[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.

9/3/26 Centre Regional Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript