Our Natural Heritage Reports

Land Use In Pennsylvania: An Analysis Of Changes To Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code In 2000

2001-08-29

Executive Summary

Sprawl is threatening our environment and quality of life in Pennsylvania. Inefficient and unplanned growth in the state is leading to the rapid destruction of open space and increasing auto-dependency. Fueled by harmful public subsidies, this development pattern threatens our environment and public health through the destruction of species habitat, the loss of farmland and increases in air and water pollution. It diminishes Pennsylvanians’ quality of life by increasing traffic, causing the abandonment of our cities and engendering a troubling loss of community throughout the state. Sprawl also wastes tax dollars by neglecting existing resources and forcing the construction of new infrastructure (schools and sewers) and the expansion of services (police and fire protection).

Land use advocates and policy-makers point to a number of causes for our sprawling development patterns. We have not made the necessary public investments to protect threatened open spaces; our crumbling and under-funded urban communities are driving citizens into the suburbs; and our tax structure has made developing in the city difficult and maintaining the viability of farm communities challenging at best.

PennEnvironment recommends a four-point platform for curbing sprawl in the state:

• Redirect growth into existing communities through a combination of stronger land use planning requirements, increased public participation, and reinvestment in cities.
• Expand transportation choices by increasing funding for rail, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian options. Oppose highway projects that encourage sprawl.
• Protect farms, forests, open space, and wetlands by purchasing land and development rights.
• End taxpayer subsidies for sprawl by requiring developers to pay for new roads, water and sewer infrastructure, and public services.

By the end of the 1990s, land use advocates and local officials agreed that the reform most needed to curb sprawl in Pennsylvania was a revision of the laws that govern land use and planning in the state. Pennsylvania’s Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) sets the legal rules by which townships plan for and govern development. It became clear that this law, originally passed in 1968, was not meeting the needs of those attempting to cope with modern development pressure. Township supervisors—struggling on the front lines in the battle to manage growth and preserve the character of their communities— simply did not have the tools they needed to prevent rampant destruction of open space. These supervisors and environmental advocates identified several shortcomings in the MPC, many of which persist today:

1. There has been a lack of cooperation between independent municipalities throughout Pennsylvania. Individual townships have often made development decisions that were independent of—and not coordinated with—decisions made by neighboring townships. The result has been destructive, sprawling land consumption rather than planned and controlled growth.
2. The laws in many counties and townships did not reflect the community’s vision for future growth. Discrepancies between county and municipal growth plans have meant that neighboring townships weren’t using a shared vision to guide their decisions; inconsistencies between plans and zoning failed to implement good planning through enforceable law.
3. Special interests could override the land use decisions of local citizens. Pennsylvania state law contained provisions that allowed developers to sue municipalities attempting to manage growth and maintain the character of their communities.
4. New development has forced many communities to raise taxes. The MPC has not provided townships with the ability to adequately limit or control the costs that accompany new development.
5. The scope and purposes of planning and zoning have been severely limited. In many cases, the MPC has not given townships the tools they needed to manage growth in their communities.

Legislative Debate In 1999-2000:

Land use advocates and policy makers in Harrisburg worked hard to craft MPC reforms that would address as many of these deficiencies as possible. In February 1999, Rep. David Steil (R-31) and Sen. James Gerlach (R-44) introduced legislation aimed at resolving problems with the MPC and giving municipalities more tools to manage growth.

Unfortunately, development-minded legislators have been successful in recent elections, largely due to the financial backing of pro-sprawl interests. These legislators effectively passed several weakening amendments throughout the legislative process. Many of the important tools contained in the original bills were not included in the final legislation, which eventually became law as Acts 67 and 68 of 2000. In addition, several provisions were added that catered to certain special interests looking to use this bill as a vehicle to expand future profits.

Enacted Legislation

In the end, Acts 67 and 68 took some steps forward for land use planning, but some larger steps back for Pennsylvania’s communities.

Steps Forward:

• The laws made cooperative planning easier and more extensive.
• The laws made important strides with regard to consistency. The most significant reforms came with respect to consistency between planning and zoning laws. Improving this consistency gives good planning the force of law.
• The laws allow townships to designate “growth areas,” “future growth areas,” and “rural resource areas.” This increases planners’ ability to direct growth appropriately.
• Finally, the laws take a small step in requiring state agencies to at least “consider” local land use planning when making permitting decisions. Most planners and observers say that the jury is still out on whether these reforms will prove meaningful and substantive. At this point, there has not been a measurable increase in formal cooperative planning agreements due to the new laws. However, it is too soon to know if cooperation will pick up.

Steps Back:

• There is a provision allowing timbering in every zoning district of every municipality in the Commonwealth.
• Municipalities are specifically forbidden to enact laws that go further than weak federal statutes to protect their residents from mining and factory farms.
• Impact fees were capped. Most significantly, municipalities are no longer allowed to charge developers for necessary off-site improvements.

Recommendations

After the drawn out battle that resulted in this land use legislation, some will feel that concerns about sprawl have now been addressed. However, it is critical that Pennsylvania lawmakers recognize that much more needs to be done to solve our sprawl problems.

We must go back and fix the problems that were created with the recent amendments to the Municipalities Planning Code. We must also push forward on other fronts.

1. Improve the MPC. PennEnvironment recommends the following improvements to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code in order to give communities the necessary tools to manage growth:

• Remove loopholes and special exemptions for the timber, mining, corporate farming and building industries granted by Acts 67 and 68.
• Provide more meaningful incentives for intergovernmental cooperation.
• Require strict consistency between county and municipal comprehensive plans.
• Reform the curative amendment process.
• Allow communities to assess impact fees that represent all costs of development.
• Require all state infrastructure decisions to be consistent with comprehensive plans—or provide specific justification for non-compliance.
• Require all municipalities to plan—and provide sufficient resources.
• Allow communities to designate strong growth boundaries.
• Pass a strong concurrency provision that will improve quality of life.

2. Protect threatened open spaces by purchasing land or development rights.

3. Make our existing communities more livable.

4. Rationalize our transportation system.

5. Pass significant campaign finance reform laws in Pennsylvania.

[Previous] [Next]