Supervisor Speak
Why the "NO" Vote for Re-Zoning to Denser Residential
By Glenn McKay, Supervisor
Apr 25, 2004, 10:32am

At the Supervisor meeting of April 13, I voted against two requests for rezoning properties from RA (rural agricultural) to R2 and R3 classifications. Both requests involved properties of 6-7 acres. As existing RA zoning, one house would be allowed per 3 acres without the use of TDRs. As rezoned to R2 and R3, the housing density could increase by roughly 400%, again without the use of TDRs. I would like to explain why I was the dissenting vote in a 3-1 decision to grant the two requests.

In January, the board voted to approve the hiring of a consultant to work with the Planning Commission in developing a needed update to our Growth Management Plan (also referred to as Comprehensive Plan). This Plan would project future growth over the next ten years in Warrington based upon our present zoning districts, both residential and non-residential. It would outline impacts of this growth on many elements: schools, road traffic, parks, sewer and water, storm water, police & fire & ambulance, and others. The Plan would make recommendations for short and long term changes the administration should do to accommodate and manage this growth. The Pennsylvania Code a few years back mandated that any zoning change be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning changes that were made last Tuesday were not consistent with the present Comprehensive Plan which was due for update 4 years ago but never approved as a project by the Board until this January. Most of the many previous zoning changes leading to higher residential density were also not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Because the board wanted to make the zoning change regardless of what our guiding Plan said, to meet the technical requirements of the Pennsylvania State Code, it simply keeps amending the Plan. I do not agree with this concept. One never really knows the impacts of these isolated cases on the next ten years on overall services required, since we don’t yet have a Plan for the next ten years. Thus reason one to vote against rezoning.

Without rezoning either of these parcels, the parcels could have been developed essentially to the density of rezoning by the owners buying and applying TDRs. The RA zoning district includes the language in which the property can be developed to a higher density than zoning allows by applying special TDRs which were granted to a developer in 1996 to an agreement reached with him to settle a law suit. Some of these TDRs have been already used on other parcels; however, well over 100 are still available to increase density above allowable zoning limits. My position is that the applicant has the opportunity to seek and apply these TDRs without any rezoning. If not used on these parcels and giving applicant a significant "free upgrade", the TDRs will yet be available to further increase density somewhere else. Thus reason two to vote against rezoning.

The issue came up at the meeting about denying the present TDR holder of his TDR rights by rezoning this property so that he couldn’t later apply those TDRs, creating a taking of his rights. It was an interesting forum to discuss this scenario. Caroline Edwards,the attorney for the first applicant, Mr. Pileggi, also represents C&M, the present holder of the remaining TDRs. John van Luvanee, the main attorney that negotiated the original TDR agreement for the developer,represented the other applicant, Ball/Calibraro. Ms. Edwards did not comment on the issue; however, it was Mr. Van Luvanee’s opinion that the TDR rights were not denied in rezoning, since the language also allowed the use of TDRs in the rezoned property. This is a very important opinion which should have been analyzed before any vote of rezoning were taken; however, the rest of the board present was not interested in discussing it and its potential impact. In a nutshell, the impact of rezoning the Pileggi (equitable owner) property to R2 could result in not the 9 homes that Pileggi inferred were going to be built there, but 19 homes since use of TDRs in the R2 district allows a density of 3 homes per acre on 6.39 acre property. If the property were not rezoned,it would guarantee no more than 9 homes and would further have expended 7 TDRs from the pool which will now be used elsewhere in the township. A similar analogy is drawn for the Ball/Calibraro rezoning. Thus reason three to vote against rezoning these properties.

As a side note, I did vote for a rezoning of 30 acres of commercial property to “"quarry", expanding the Warrington Quarry at Lower State and Pickertown Roads. Unlike the residenial rezoning, the quarry expansion has no impact on schools, parks, road traffic, or township services. It provides a positive tax contribution to the township. It does increase the longevity of the quarry in lieu of that 30 acres being developed according to its previous zoning, Planned Industrial. It does have some local impacts on residents near the quarry, which I believe were discussed and generally satisfied at the meeting.

I’d be interested in residents’ feedback to this article.

© Copyright 2001 by WarringtonWatchDogs.org