Lower Allen Web Log

In an article in this morning's Patriot-News, Hampden Township President Commissioner Melvin Finklestein is quoted as saying:

"...'Well, that's their problem,' said Finkelstein, referring to developers with unsold homes. 'I didn't tell them to put $500,000 homes on them. They're large lots because that's what we want. That's what the area was set up for.'

He said he doesn't see any need to worry about the township running out of buildable land.

'Eventually you run out of land everywhere,' Finkelstein said. 'But there's plenty of room to develop, and when we run out, we face that.'"

The article dealt with a pair of developers who want to place more homes on an 11 acre piece of land off Lamb's Gap Road. The developers want to put more than 11 homes on the land, but that is all that is allowed by Hampden's present Residential Country zoning.

According to the article, and confirmed by a search of Hampden Township's ordinances, Hampden has no bonus density provision in its open space development zoning ordinances:

"§1820 OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT

(1) General Requirements. Within the R-C Resi­den­tial Cou­ntry or the R-S Residential Sub­urban zoning dis­trict, an open space de­velopment is per­mitted, provided that:

(a) The minimum setbacks of the underlying zoning shall apply around the outermost (perimeter) lot lines in any open space development.

(b) The density and uses of the parcel may not vary from the density and uses that would be possi­ble under the conventional R-C or R-S zoning development. (A sketch plan is required show­ing conven­tional R-C or R-S development poten­tial to determine the density of the open space development.)

Before you start talking about folks who live in glass houses, here's what LAT's current ordinances have to say on the matter:

§220-129 E (3) Allowable density. Allowable density shall not exceed one residential unit per gross acre, excluding existing dedicated rights-of-way.

Yes, they're identical. Now.

As proposed in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan (see pages PD-22 through PD-26), the idea is to allow developers to build smaller lots if they reserve more of the land as common passive open space. The purpose, as defined in a booklet called "Growing Greener, Conservation By Design":

"Communities protect open space because it protects streams and water quality, provides habitat for plants and animals, preserves rural 'atmosphere,' provides recreational areas, protects home values and reduces costs of municipal services. In short, land conservation makes your community a better place to live."

Don't just take my word for it, though. To learn more about this topic, check out the Natural Land Trust's web site. Be sure to see the sections on Conservation By Design and Conservation Planning. You can also visit DCNR's Growing Greener page.

Which is all a very long way to say that, unlike Comm. Finklestein's quote at the beginning of the post, LAT is not waiting for all its land to be built out before addressing the issue.