enclosed is also the matter of record
[1:29:40] for the comprehensive plan roadmap.
[1:29:43] There's also reference links
[1:29:44] and things like that that you can look at.
[1:29:47] If there's no other items to discuss
[1:29:52] that at this point in time, is there any other things
[1:29:56] that need to be discussed?
[1:29:57] And if not, I'll take a motion for adjournment. So moved.
[1:30:01] Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. Opposed?
[1:30:07] Adjourn.
[1:30:39] - For 30 years the State College Community Land Trust has
[1:30:42] been creating a community where the people
[1:30:45] who work here can afford to live, grow, and belong.
[1:30:49] We've created and preserved 56 permanently affordable homes,
[1:30:53] opening the door to home ownership for more than 80 families
[1:30:58] with energy efficient upgrades, green building
[1:31:01] and clean energy investments.
[1:31:03] Our homeowners enjoy lower utility costs
[1:31:06] and affordable homes that last for generations.
[1:31:10] Our programs serve low to moderate
[1:31:12] and middle income individuals
[1:31:14] and families who want to live in State College.
[1:31:18] None of this would be possible without our extended
[1:31:21] community of dedicated staff, volunteers, local businesses
[1:31:25] and banks and our nonprofit partners.
[1:31:29] Join the movement, donate, volunteer, leave a legacy
[1:31:33] through planned giving.
[1:31:35] Share our story. Visit SCC land trust.org.