PA H.B. 904 would allow a temporary development moratorium in YOUR Community. Call YOUR elected representatives in PA today! We feel that this is an election issue for Pennsylvanians and Pennsylvania communities that should not be buried. This thing has been languishing in Appropriations since early December, 2007!
As previously mentioned on several occasions, including here, there is a piece of legislation languishing in Harrisburg that is as crucially important as the eminent domain legislation was. If this legislation is NOT an election issue, it should be. This is legislation that would be beneficial to any community in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that feels it needs to hit a pause button on development.
Contrary to what certain lobbying factions in Pennsylvania like the Pennsylvania Builders Association want citizens to believe, PA HB 904 is bi-partisan legislation that allows communities under the gun to take a breath, and take a second look at development issues that plague them. It also allows developers to take a second look and can it be said it could perhaps give them the time they need to go back into the community and get a better project together that all can live with?
Is it not true that one thing that drives citizens in local PA municipalties crazy is when they ask their local governments WHY a project can't slow down or be re-evaluated? This bill isn't anti-development, it is just a way of ensuring that citizens and communities as a whole get what they need for their communities! This bill might just give communities that breathing room they sometimes feel they need. This bill isn't punative against developers or development, it is just common sense.
Ok, next we are going to give you HB 904 again to look at. Then we are going to give you a list of people to call and what others in addition to us are saying about the importance of this legislation and why. Daylin Leach is involved with this, he told us about this more than a year ago - HB904 is still in the House Appropriations Committee as of December 12th, 2007. We hear from Harrisburg that certain factions would love to get this out of appropriations and move it to a lesser committee to wither and die. Wouldn't it be beneficial to support this legisaltion now before what is beautiful about Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania communities is lost forever to mile after mile of development we don't necessarily need everywhere it is currently being proposed and built? When you look at the big picture: fears of overdevelopment aren't merely a Lower Merion thing, or a Radnor thing, or a Tredyffrin thing, it's a statewide thing. As citizens, we need to look at the big picture. And we're not.
HOUSE BILL No. 904 Session of 2007
INTRODUCED BY FREEMAN, O'NEILL, GRUCELA, ROSS, LEACH, HARPER,
TANGRETTI, PETRI, BARRAR, BISHOP, CALTAGIRONE, CARROLL,
CLYMER, COHEN, CURRY, DALEY, FABRIZIO, GALLOWAY, GINGRICH,
HORNAMAN, KORTZ, MACKERETH, MANDERINO, MARSHALL, MELIO,
R. MILLER, MURT, M. O'BRIEN, PETRONE, SCHRODER, STABACK,
SWANGER, VITALI, WATSON AND YOUNGBLOOD, MARCH 22, 2007--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT, MARCH 22, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AN ACT
1 Amending the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L.805, No.247), entitled,
2 as amended, "An act to empower cities of the second class A,
3 and third class, boroughs, incorporated towns, townships of
4 the first and second classes including those within a county
5 of the second class and counties of the second through eighth
6 classes, individually or jointly, to plan their development
7 and to govern the same by zoning, subdivision and land
8 development ordinances, planned residential development and
9 other ordinances, by official maps, by the reservation of
10 certain land for future public purpose and by the acquisition
11 of such land; to promote the conservation of energy through
12 the use of planning practices and to promote the effective
13 utilization of renewable energy sources; providing for the
14 establishment of planning commissions, planning departments,
15 planning committees and zoning hearing boards, authorizing
16 them to charge fees, make inspections and hold public
17 hearings; providing for mediation; providing for transferable
18 development rights; providing for appropriations, appeals to
19 courts and penalties for violations; and repealing acts and
20 parts of acts," adding provisions to authorize temporary
21 development moratorium.
Want more talking points on this legislation? Here they are straight from Harrisburg:
Talking Points for HB 904: Temporary Moratorium on Development
________________________________________
Background: Until recently, municipalities had the ability to impose temporary moratoria on development;2001 state Supreme Court ruling struck down the use of temporary moratoriums:Based on the fact that there is no statutory basis for temporary moratoria.HB 904: What It Does
[*] Allows municipalities to enact an ordinance in order to impose a temporary moratorium on development while they are in the process of rewriting land use ordinances (includes zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan, and subdivision and land use ordinance):
[*] Moratorium would last no longer than 1 year:
[*] Municipalities may implement a moratorium for no more than 18 months to revise all three land use ordinances and 12 months in all other instances;
[*] Municipalities may not implement another moratorium for 3 years; and
[*] Municipalities may request an additional 180-day extension on the moratorium given reasonable progress is being made to enact or revise land ordinances.
[*] Ordinance may limit the moratorium to:
• Specific geographical areas; and
• Exempt specific types of uses.
[*] The governing body of the municipality must hold a public hearing on the question of whether a temporary development moratorium is needed;
[*] Governing body must submit proposed findings of need to the county planning agency or, in a county where no planning agency exists, to the governing body of the county;
[*] Prior to adopting temporary moratorium, municipalities must make written findings of need to show that the revision or enactment of any land use ordinance would accomplish the following:
• Prevent the overburdening of essential public facilities that would result in any proposed or anticipated development; and
• Prevent public harm from residential, commercial, or industrial development due to the lack of existing land development ordinances.
[*] After making written findings of need but before implementing a temporary moratorium, the governing body must hold a public hearing on the enactment of a temporary moratorium ordinance;
[*] Municipalities may impose a pre-ordinance temporary moratorium by resolution, to suspend the acceptance of applications for development while they are deciding to adopt a temporary moratorium;
[*] Landowner or developers may apply to the governing body of the municipality, in writing, for a waiver from the moratorium:
• Waiver shall be granted if landowner or developer presents evidence from which the governing body, after holding a hearing concludes that:
• The moratorium would create an unnecessary hardship on the landowner or developer or the development is comprised of no more than 10 units and is of a limited nature; or
• Granting the waiver would not significantly compromise the goals sought to be achieved by the adoption or revision of the land use ordinances.
• The governing body of the municipality must hold a hearing on the application for a waiver within 15 days from the applicant’s request and shall determine whether to grant the waiver within 30 days after receiving the written waiver request;
[*] In granting a waiver, the governing body may set conditions on any approval that may be granted:
• Including limiting the waiver so that relief granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship.Purpose of Legislation
[*] Allows municipalities to impose a temporary moratorium on development while they are in the process of rewriting land use ordinances (includes zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan, and subdivision and land use ordinance);
[*] Serves as an optional tool for municipalities dealing with rapid growth and development;
[*] Enables local planning departments to consider issues often associated with increase in development and sprawl, including:
• Increased traffic;
• Public safety services;
• Traffic and road improvements;
• Public sewer and storm water services; and
• Public school services and facilities.
[*] Ensures that municipalities dealing with rapid growth and development are provided with the “breathing space” they need to implement more effective land use ordinances:
• This may provide municipalities with the opportunity to deal with present and future growth and development;
• Enables local planning departments to examine the impact of proposed development so they may plan accordingly; and
• Allows supervisors to “iron out” the details of present and future growth to ensure that what is adopted will truly be in the best interest of the municipality.
[*] Provides municipalities with the opportunity to update and enact land use laws allowing them to be better able to manage growth in their community while also protecting the community’s quality of life; and
[*] Takes a proactive approach to smart growth planning by prohibiting applications for new development efforts (with some exceptions) for a certain period of time while land use laws are being updated.
Status of HB 904[*] House Bill 904 was referred to the House Local Government Committee on March 22, 2007;
[*] Public Hearings regarding HB 904 were held on the following dates:
• August 1, 2007—Lafayette College, Easton, PA; and
• October 12, 2007- Buckingham Township, Bucks County, PA.
[*] Passed out of the House Local Government Committee on December 11, 2007, by a vote of 16-13; and
[*] House Bill 904 is currently awaiting consideration by the House Appropriations Committee.
Want to know who is on the Appropriations Committe and how to reach them?
***Please note, follow THIS LINK for the listings of all State Reps - when you find YOUR rep, all you do is click on hyperlink for contact information***
Majority (Room 512 MC)
Evans, Dwight, Chairman
Keller, William F., Vice Chairman
Shapiro, Josh, Secretary
Manderino, Kathy, Subcommittee Chairman on Health and Human Services
McGeehan, Michael P., Subcommittee Chairman on Economic Impact and Infrastructure
Vitali, Greg, Subcommittee Chairman on Fiscal Policy
Wheatley, Jake, Subcommittee Chairman on EducationConklin, H. Scott
Frankel, Dan
Galloway, John T.
Kirkland, Thaddeus
Lentz, Bryan R.
Mahoney, Tim
Myers, John
Parker, Cherelle L.
Petrarca, Joseph A.
Ramaley, Sean M.
Santoni, Jr.,Dante
Siptroth, John J.
Smith, Matthew
Walko, DonMinority (Room 245 MC)
Civera, Jr.,Mario J., Chairman
Dally, Craig A., Vice Chairman
Barrar, Stephen, Subcommittee Chairman on Health and Human Services
Cappelli, Steven W., Subcommittee Chairman on Economic Impact and Infrastructure
McIlhattan, Fred, Subcommittee Chairman on Education
True, Katie, Subcommittee Chairman on Fiscal Policy
Denlinger, Gordon
Ellis, Brian L.
Millard, David R.
Miller, Ron
Petri, Scott A.
Reed, Dave
Reichley, Douglas G.
Scavello, Mario M.
What are others in favor of this legislation saying?
Bucks County Commissioners Support Moratorium
Executive Director of the Bucks County Planning Commission Lynn Bush detailed the county administration’s support for House Bill 904 – which, if passed, would allow municipalities to impose temporary moratoriums on development when they are rewriting their land use ordinances.
Ms. Bush spoke during an Oct. 12 hearing at the Buckingham Twp. Municipal Building. House Bill 904 is co-sponsored by Northampton County Rep. Bob Freeman and Bucks County Rep. Bernie O’Neill.
“Bucks County Commissioners Charles Martin, James Cawley and Sandra Miller support the efforts of Rep. Freeman and our Bucks County representatives Bernie O’Neill, Paul Clymer, John Galloway, Anthony Melio, Scott Petri and Katharine Watson, to give municipalities a chance to adequately prepare and plan for development, as proposed by House Bill 904,” Ms. Bush noted during her opening remarks.
Ms. Bush discussed six underlying reasons of offering support of the bill, including the following key points:
1) Providing community services to meet community needs cannot be achieved when development outpaces schools, emergency services and transportation systems.
This point, based on the “principle of concurrency that other states have in place,” states that when unplanned development occurs, municipalities have to play catch-up with schools, wastewater and water services, emergency services, public safety services, and road improvements. Pennsylvania law currently gives almost no ability to get developers to provide for needed community facilities;
(2) Municipal planning and land use decisions are handled by volunteer members of the local planning commission and board of elected officials. In a period of rapid growth, the review of development plans takes up all the limited resources available to local government. In order for Pennsylvania to effectively sustain local government control of land use planning and zoning, local officials need more tools to do the job.
Pennsylvania has made a commitment to keeping decision making at the local level, and we support this...
3) Valuable community resources need to be identified and protected.
Pennsylvanians treasure the farmland, forests, and waterways of the state, and municipalities across the commonwealth have enacted rules for protection....
4) Taking time to plan and control development won’t stop development.
Giving local officials time to think about their planning will not lead to reduced development, but it will result in better communities.....
5) Getting serious about the Commonwealth’s Keystone Principles for Growth, Investment and Resource Conservation – Let’s be as good as our rhetoric.The Commonwealth’s adopted Keystone Principles of 2005 set forth a framework for planning better communities....
6) Add a definition for “development” to HB 904.The Municipalities Planning Code does not define “development,” but HB 904 describes suspending “applications for development.” We need to define what this means. There could be ambiguity as to whether this means building permit applications, land development plans, subdivisions, special exceptions, or conditional uses.”
Building Moratoriums & Developer Impact Fees
Listen up Pennsylvanians: whether you are Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Rich, Poor, Green, Purple, Left-handed, Right-handed, Pro-Development, or Anti-Development this legislation is for you. If you value your Pennsylvania community in which you live and you wish the local municipal planning process had better tools so they could make better decisions, more equatable decisions, then contact your state legislator today. Tell your local papers to cover this legislation. Don't let this legislation die. We have the opportunity to level the playing field, and face it when elected and appointed officials are playing politics, you do not often get that chance, do you?
Heads up candidates for office in PA because issues like this are important too. It's not all about the baby kissing - you can't just talk the talk you must be prepared to walk the walk.
