Public hearing addresses proposed new Peters Township zoning ordinance
With Peters Township Council eventually planning to vote on a new municipal zoning ordinance, a July 17 public hearing addressed what the 400-plus-page document contains and allowed property owners to offer comment.
”What is being proposed is not a major change to what exists today,” Ed Zuk, township planning director, explained. “The majority of Peters Township is zoned for residential uses, and that will not change.”
Updates to the existing ordinance, which contains regulations and laws that define how property in specific geographic zones can be used, follow the December 2013 adoption of the township’s latest comprehensive land-use plan, titled “Plan Peters 2022.”
“Since then, the planning department, with the help of residents and the support of council and the planning commission, has been drafting this ordinance, which is intended to implement the changes proposed in the comprehensive plan,” township manager Paul Lauer said.
Among the plan’s primary guiding principles and goals is the intent for the township to “Stay forever green,” a concept that officials stressed often during the hearing as some audience members questioned the potential effects of zoning revisions.
For example, the proposed ordinance calls for a new VM: Village Mixed-Use zone on the northern side of Venetia Road, to the east of the intersection with Sugar Run Road. Such a designation would allow for a variety of permitted uses, including retail, office and restaurants along with the existing residential.
”A lot of the new housing that’s coming into Peters is happening in that southern portion,” Zuk said. “Throughout the comprehensive plan process, folks who live in that area wanted to have some services down in that area. This new Village Mixed-Use District will provide that.”
The concept, though, has raised concerns among nearby residents.
“I’m talking on behalf of my children, who actually asked me to come and speak,” Angie Schafer of Venetia Road told township officials. “Your zoning is literally our backyard. That’s where they play all the time.”
She asked about the possibility of a buffer being put in place to separate the property she and her husband, Bob, own from future development.
“We came out here for a reason,” she said about her family moving to Peters. “We came out here for the space. And we look out our back window and see beautiful woodland right now. If there were some way to kind of preserve our little oasis we have there, I think we would be a lot more happy with what’s going on.”
Council chairman Frank Arcuri assured her that some type of buffer would be required, probably depending on the type of project proposed.
“You would get notice that there was a plan and it was being considered by the planning commission,” he said, with the opportunity for plenty of input.
Zuk, though, said no specific development proposal is in place for the area in question.
“This is zoning for the next 10, 20-plus years,” he explained. “You could live there for that period of time and nothing happens on the property.”
Regarding the overall zoning ordinance, he said that some of the changes as proposed simply involve new names for various districts as a means of simplification. For example, R-1A, Single-Family Conventional, would become Low-Density Residential.
An example of a brand-new designation is Rural Residential/Estate Lot, proposed for portions of the township near Hill Place and Justabout roads, and along the southern part of Church Hill Road. Properties in RR would have a five-acre minimum.
“These are two areas of Peters that have developed with homes on large lots,” Zuk said. “What we’re trying to do with the creation of this new Rural Residential district is to preserve those two areas of Peters that have developed with these estate lots.”
The proposed ordinance also addresses the Town Center district, the area to the north of Valley Brook Road that takes in the municipal center and some Peters Township School District buildings, among other properties. The concept is to provide for a more pedestrian-friendly environment while offering a variety of uses.
“It’s an idea that started back when we adopted the 2005 comprehensive plan,” Zuk explained. “We’re proposing moving buildings up closer to the street and allowing parking to be hidden behind, more sidewalk structure, walkability, not streetscapes dominated by parking.”