COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Port Matilda Borough

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Port Matilda Borough Centre County, PA 1992 I1 11 I1 6992 I1 PORT MATILDA BOROUGH I1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I1 I1 11 U iI

I1 Port Matilda Borough Borough Building South High Street 11 Port MatiIda 16870 Centre County, PA I1 u II Prepared By: George L. Stallman, III, A.I.C.P. Stallman BE; stahlman, Inc. Engineering and Planning 11 York, Pennsylvania 1.1 il PORT MATILDA BOROUGH OFFICIALS

BorouPh Council

Dean A. Rudy, Sr...... President David Turek...... Vice President Jack E. Bonsell Ronald Fleck Lewis H. Laird Kimberly Klingler William Woodring

Dallas Lykens ...... Mayor Darlene Reese .,...... Secretary/Treasurer Miller, Kistler, Campbell, Miller & Williams....Solicitor

PlanninP Commission

Frederick E. Hartman ...... Chairman Glen D. Hay ...... Secretary Eric L. Hannold Verne Neff NITTANY VALLEY JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING INITIATIVE

Under the guidance of Attorney Ben Novak, seven Centre County Municipalities joined together in 1988 with the goal of updating their Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Ordinances. They were: J Bellefonte Borough J Benner Township J Centre Hall Borough J Marion Township J Fort Matilda Borough J Spring Township J Walker Township Huston Township was originally part of the group, but subsequently resigned and was replaced by Fort Matilda Borough. Nittany Valley was selected as a common name for the group as five municipalities, Bellefonte Borough plus the four Townships, lie in the Nittany Valley between Nittany and Bald Eagle Moun- tains. These five communities also comprise the Bellefonte Area School District and have formally been designated the Nittany Valley Subregion by the Centre County Planning Commission. Centre Hall Borough, just over Mount Nittany in Fenns Valley, and Fort Matilda Borough just over Bald Eagle Mountain in the Bald Eagle Creek Valley have similar problems and concerns, and thus opted to join the group. The primary motivations behind this effort were the recognition and acknowledgement that:

0 All of the participating municipalities either did not have or had outdated plans and ordinances, 0 By participating together, the region's problems could be faced squarely with less chance for duplication of effort or misunderstanding, 0 By participating together, a common format for codes and ordinances could be achieved, and 0 By proceeding concurrently with common consultants, lower costs could be realized. The joint venture has been an unqualified success. First a grant was received from the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs to help defray a portion of the costs; a grant that otherwise might not have been received had the joint effort not been made. Secondly, a number of decisions were made on a joint basis which were best both for the region and for the individual municipalities; decisions which might not otherwise have been 1 made. And thirdly, by presenting a united front it is hoped to better gain the attention of both State and County Agencies regarding funding for needed projects. The group plans to continue joint efforts in the future. - iv - CONTENTS

Port Matilda Borough Officials ...... iii Contents ...... v Resolution ...... ix

Background Reports 1 . The Planning Process ...... 1-1 2 . Natural Features ...... 2-1 A . Geology ...... 2-2 B . Soils ...... 2-10 C . Slopes ...... 2-15 D . Forests ...... 2-18 E . Floodplains ...... 2-20 F . Composite Features ...... 2-23 3 . Existing Land Use ...... 3-1 4 . Utilities ...... 4-1 A . Sanitary Sewer Systems ...... 4-1 B . Water Systems ...... 4-5 C . Natural Gas Distribution .....4-12 D. Solid Waste Disposal ...... 4-13 E . Electrical Distribution ...... 4-17 F . Telephone ...... 4-19 5 . Existing Transportation Systems ...... 5-1 A . Automotive ...... 5-1 B . Rail ...... 5-11 C . Air ...... 5-14

Comprehensive Plan 6 . Goals and Objectives ...... 6-1 7 . Future Development Plan. including ...... 7-1 A . Land Development Controls .....7-1 B . Conservation Areas ...... 7-2 C . Residential Areas ...... 7-3 D . Non-Residential Areas ...... 7-6 E . Transportation Plan ...... 7-8 8 . Community Facilities and Utilities Plan ...... 8-1 A . Public Schools ...... 8-1 B . Parks and Recreation ...... 8-5 C . Water Supply ...... 8-7 D . Sanitary Sewers ...... 8-9 9 . Implementation Plan ...... 9-1

Appendices Questionnaire Results ...... A-1 Bibliography ...... B-1 -v- TABLES

3.1 Land Use Classifica-ions for Port Matilda Borough and Centre County ...... 3-2,3-3 3.2 Existing Land Use in Centre County; 1975, 1980 and 1985 ...... 3-5 3.3 Land Use Changes by Percentage and Acreage in Centre, Upper Bald Eagle, and Nittany Valley Regions of Centre County PA, 1975-1985 ...... 3-7 3.4 Existing Land Use, Port Matilda Borough, 1975 - 1990 ...... 3-8 4.1 Summary of Sanitary Treatment Systems by Region, Centre County, 1987...... 4-2 4.2 Summary of Water Supply Systems by Region, Centre County, 1987 ...... 4-6 4.3 Upper Bald Eagle Valley Region Water Systems, 1987....4-9 4.4 Basic Characteristics of the Port Matilda Borough Water Works, 1991 ...... 4-10 4.5 Amount and Type of Waste Generated in Centre County on an Annual and Daily Basis, 1989 and 2000...4-15 4.6 Amount and Type of Waste Generated in the Nittany Valley Municipalities on an Annual Basis, in Tons for 1990 and 2000 ...... 4-16 4.7 Tentative Construction Plans, Nittany Division, West Penn Power Company, 1990 to 1999...... 4-18 5.1 Port Matilda Borough Streets ...... 5-6 5.2 Characteristics of the Nittany & Bald Eagle Railroad ...... 5-12 5.3 Rail Traffic Analysis, Nittany & Bald Eagle Railroad ...... 5-12 5.4 Carload Activity, Nittany & Bald Eagle Railroad, 1986-'89...... 5-13 8.1 Recommended Standards for Recreation Areas...... 8-6

- vi - Contents

MAPS

Map No . 2.1 Physiography of Centre County ...... 2-3 2.2 Drainage Areas and Community Watersheds ...... 2-4 2.3 Carbonate Geology in Centre County ...... 2-5 2.4 Mineral Resources in Centre County ...... 2-6 2.5 Groundwater Resources in Centre County ...... 2-9 2.6 Agricultural Land in Centre County ...... 2-11 2.7 Soil Limitations for On-Site Sewage Disposal ...... 2-14 2.8 Slope in Centre County ...... 2-15 2.9 Forests in Centre County ...... 2-19 2.10 Floodplains in Centre County ...... 2-20 2.11 Composite Natural Features in Port Matilda ...... 2-25 3.1 Generalized Existing Land Use in Centre County. 1975 ...... 3-6 3.2 Existing Land Use in Port Matilda Borough, 1990 ...... 3-13 4.1 Centre County Sewer Service Areas; 1987 ...... 4-3 4.2 Centre County Water Service Areas; 1987 ...... 4-7 4.3 Port Matilda Borough Water Works; 1988 ...... 4-11 4.4 Natural Gas, Nittany Valley ...... 4-12 4.5 Solid Waste Wastesheds, Centre County ...... 4-14 5.1 1980 Functional Highway Classification System for Centre County ...... 5-3 5.2 Port Matilda Borough Street Map ...... 5-5 5.3 SEDA-COG Joint Authority Rail System ...... 5-13 5.4 The University Park Airport ...... 5-16 7.1 Future Land Use Plan, Port Matilda Borough ...... 7-15 8.1 Plan for Water Supply, Port Matilda Borough ...... 8-9 8.2 Plan for Sanitary Sewers, Port Matilda Borough ...... 8-13

.vii . FIGURES

Fime No. 2.1 Farm Acreage in Centre County, 1940 to 1988...... 2-10 2.2 Development Limitations Related to Slope ...... 2-16 5.1 Port Matilda Bypass Study, Proposed Alignment ...... 5-9 8.1 Bald Eagle Area School District ...... 8-2 8.2 Floor Plan, Fort Matilda Elementary School...... 8-3 BOROUGH OF PORT MATILDA Centre County, Peansylvania

RESOLUTION

Resolution No. 10-1-92 October 6, 1992

TITLE: Adoption of Comprehensive Plan

WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of Port Matilda Borough, after careful study and public discussion, including a survey of Bor- ough residents, discussions with adjoining municipalities, joint deliberation and decisions with the municipalities of the Nittany Valley Region and participants in this study, and discussions with the Centre County Planning Commission has recommended to the Port Matilda Borough Council a Comprehensive Plan for Port Matil- da Borough; and

WHEREAS, Council has considered the Comprehensive Plan, having on this date held a public hearing thereon, and finds that said Plan constitutes a suitable, rational, and timely Plan for the Future development of Port Matilda Borough;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the document consisting of the following textual matter by chapter:

Background Reports Comprehensive Plan 1. The Planning Process 6. Goals and Objectives 2. Natural Features 7. Future Development Plan 3. Existing Land Use 8. Future Community Facilities 4. Utilities and Utilities Plan 5. Transportation 9. Implementation Plan duly submitted by the Port Matilda Borough Planning Commission, and entitled The Comprehensive Plan dated November 1, 1991 is hereby adopted as the Comprehensive Plan of Port Matilda Borough.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that, Port Matilda Borough Comprehensive Plan shall be the guide and basis for all public and private actions specified in and required by Section 303 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, as amended. - ix - Resolution Adoption oP ComprehensivePlan

RESOLWDFWRTHER, that, in order that the Comprehensive Plan shall at all times be current with the needs of Port Matilda Bor- ough and shall represent the best thinking of the Borough Coun- cil, Planning Commission, and boards and commissions of the Borough in the light of changing conditions, the Planning Commis- sion shall annually review the Comprehensive Plan and recommend to the Borough Council extensions, changes or additions to the Plan which the Commission.considers necessary. Should the Com- mission find that no changes are necessary, this finding shall be reported to the Council.

.r PORT MATILDA BOROUaH COUNCIL .. -

Attest8 ..- Approved :

Secretary President Y

-. ._ t i-ll

llI-

I BACKGROUND REPORTS i l- i; l-

9-11

11- .1- ,I- l- 1- 1- I- J- 'Ii I1 il "The...( comprehensive) ...p lan is the official statement of a municipal legislative body that sets forth its major policies con- I1 cerning desirable future physical development; the published ...p lan document must include a single unified physical design for the community, and it must attempt to clarify the re- it lationship between physical development policies and social and economic goals. ''1 i] The character of a comprehensive plan must be fully understood. It is not a map of the future but rather a statement of policy to be used by the community. As community life becomes more com- 'I plex, land and buildings are put to an ever increasing variety of uses. Although the total effect of these changes is not always immediately or readily apparent, every change in land use in some way, however small, affects both the residents of the community I and the community at large. Equally important is the dependence of communities upon one an- I other for housing, employment, resources, and a variety of services; all existing within an economic balance. However, within this economic dependence is a need for sharing public facilities -- schools, utilities, roads etc. Without cooperation, there is 1 no guarantee that all communities will share proportionately the benefits of public facilities or that such facilities can in fact be provided. Through planning, communities can-determinethe ex- I tent of their dependence and provide the necessary facilities. The Port Matilda Borough Council and Planning Commission believe I planning is necessary to insure development that will be orderly, coordinated, and meaningful and that will lead to the results desired by Borough residents. I Secondly, in any community, change can take place rapidly, and for the effects of change to be beneficial to all concerned the Port Matilda Borough must have plans that look into the future .I and anticipate future change. But inherent in planning is an even more important idea--the idea 1I that within geographical and economic limits, we as citizens can make of Port Matilda Borough whatever we wish if we can agree upon our goals, adopt a plan to achieve them, and use the mechanics 1 of our Borough government to realize them. In brief, we believe planning is the only logical choice and the only rational means of guiding physical development in Port Ma- 1 tilda Borough, and we believe the rights of citizens and the responsibilities of government require the use of planning in I making decisions concerning physical development. 1 T. J. Kent, Jr. in The Urban General Plan. I 1-1 THE COMPREHENSIVEPLAN

What &I a ComDrehensive Ph? As defined by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Codel, a Comprehensive Plan should minimally contain the following five elements : 0 A statement of objectives of the municipality concerning its future development, including, but not limited to, the location, character, and timing of future development, that may also serve as a statement of community development objectives . . . . 0 A plan for land use, that may include provisions for the amount, intensity, character, and timing of land use proposed for residence, industry, business, agriculture, major traffic and transit facilities, utilities, community facilities, public grounds, parks and recreation, preservation of prime agricultural lands, flood plains, and other areas of special hazards and other similar uses. 0 A plan. for movement of people and goods, that may include expressways, highways, local street systems, parking facilities, pedestrian and bikeway systems, public transit routes, terminals, airfields, port facilities, railroad facilities, and other similar facilities or uses. 0 A statement indicating the relationship of the existing and proposed development of the municipality to the existing and proposed development and plans in contiguous municipalities, to the objectives and plans for development in the county of which it is a part, and to regional trends.

Stem of the Planning Process In any planning process there are four basic steps: (1) inventory, (2) policy determination, (3) plan formulation, and (4) implementation. The satisfactory completion of the process requires that each step be completed in order. In most circumstances, the process of planning never ends because the passage of time requires inventory updating, reevaluation of policies, and subsequent plan modifications.

1 Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act of 1968, P.L. 805, No. 247, Section 301 (Reenacted and amended December 21, 1988, Act 170) 1-2 THE PLANNING PROCESS

Inventom. The initial step in any planning process is to objec- tively review a wide range of existing conditions. The basic areas of investigation normally include regional economic trends, land use, community facilities, transportation, and population. As background for this report, data contained in current Centre County Planning Commission publications were used (see bibliography). These reports enabled the Borough Planning Commission to determine the facts and draw important conclusions concerning the social, economic, and physical factors that determine the existing character of the Borough and that control the possibilities for future development. In other words, the inventory of existing conditions provides an information base upon which policies and the plan are based.

Policv Determination. The identification of the Borough's desired role within Centre County and the determination of policies that best carry out this role are the heart of the plan. Without an established role and definitive policies, no basis for a plan exits. Although often not given enough attention, policy determination is in many ways the most important of the four planning steps, because policy states the rationale of a plan. Too often a Com- prehensive Plan is used only to answer the questions of what, where, and sometimes how when the real strength of a plan rests upon a forthright policy statement regarding e.In community planning, the need for meaningful policy is ever more sharply ac- cented when diverse interests and viewpoints must be considered. Additionally, the actual determination of policy is as important as the policies themselves. Whereas the survey and analysis and comprehensive plan stages can be accomplished largely through professional planning assistance, there is no way in which policy determination can be made by other than a community itself and still consider it a useful local document.

PlanFormulation. A plan synthesizes the information gained during the inventory step with policies established in the policy determination step by making sufficient and specific proposals that best and fully carry out the established policy. A community comprehensive plan is characterized by three elements. A plan must be comprehensive in that it must define and deal with all factors -- physical and nonphysical, local and regional -- that affect the physical development of a community. A plan must be aeneral in that it should not focus on questions of detail that will detract from the major policies and the major plan proposals. Finally, a plan must be lonq-ranqe in that it should be forward looking and provide for the future needs of the community.

1-3 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

ImDlementation. The final and critical step is that of implementing the policies and proposals contained in a plan. Unfortunate- ly, a plan cannot be accomplished by a single act or in a single document. It is a continuous series of individual private actions monitored by responsible public agencies and of major public action to coordinate or influence private action. Thus, a plan cannot and should not provide detailed answers to specific problems and questions but must provide a basis for making individual decisions in the context of a long-range scheme.

1-4 1 2. NATURAL FEATURES

Physiographicallyz, Centre County is divided in-o two provinces of the Appalachian Highlands: J The Alleahenv Plateau Province, and J The Ridqe and Vallev Province. The Allegheny Plateau Province, located northwest of Route 220, is characterized as a forested, elevated plain divided by deep narrow valleys generally not attractive for human settlement. The eroded foothills at the base of the Plateau follows the northern rim of the long and narrow Bald Eagle Valley and defines the southern limit of this province. The foothills are known as the Allegheny Front. The Ridge and Valley Province begins on the southern rim of the Bald Eagle Valley and extends southeast to the County line. In contrast to the Plateau Province it is characterized by broad limestone valleys with good soils and easy travel; clearly attractive for human settlement. The Ridge and Valley Province is a significant part of Pennsylvania's physiography, characterized by long narrow mountain ridges and intermontane valleys crossing the State from its south central border to its northeast corner. Map 2.1 shows the physiography of Centre County. Not surprisingly an overwhelming portion of Centre County's population has settled in the Ridge and Valley Province portion of the County. Straddling the,two Provinces, Port Matilda is located primarily in the Ridge and Valley Province as the northern face of the Bald Eagle Valley in the Borough is the edge of the Allegheny Front. Another important physiographic division is that of watersheds. Each run, stream, creek and river forms a channel that receives water from its upland surface areas that slope toward the channel. By definition channels occupy the lowest part of the landscape. The ridge of the land surface (that is, the rim separating the land that drains into one stream from the land that drains into another) is called the divide. The area en- closed by the divide is called the drainage area or watershed, and every stream has a divide and a watershed. In areas undergoing development and growth, watershed delineation and subsequent management / control of activities within each watershed are important for long-range planning considerations. Land use management, water supply, floodwater management, and

1 The data contained in this chapter was drawn primarily from The Centre County Land Use / Open Space Plan Evaluation & Policies and Directions for the Future: Guidelines for Decision Makina published by the Centre County Planning Commission. 2 Defined as "physical geography." 2-1 1

i THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN recreational use are all issues that can generally be better planned on a watershed basis. Watershed delineations also show the direction and flow of surface and subsurface drainage that is an important consideration in locating sewage treatment plants, effluent outfall points, and storm sewer locations. Map 2.2 on page 2-4 shows the major watersheds of Centre County. But simply because our region is blessed with a gentle valley terrain, good soils, and generally ample water does not mean there are not natural limitations to development. There are limitations and they are significant. It is the purpose then of this chapter to describe and delineate the most significant of these limitations as the first step in establishing land use policy for Port Matilda.

A. GEOLOGY1 Carbonate Geoloev The carbonate geology of Centre County is comprised mainly of the geologic formations from the Cambrian Period and the Ordovician Period. Geographically, these formations virtually cover the Nittany and the Penns Valleys. In addition, some Denovian Period carbonate geology is found in the Bald Eagle Valley. The common denominator of these formations is, of course, the presence of limestone and dolomite. Map 2.3 on page 2-5 shows Centre County's carbonate geology. SiPnificance. Carbonate areas are significant in three major ways. First of all, limestone and dolomite deposits that are of good commercial grade and economically recoverable are being mined. Their mineral values lie in their uses for flux stone, cement, agricultural lime, crushed aggregate, and roadstone as well as for the manufacture of glass, filler, and whiting. Second, because carbonate rocks are soluble in water, underground rock is dissolved to leave channels and conduits. These underground waterways provide for flows and reserves that result in high potential for groundwater resources. A further benefit is that the high yield of groundwater in carbonate areas augments stream flow that enables relatively stable surface flow even during dry periods. Third, the weathering of carbonate rocks has created highly productive agricultural soils. These rich soils also support diverse and productive wildlife habitats on land and in streams. Without the carbonate geologic formations in the Nittany, Penns, and Bald Eagle Valleys, Centre County would not be as widely settled and developed as they are today.

1 The source for this section of this report was primarily Land Use 1 Open Space Plan Evaluation and Policies, published by the Centre County Planning Commission in 1976. 2-2 1 ALLEGHENY PLATEAU PLATEAU PROVINCE Map 2.1 FOQTHl LLS J CENTRE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA a I 1-4 1-4 ---.n

N I w

NATURALF'EATURES

SPeciaI Conditions. Sinkholes are started when rainwater dissolves carbonate rocks along vertical and horizontal joints that the water flows through. The joints enlarge until voids are formed in the bedrock so that structural support of the overburden is weakened to the point that the overburden collapses. Construction problems result from building on carbonate geology when sites are insufficiently investigated and construction takes place in ares where the loading causes subsidence. A second problem can occur because runoff that carries pollution with it in carbonate areas can quickly find its way into groundwater because of rapid percolation through sinkholes or a shallow soil cover. Once the pollution is introduced to the groundwater, the contamination spreads quickly via the underground solution channels. And thirdly, locally high groundwater tables in carbonate areas will, at times of heavy precipitation of spring snow melts, drain into shallow depressions causing flooding in those depressions. The'high water table can also cause problems in areas with homes or other structures bv weakenina foundations.

Source: Directions for the Future: Guidelines For Decision Making Centre County Planning Commission, 1977.

2-5 As a general policy, proposed development within carbonate geology areas should thoroughly investigate site locations to ensure that construction takes place in areas that are free from col- lapse and will prevent groundwater pollution.

Mined Resources i Historv. Recovering mineral resources has been an important economic activity in Centre County since its settlement. Iron ore was first discovered in 1784. The first iron furnace began operation at Centre Furnace in 1792. By 1826 there were 19 furnaces or forges in the County and Centre County was part of the leading iron producing area in the United States. The iron industry lost its locally prominent position by the mid- 19th Century, however, due to high transportation costs, general deplgtion of iron ore fields, less expensive iron from England, and competition from Pittsburgh. It started a long decline that ended shortly after the turn of the century when iron production ceased. Limestone and coal extraction soon became the major mineral activities to replace the ironworks.

Map 2.4

Source: Directions for the Future: Guidelines For Decision Making Centre County Planning Commission, 1977. 2-6 NATURAL mATURES

By 1975, limestone and dolomite extracting industries employed about 500 persons in the County, while bituminous coal companies employed over 400 persons. Map 2.4 shows Centre County's mineral resources. Limestone and Dolomite. Limestone is a sedimentary rock, normally white to light gray or buff in color, composed primarily of calcium carbonate. Dolomite is chemically similar to limestone, but it contains higher amounts of magnesium. Two important geological formations are found in Centre County that are being mined. The Valentine Member of the Curtin Forma- tion is one. It is exceptionally pure and is extracted for flux stone, cement, agricultural lime, crushed aggregate, roadstone, and for the manufacture of glass, filler, and whiting. Its maximum thickness is 75 to 90 feet on the northwest side of Nittany Valley extending in a belt from about four miles west of Belle- fonte through Marion Township to the vicinity of Jacksonville. The Valentine Formation is also found in the vicinity of Pleasant Gap and extends east through Walker Township to Clinton County. The second formation is the Bellefonte Formation. It is extracted for use as agricultural dolomite and crushed stone rather than for uses requiring a high calcium-carbonate content. It is located in the Nittany and Penns Valleys in a band from Pleasant Gap, around Mount Nittany, to Centre Hall. Concerns. There are three major concerns regarding mineral resources. First of all, if reserves are ever to be mined when they are in demand, the lands containing the reserves have to be protected and preserved so accessibility is maintained. Second, the quality of the environment must be protected during mining operations and the mined-out lands must be reclaimed when operations are complete. Last, like agricultural lands, once the mineral resources are depleted, they are gone forever. Implicit in these concerns are the requirements that accurate distributions of reserves be mapped, that they remain recoverable, the environmental safeguards be applied during the process of extraction, and that reclamation is properly performed.

2-7 Groundwater Resources B The second benefit provided by the Carbonate Geology formation of the Penns and Nittany Valleys is a high potential well yield from groundwater sources. Map 2.5 displays Centre County's Groundwa- ter Resources. From the foregoing discussion and from experience it should be no surprise that the highest groundwater well yields, over 100 gallons per,minute (gpm), are coincident with the limestone formations. The Nittany Valley is a particularly strong source in that the high yield area extends in a broad band nearly across the entire valley. In the Penns Valley there are two narrow high yield areas generally following PA Routes 192 and 45; each having a potential well yield of over 100 gpm. Similarly in the Bald Eagle Valley the yield area is configured in a single narrow band following the north face of Bald Eagle Mountain, but the potential yield is less -- rated as 26 to 100 gpm. The areas of the Nittany Valley and Bald Eagle Mountains not surprisingly show average potential yields of only 0-25 gpm. While the Nittany Mountain in particular is a water source for several local water companies, their sources are generally springs and not wells; the springs occurring in fissures or fractures of the predominantly diabase rock material. Concerns. The high potential groundwater yields of the Nittany Valley can be a two edged sword however. Because the underlying limestone formations permit rapid flow of underground water, pollution and drawdown problems can also easily result. Just as many of our streams have become polluted by the surface run-off of domestic waste, farm and animal wastes, and urban runoff, so too have some of our underground water supplies. The same problems that plague the surface waters are introduced to the underground water system because of the carbonate geologic nature of the valleys. The rock strata are water soluble and the resulting sinkholes and enlarged joints allow rapid infiltration of polluted water into the groundwater resource. Once introduced, pollutants flow along the caverns and underground waterways to contaminate private and community water sources located miles away. Quality alone does not suffer by the intervention of our activities. Major disruption of a groundwater drainage system may di- minish the quantity of groundwater thus altering surface and subsurface drainage patterns. One disruption problems exits around deep limestone mines where large amounts of groundwater are pumped to keep the mines from flooding, causing water tables to be lowered in these areas. Local groundwater flow areas are sometimes reversed around the mines because of pumpage. As a general policy, future growth patterns should be directed to ensure the protection of municipal and private water supplies. Surface and groundwater quality and flow and recharge must be maintained at levels that are environmentally acceptable.

I 2-8

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

B. SOILS

Soil functions in two major ways: JAs a medium to grow plants, and J As the base upon which we build our structural environment. Because soil varies in composition around the County, we find va- rying types of both plants and man's development activity. The components that make up a soil type such as depth, drainage, parent material, texture, and degree of slope can combine in hun- dreds of ways to give each soil type an individual set of characteristics. Because of the wide variety of characteristics soil testing is advised for agricultural activities and required for on lot sanitary sewage disposal.

Apricultural Capabilities 1 The fertile limestone soils of Centre County have historically supported a large farming economy. These soils form the Itthird resource"2 of the carbonate geology of the Nittany, Penns, and Bald Eagle Valleys. Centre County is fortunate to have ...... its fertile limestone valleys for flq#"fZ.l -- Farm Acreage in farming use, but as this valuable Centre County, 1940 to 1988. resource is converted to non-agri- ...... cultural uses it is lost forever. I Agricultural usage in Centre County 250,ooo peaked310,000 inacres 1880 of at land2,400 and farms has ondwin- A I='*\ dled since to 133,000 acres in pro- C 200,000 n\U duction in 1988. Map 2.6 shows agricultural land usage in Centre f County in 1975. The bulk of this S"I iso,ooo usage is in the Nittany and Penns L Valleys. There is one very simple I reason for the development of farm- ioo,ooo land: The same characteristics that I ------make agriculture a desirable land A A A h A A use also are desirable for 1900 1950 1960 1970 1980 1988 development purposes -- gentle YEA" grades, water supply, and good soil drainage. The great land pressures in and near urban areas force development attention out to the relatively flat farmlands nearby. Land costs are lower in the rural areas and are avail-

1 A primary source for this section of this report was Directions for the Future: Guidelines for Decision Makinq, published by the Centre County Planning Commission in June of 1977. 2 The first two resources were previously described as mineral resources and water resources. 2-10 1 I NATURAL FEATURES able in large tracts that are already cleared of trees and have the best soils for drainage and construction. The farmer, in '1 turn, is aware of the opportunity to derive extra income by sel- ling off all or parts of his land. It is ironic that the same qualities that make land desirable for farming also make land :I desirable for development; consider that every borough in Centre County site almost entirely on either prime agricultural lands or pasture land. When do we start to conserve this resource? or do 'I we at all? National SipniPieanee of Agriculture. It may seem that Centre County plays a small part in feeding the state or even the nation. But the fact is that Centre County's farms, as are all other farms, are involved in a worldwide system of supply and demand. A loss of agricultural productivity in one area must be compensated elsewhere by either bringing new areas into production or by increasing overall productivity. Until recently, the loss of farmland has been offset by general, even astounding, increases in productivity. But today, productivity increases are coming more slowly 0- especially in areas where they are needed most. These areas are the less-developed parts of the world that comprise two- thirds of human population. In the future, as their population

Source: Directions for the Future: Guidelines For Decision Making Centre County Planning Commission, 1977. 2-11 continues to grow, these same areas are going to look more and more at agriculturally rich parts of the world as a food source. As the demand for food increases, it will become increasingly prudent to productively farm our lands, and this applies to Centre County as part of the system. Even if we do not need all 133,000 acres of the County’s farmland today, we may very well need it in the future. LodShWcanceofApriculture. There are a number of reasons why agriculture is important to Centre County and to the Nittany Region. Local consumption of dairy, poultry, and livestock products saves County residents the extra expense of importing these items from other areas. And conversely agriculture contributes to an inflow of cash when farm products are exported. In Belle- fonte, a unique opportunity to help preserve local agriculture exists through the concept of a farmer’s market. Agricultural lands play an important role in regulating the flow and quality of groundwater. When lands are converted to intensive development, groundwater recharge can become disrupted. Agricultural lands combine with the County’s forested ridges to form vast areas providing diverse habitats for wildlife. The variety of wildlife populations then supported is significant to many recreational interests. Another local value of agricultural land is as open space. Besides enhancing the aesthetic quality of the County, the open farmland areas provide a psychological release from city confines. Under the PA Agricultural Securities Area Act (Act 143 as amende&) some townships in the Nittany Region have taken positive steps to preserve agriculture as an industry. As of August 1, 1991, 2,485 acres of land in Marion Township had been placed in an Agricultur- al Security Area; in Benner Township 2435.9 acres; and in Spring Township 3484.5 acres. Additionally in Spring Township 339 acres of the same land had their development rights purchased through the Centre County and Pennsylvania Agricultural Land Conservation Easement Program. Policv for Agricultural Lands. The development of a fair , clear , coherent, and strong policy for agricultural land is one of the most important considerations in the preparation of this Plan. While there is often general agreement as to the need to protect agricultural land, there is on the other hand very little agreement as to how. Among the techniques considered are: J Encouragement and enhancement of the agricultural economy. J Encouraging development on less than prime agricultural soils. J Using agricultural security districts as protective devices. J Encouraging higher population densities in our already developed areas. J Encouraging alternate land u8es on good agricultural land, i.e.: recreational, forest, or vacant.

2- 12 I1 II NATURAL FEATURES Limitations of On-Site Sewape DisDosal1 U The limitations of the soil are a major factor in determining the use of the land. Development should not take place in areas where soils present severe engineering or environmental restric- tions. The use of soil survey information indicates the general I1 suitability of soil for on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems. When mapped, this information shows land areas generally suitable or practical for development. Map 2.7 shows the loca- I1 tion and limitations of Centre County soils for on-site sewage disposal. It must be understood, however, that soils are rarely uniform and I1 vary considerably throughout any given profile. Therefore, soils data should be used only as a guide in selecting "suitable" land areas. For small parcels, soil tests should be conducted to determine specific characteristics of permeability, bearing capacity, and drainage. The parameters used to determine suitability for subsurface sewage disposal systems and the ability to support the weight of building foundations are the following: Depth to bedrock, height and seasonal variation of the water table, soil texture, internal soil drainage characteristics, presence or absence of impervious layers, danger of pollution of ground water, and stoniness. The soils of Centre County were placed in three specific categories that are listed in terms of the relative degree of limitation for development -- slight, moderate, and severe. They are defined as follows: J Slight - Soils with few known limitations. J Moderate - Soils with one or more properties that limit their use. Corrections of these factors will increase installation and maintenance costs. J Severe - Soils with one or more properties that seriously limit their use. Using soil with a severe limitation will increase the probability of septic system or foundation failure and add considerably to the cost of construction and maintenance. The most significant characteristic of Map 2.7 is that no land is considered totally suitable for on-site sewage disposal and less than 1% have even slight limitations. The remaining 99% plus have moderate to severe limitations! The very clear implication here is that on-site sewage disposal should be considered the exception and not the norm. Sanitary sewage treatment plants must be considered the nom.

1 The source for this section of this report was primarily Land Use / Open Space Plan Evaluation and Policies, published by the Centre County Planning Commission in 1976. 2- 13 -.1‘ I I SEVERE LIMITATIONS SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR ON=SlTE SEWAGE DISPOSAL 11 NATURAL FEATURES U C. SLOPES1 The diverse topography in Centre County is characterized by ex- tremes in elevation. The highest elevation is 2,600 feet above sea level at the Blair County Line in Rush Township. The lowest I 'I elevation, 575 feet above sea level, is the Bald Eagle Creek channel at the Clinton County Line. In the Nittany Planning Region the highest elevation is 2302 feet atop Mount Nittany in I1 Spring Township, and the lowest is 850 feet in the channel of Little Fishing Creek at the Clinton County Line.

~ Of course the most evident and dramatic slopes are the faces of II the mountain ridges as they cross Centre County. It is impossible to be anywhere in the Nittany, Penns, and Bald Eagle limestone valleys without feeling a sense of confinement. Map 2.8 II clearly shows the dominance of Nittany and Bald Eagle Mountains. Also evident on Map 2.8 are the steeply sloping banks of Spring I1 Creek and Logan Branch. 11

Source: Directions for the Future: Guidelines For Decision Making I. I Centre County Planning Commission, 1977. 1 A primary source for this section of this report was Directions for the Future: Guidelines for Decision Makinq, published by the Centre County Planning Commission in June of 1977. 2-15 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

As discussed previously, only the valleys of Centre County have been developed due to the location of minerals, groundwater, and good soils there. The mountain ridges, short on all three of these resources, are also hampered by the slopes themselves. The percent slope of any parcel of land1 suggests certain development potential. The development potentials can be summarized in five general categories as follows: J 0 to 5 Percent Slope. Relatively flat; most desirable for development. J 6 to 10 Percent Slope. Can be readily used for development with careful planning. Industrial uses become limited; some agricultural crops approach limitations. J 11 to 15 Percent Slope. Can support attractive residential development if carefully planned. Commercial uses become limited. Erosion becomes a problem for agriculture. Industry is severely limited. J 16 to 25 Percent Slope. Only feasible developed use is for residences. Development and municipal services are high; erosion is a problem. J 25 Percent and Over Slope. Very limited value for development.

Source: Directions for the Future: Guidelines For Decision Making Centre County Planning Commission, 1977.

1 Vertical rise of land per 100 feet of horizontal distance; e.g., 5 slope means a five foot vertical rise for each 100 feet of horizontal distance. 2 - 16 NATURAL FEATURES

Discussion. Although limited to residential uses, the slopes and ridges of Centre County are feeling pressures for development. The trend of building homes farther and farther up on the sloping sides of ridges has been seen in recent years in communities located next to mountains. And in the mountains themselves, the second home as a seasonal cabin is becoming common -- a home that later oftentimes becomes permanent. As permanent homes are established up the slopes or in the mountains, land that heretofore has been used as a repository for natural resources, for recreation, and for open spaces becomes converted to other uses. Some of the specific problems that are apt to arise from development on the mountain slopes and ridges are: J Sewaae disDosal is almost always provided by an on-lot septic system. Because soils in slope and ridge areas are unsuitable for proper wastewater percolation and treatment, contaminated wastes often find their way into groundwater supplies. J Soil erosion and sedimentation is a danger when steeply sloping land is disturbed. J Roads in mountainous areas generally are not designed for heavy or regular use. Steeply graded roads tend to deteriorate rapidly and costly public maintenance results, generally benefiting only a small portion of a jurisdiction's residents. J Public services and facilities are generally unavailable in mountain or forested areas because of their high public cost. Development has been historically less practical on steeper slopes than on flatter ground. Limitations arise to construction of buildings and roads, erosion control becomes more of a problem, public facilities and services are less easily supplied and where available are at a higher public cost, and watershed protection becomes more difficult. In many cases on excessive slopes -- or in scenic areas, on slopes with poor soils, in protected watershed areas, and in places with other obvious limiting factors -- development should be prohibited. In other cases on lesser slopes, development can be attractive, functional, and environmentally sound if it is properly designed.

2-17 1 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1 D. FORESTS 1 L Legacy. Centre County was almost completely forested when the first settlers arrived. For many years these expansive forest areas attracted and supported considerable lumbering activity. 1 But lumbering is limited today partly because early operations did not practice sound forest management, leaving a legacy of small-sized tree stock, and partly because there is a lack of local markets for the types of Oak-Hickory and mixed hardwood 1 species available here. Even so, about 70 percent of the Coun- ty's total land area remains forested. This forest stock could yet become commercially valuable if sound forest management 1 techniques are practiced now and into the future in order to develop a sizable reserve. -uses. A forest is a resource that can be used again and again, I but it must be properly managed. In so doing, forests can be perpetually maintained in a healthy and productive state for both timber and other purposes. I Although the timber potential is there, there are many other reasons that the forests are significant to residents of Centre I County. A major reason is the forest's contribution to the water cycle. Trees are most often the primary cover of watersheds. As the cover, they protect the watershed and groundwater supply by 1 binding the soil with their roots, thus lessening run-off and al- lowing water to seep down through the porous cover to the ground- i water reserves. Related to this soil-binding action of the tree I roots is the forest's role in soil conservation by controlling 1 erosion and sedimentation. A tree is part of soil building, too. As the tree grows, root 1 action breaks up rock to help soil formation; and leaves, fallen branches, even entire dead trees slowly decompose to become soil components. 1 Forests also have an effect upon the air by playing a major role in the oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen cycle. Forests also help neutralize pollutants in the air, and, in the summertime they lower i.i ambient air temperature by as much as ten degrees, thus providing natural "air conditioning." This last point can be particularly advantageous to residential areas if woodlots are part of a planned development. Other uses for forests include: J The potential for recreational opportunities, I J The support of plant and animal habitats, J The protection of scenic and aesthetic values, and J The creation of a buffer between different land uses. I. 1 A primary source for this section of this report was Directions for the Future: Guidelines for Decision Makinq, published by the Centre County Planning Commission in June of 1977. i 2-18 I ll II NATURAL FIZATURES Discussion. It is because forests are valuable in so many ways 11 that the need is recognized for management of this resource. Centre County is fortunate to have some 208,000 acres of State Forest and Game lands, almost all of which is forested. Develop- II ment is restricted and logging is controlled in these lands, but forest managers must still guard against fire, disease, and pests. The extensively forested areas of Centre County are shown ll on Map 2.9. Of course the expanses of private forests face the same natural disasters as those of public forests, but they also bear the ll added responsibilities of privately managing logging activities and development in accordance with applicable guidelines and ordinances. Summary. The primary use of forests should be: oxygen production; control of erosion, sedimentation, and flooding; watershed protection and regeneration; wildlife habitat protection; protection of aesthetic values; wood production and re-forestation; and woodland areas that provide buffers between different types of land uses can help to modify the effect of noise, air, and water pollution.

Source: Directions for the Future: Guidelines For Decision Making Centre County Planning Commission, 1977. 2- 19 E. FLOODPLAINS 1

A floodplain is a relatively flat stretch of land adjacent to a stream. At times, the floodplain is covered by water as the stream swells from increased runoff during storms or the spring snow melt. This swelling and shrinking throughout the course of a year is normal, but usually minor in degree. Sometimes, however, during severe storms the stream will flood over a wide area. It is not difficult to imagine that these severe flooding conditions are the true limits of a stream that normally flows within a much smaller channel. Floodplains were historically attractive to settlement for a number of reasons. The land was relatively flat and the properties of floodplain soils made for easy construction. A waterway was near as a water supply, for transportation, and for washing away

Source: Directions for the Future: Guidelines For Decision Making Centre County Planning Commission, 1977.

community wastes. Farming was also often very good. The found- ers of floodplain settlements were likely unaware of flooding problems -- until the first flood of greater consequence than the annual swollen stream hit them. The floodplains in Centre County have been identified and mapped in two ways. First, the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has classified floodplain soils based on evidence of past flooding whether in historic or prehis- 1-1 toric times. The second and perhaps more meaningful way is the record of actual flooding conditions from major historic floods. In 1972 Hurricane Agnes struck Pennsylvania causing millions of dollars of damage and flooding 21,000 acres in Centre County. The flooding caused by Agnes: became recognized as the "100 year flood." A 100 year flood means that flooding of this magnitude has one chance in one hundred of occurring in any given year; or stated conversely, over the long run of 100 years, such a flood can be expected to occur once. The "100 year flood" has been established as the defined limit of the floodplain throughout Pennsylvania. Map 2.10, Floodplains, is a generalized mapping of the floodplains in Centre County. In land area, the main branches of the Bald Eagle Creek, the Moshannon Creek, and the West Branch of the Susquehanna River contain the most extensive floodplains. In the Nittany Region, tributaries of the Bald Eagle Creek including Spring Creek, Logan Branch, Buffalo Run, Nittany Creek, Lick Creek, and Little Fishing Creek all have narrow floodplains. Discussion. The floodplain can exist either in its natural state or in a developed state. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with both. One natural advantage is related to the undeveloped floodplain's role as part of a complex water regulatory system. In times of drought, for example, groundwater that flows into the floodplain provides a base flow to streams. And as the groundwater tends to be near the surface in the floodplain, it supplies moisture to floodplain vegetation so that during periods when the groundwater level is high, a marshy condition exists in many floodplains. On the other hand, in times of flooding the floodplain acts as a kind of storage basin to contain the extent of flooding that would otherwise occur if fill or buildings were placed on the land. In such cases, instead of flowing freely, the water level tends to become higher and spreads out over a larger area; therefore, making flooding conditions worse. Another natural advantage is that floodplain soils are often associated with prime agricultural soils. In these cases, past flooding deposited rich alluvial silt that became productive farmland. I1 2-21 .... THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The floodplain also provides unique habitats for many wetland plant and animal species. By supporting special plant and wildlife, floodplains contribute to the natural diversity of our environment -- a diversity that lends itself to stability and to a reliably functioning natural system. Undeveloped floodplains are open spaces that are nicely suited for such uses as playgrounds, parks and gardens, and for recreational activities such as hiking, fishing, and horseback riding. All of these activities can be enhanced by the scenic value of the stream in its undeveloped setting. On the other hand, as relatively flat expanses of land, the floodplain is attractive for community development. Another advantage is that the water supply is usually dependable. This is the case especially for the groundwater resource because it tends to have a relatively constant yield, low temperature, low sedi- ment content, and no evaporation loss. The surface stream in the floodplain also has been useful both for transportation and as a final recipient of man's wastewater. Because of these historic landscape and water resource advantages, many of Centre County's communities are located at least partly within floodplains. The disadvantages to development in the floodplains have recently become all too apparent. The 1972 Agnes storm tragically illus- trates the losses that occur during times of severe flooding. Everyone, including people with no property or other interest in the floodplain as well as floodplain residents, contributed their tax dollars for disaster aid, emergency housing, levee construction, and eventually subsidized flood insurance. Floods are going to occur whether floodplains are developed or not. Unfortunately, development in floodplains has the effect of increasing the duration and extent of a flood. The paving, the structures, the filled in low places -- all force flood waters higher and increase runoff that cannot be carried away by the stream. Hazardous materials are in danger of being released into the waters because of their location in the floodplain. They could come from oil and gas in storage or from low-lying sewage treatment plants. Besides the direct damages resulting from flooding conditions, development is disadvantageous in other ways. Many floodplain soils are not suited for adequate on-site sewage disposal so that poorly renovated sewage effluent enters nearby streams and groundwater resources. Where a sewage system exists, the treatment plant is typically located in a low lying area, making it vulnerable to flood damage. The high water table associated with floodplains can also mean wet basements, occasional local swampy conditions, and difficul- ties for waste disposal. 2-22 NATURAL FEATURES

Conclusion. Because of the overwhelming evidence that development in the floodplain poses irrevocable harm to the environment while at the same time placing man in a position hazardous to his life and property, there is little question that development should no longer occur within the floodplain. The economic and social costs of flood recovery are too great. And current legislation permits prohibition. Still, the present inhabitants of the floodplain have to be protected as well as the floodplain environment itself. Responses to this problem can range from rigid controls over floodplain use to a do-nothing attitude. For example, one category of response could be to move all residents, business, and industries out of the floodplain and let it revert back to a natural state. Anoth- er could be to ban further development with an emphasis on protection of existing development. A third response could be to control new development to conform to certain standards of flood proofed structures. A final response could be to simply inform all residents and potential residents of the hazards involved in floodplains development. A variation on any of these responses would serve in some measure to protect the floodplain environment and lessen the danger to man and his property.

F. COMPOSITE FEATURES Map 2.11 displays a composite of the Port Matilda's significant natural features. Each has and will continue to limit and guide development in the Borough. 0 Watersheds. All of central Pennsylvania, including the all of Centre County, is part of the Susquehanna River Valley watershed that eventually empties into the Chesapeake Bay. A major basin of the Susquehanna is that of Bald Eagle Valley that includes all of Port Matilda Borough. 0 Waterways. Port Matilda has two identifiable waterways: J Bald Eaale Creek. Originating above Port Matilda just over the Blair County line, the Bald Eagle Creek drains all of Port Matilda Borough as well as the foothills of the Allegheny Plateau and enroute to its joining the West Branch of the Susquehanna River at Lock Haven. J Laurel Run. A small branch of the Bald Eagle Creek, Laurel Run drains the valley immediately north of Port Matilda through which Route 322 travels. It is typical of the many small waterways that drain the Allegheny Front into Bald Eagle Creek. 0 Floodolains. The Bald Eagle Creek has in the past been a major contributor of flooding in communities located upon the West Branch of the Susquehanna River -- Lock Haven and Wil- liamsport are most notable. Because of this flooding problem, the Foster Joseph Sayers dam was constructed on the Bald Eagle Creek near Howard as a flood control project and Lock Haven and Williamsport have taken extensive steps to prevent future flooding in their communities. 2-23 I THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1 i Even though Port Matilda is well upstream from the areas of serious flood damage, the Borough must be concerned. Map 2.11 shows that an extensive portion of the Borough's land I- area has been classified as floodplain. Little construction has occurred in Port Matilda's floodplain and none should I occur in the future. Thus even though the Borough has an I ordinance in effect limiting the construction of buildings within the floodplain, it needs to consider strengthening its zoning ordinance to more carefully control land usage within the floodplain. i 0 SloDes. Three corners of the Borough have significant areas with slopes exceeding 15%. The steepest of these are along I the north side of U.S. 222 at the beginning of the Allegheny Front. These slopes are extreme before they flatten into plateaus with more moderate slopes. On the south side of the i Borough along Bald Eagle Mountain the slopes are gentler as the Borough limits do not extend up the Mountain far enough to include the Mountain's steepest slopes. In general slope areas in Port Matilda define but do not prohibit areas ap- I propriate for development. 0 Limestone Rock. A narrow band of limestone rock occurs in Bald Eagle Mountain runs along the extreme southern edge of I the Borough -- primarily in adjacent Worth Township. This

rock accounts for the earlier quarry operations in the Bor- 1L ough's southeastern corner. It should be noted, however, that the Borough quarry site was primarily a processing and staging area with the primary quarrying occurring near the 1 ridge of Bald Eagle Mountain. I 0 Soil Divisions. Centre County's prime soils are concentrated in the Nittany and Penns Valleys. No areas of prime soils 1 are located in Port Matilda, although some crop farming is conducted in the extreme northeast corner of the Borough. Two soil groups are located in Port Matilda: J Berks-Weikert Association: Dominantly sloping to very I steep, moderately deep and shallow, well drained soil underlain by acid shale bedrock.1 ! J Hazleton-Laidia-Andover Association: Dominantly gently sloping to very steep, deep, well drained and poorly drained soils underlain by acid sandstone bedrock.1 I 0 Wooded Areas. Not surprisingly the most predominant wooded areas in Port Matilda occur in areas with the least potential for either agricultural use or for development -- the 1 areas of the steepest slopes and the floodplain. The woods are an important part of Port Matilda's atmosphere and should be maintained. I

1 General Soil Map, Soil Survey of Centre County, Pennsylvania, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1981. i 2-24 I

:Ii il il 3. EXISTING LAND USE The mapping and tabu3ation of existing land use in a community is indispensable to its physical planning. The term land use refers ‘1I to the spatial distribution of existing land use functions -- the residential or living areas; the industrial or working areas; and I1 the support functions offered by commerce, institutions, and utilities. By studying existing land use patterns, a variety of II information will be gained providing the basis for future land I1 use planning in Port Matilda. Land Use Classifications The Centre County Planning Commission1 has established eleven ‘II land use classifications as appropriate for measuring and evaluating land use in the County. Table 3.1 defines and describes these classifications. These eleven classifications can be divided into two important but separate groups: Developed Undeveloped J Residential J Agricultural J Commercial J Forested J Industrial J Water J Mined Land J Vacant or Unused J Transportation, Communications, and Utilities J Public and Semi-public J Recreational Upon undeveloped land, natural features remain predominant -- soils, trees, slopes, marshes, and water. Services are limited to ~ il the management of farmers and foresters. In developed areas however, land has been reformed and constructed for predominant use by man, for living, working and playing. Support services in the form of roads, utilities and community facilities are extensive. The importance of dividing land use classifications into two groups is to highlight what is the single most important issue of Ill this Comprehensive Plan -- what currently undeveloped areas should be made available for development. For once land is com- mitted to development, the return to a natural or undeveloped state is nearly impossible. In the Bald Eagle Valley, outside of I Port Matilda Borough, most land remains undeveloped; which is appropriate for future development? For purposes of comparison and standardization the same classifications will be used in surveying existing land use in Port Ma- tilda Borough. These classifications should also be valuable later when redrafting the Borough’s Zoning Ordinance.

~~ -~~~ 1 Centre Countv Existinu Lana‘ Use, Centre County Planning Commission, 1985. I1 3-1 1

r-I 1 0) CLASSIFICATION/ Definition/ i Z. Categories: examples. ~ i 1) RESIDENTIAL/ Residential land use is classified i on the basis of either land area occupied by a dwelling or the character of the dwelling itself/ 1T A. Single-Family Conventional B. Single-Family Mobile Home: including mobile homes in parks. C. Two-to-Four-Family I Residence: such as converted Single-Family Units; Duplexes. D. Multi-Family 1 Residence: such as Townhouses; Apartments; Dormitories; and converted Single ------or ------Two-Family Units. I 2) COMMERCIAL/ Commercial land uses are based upon differing types of sales or econom- i-I ic activity/ A. Retail and Services: such as Pharmacies; Department 1 Stores; Banks; Craft Shops; Doctors Offices; Theaters. i B. Heavy Commercial: such as Automobile Dealers; Lumber Yards; Warehouses; Fuel Distribu- I ------tors; ------Automobile Salvage. i 3 ) INDUSTRIAL/ Industrial land use categories are i based upon the intensity with which i the land is utilized/ A. Heavy Industry: such as Chemical Manufacturing; Metal Manufacturing. B. Light Industry: such as Publishers; Bottling Compa- 1 ------nies; ------Research and Development. 4) MINED LAND/ Any activity where natural resources or materials are removed i from the earth's surface/ A. Strip Mine ! B. Quarry 1. ------C. Natural Gas 5) TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNI- L1 CATIONS & UTILITIES/ Land areas and buildings pertaining to the supply and/or service of public utility, communication, and 1 transportation facilities/ b 3-2 ! c1

0) CLASSIFICATION/ Definition/ 2. Categories: examples.

5) TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNI- CATIONS & UTILITIES/(Cnt.) A. Highway: such as Streets and Roads; Bus Terminals; Large Parking Lots. B. Railway or Terminal such as the Bellefonte Station C. Airport D. Utility: such as Sewage Disposal Plants; Power Generating Stations; Water Utilities. E. Pipe or Transmission such as the Texas Eastern gas tran- Line Easement smission line in Spring Township F. Communication: such as Television and Radio ------Facilities. ------6) PUBLIC AND SEMIPUBLIC/ Institutional uses include public or semi-public buildings or land areas available for general public use/ A. Governmental: such as Postal Services; Police Stations; Township Offices; Correc- tional Institutions; Fire Halls. B. Educational: such as Elementary or Secondary School Facilities; Vocational Schools; College Classroom Build- ings C. Church and Cemetery D. Miscellaneous Service: such as Museums; Libraries; Histor- ic Areas; Labor Union Halls; Pro------fessional Union Halls. 7 ) RECREATIONAL/ such as Parks; Playgrounds; Golf ------Courses;------Beaches; Swimming Pools. 8) AGRICULTURAL/ Any land area used for growing crops, pastureland, or location of ------agricultural------buildings. ------9) FORESTED/ Undeveloped------woodland and forests. io) WATER/ such as Streams; Rivers; Creeks; Canals; Lakes. - -.------11) VACANT OR UNUSED/ such as Swamps; Nonagricultural Fields; Empty-- Lots. NNN-NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN Source: Centre County Planning Corn.; Stallman & Stahlman, Inc. 3-3 ! i THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1 Centre Coantv Land Uses It is an understatement to say that Centre County is predominant- I ly rural. As shown in Table 3.2 -- Existing Land Use in Centre County -- during 1985, only 6.6 percent of the land area of the i County fell into the "developed" categories: residential, commer- 1 cial, industrial, mined land, transportation, public, and recreational. Most of the County is forested, 70.3%, or agriculture, 18.7%. 1i Although Centre County is predominately rural, there was an increase from 6.2% to 6.6% between 1975 and 1985 in the amount of developed land. This increase may only be 0.4 percent, but this represents 2,503 acres of land that has been placed in the devel- I oped land use categories. The major changes between 1975 and ! 1985 occurred in the following land use categories: commercial 1 land increased by 32.5 percent, residential land by 20.9 percent and industrial land by 17.7 percent. Thus while the amount of land transferring from undeveloped to developed was ''only" 0.4 percent or 2,503 acres, 810nlytt2,503 acres is almost four square 1 miles -- not an insignificant area! One other land use category that saw a significant increase be- i tween 1975 and 1985 was vacant land that increased 300 acres or 12.1 percent from 25,000 to 28,000 acres. *- *-1 But for every increase in developed acreage and in vacant land there was necessarily a corresponding decrease in other land use categories. The most significant losses occurred in agricultural and forested land. Between 1975 and 1985, 2,179 acres of land I were converted from agricultural to other uses -- the equivalent of eleven average size farmsf It is true that some of this land I slipped into the vacant category and could be brought back into i agricultural production, but unfortunately the majority of it was removed from farm use, virtually forever, as a result of the construction of homes, businesses, and highways. i In addition, 3,346 acres of forested land were converted to other uses between 1975 and 1985. Some of this land was timbered off and listed as vacant land and some has been used for residential i purpose land. Mining and the infestation of Gypsy Moth were also factors in the decrease of forested land. But surprisingly, mined land had a decrease of 692 acres between 1.i 1975 and 1985. This loss was a result of three factors: (1) a decrease in the demand for coal that slowed the expansion of surface mining; (2) the reclamation of recently surfaced mined land as required by new regulations; and (3) the natural re-vegetation of previously surface mined areas. 1 i Even though the County has seen an increase in developed land between 1975 and 1985, the increases have been largely confined to the Nittany and Penns Valleys -- locations of the other six I 3-4 I iI I1 communities participating in this joint planning initiative. Fur- thermore, in these Valleys development has been spurred by the il phenominal growth of the university and subsequent construction has tended to cluster closely around the Boroughs of State Col- lege and Bellefonte, or along connecting major highways. On the 11 other hand, physical barriers, such as the ridges of the Valley and Ridge Province and the ruggedness of the Appalachian Plateau have kept extensive development from Port Matilda and surrounding if Worth Township. Map 3.1, Generalized Existing Land Use, clearly shows this pattern. 1-1 Table 3.2 -- Existing Land Use in Centre County, 1975, 1980, I1 and 1985. Percent Percent Acreage LAND USE 1975 1980 1985 of Chanae Change CLASS Acres Acres Acre€ Total --75-85 80-85 1975-85 Residential 10,017 11,358 12,ll: 1.7% 20.9% 6.6% 2 ,095 Commercial 885 1,073 1,171 0.2% 32.5% 9.3% 288 Industrial 575 647 671 0.1% 17.7% 4.6% 102 Mined Land 16 ,156 15 ,592 15 ,464 2.2% -4.3% -0.8% -692 ll Trans, Comm, 12,721 12,826 12,9OC 1.8%. 1.4% 0.6% 179 6, Utilities Public and 1,506 1,532 1,686 0.2% 12.0% 10.1% 180 Semi-public Recreational 2,515 2,791 2,866 0.4% 14.8% 2.7% 351 -- TOTAL 44,375 45,819 46,878 6.6% 5.6% 2.3% 2 I 503 DEVELOPED

Agricultural L35,649 133,902 133,470 18.7% -1.6% -0.3% -2 I 179 Forested i04,830 502,885 501,484 70.3% -0.7% -0.3% -3, 346

Water 3,881 3,891 3,899 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% . 18 Vacant 24,910 27,148 27,914 3.9% 12.1% 2.8% 3 ,004 - - GRAND TOTAL '13,645 713,645 713,645 .oo. 0%

Source: Centre County Existinq Land Use 1985, Centre County II Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1987. 11 3-5 Map 3.1 Source: Centre Counlv Existina Land Use, 1975; Centre County Planning

CENTRE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

-rGENER-ALIZED --"--7r_-.--.-.l EXISTING.,- _Y _y_ LANDY -- -4 USE_II- .c----- ~79753I_-.. I CENTRE REGION UPPER BALD EAGLE NITTANY VALLEY CENTRE COUNTY RE ION REI ION Percent Acreage Percent Acreage Percent Acreage Percent Acreage Zhange Change Change Zhange Change Change 3hange Change LAND USE CLASS 1975-85 1975-85 1975-85 1975-85 1975-85 1975-85 1975-85 1975-85 Residential 20.3% 791 31.7% 209 19.7% 326 20.9% 2,095 Commercial 27.6% 112 53.8% 14 23.6% 35 32.5% 288 Industrial 32.6% 43 30.8% 8 26.7% 40 17.7% 102 Mined Land -4.4% -14 9.1% 4 37.5% 285 -4.3% -692 Y Transportation, 4 6.4% 176 2.5% 30 0.3% 7 1.4% 17 9 Comm & Utilities Public / Semi-Public -4.2% -25 19.4% 6 2.2% 9 12.0% 180 Recreational 3.4% 44 -7.1% --3 39.2% -103 14.0% 351 TOTAL DEVELOPED 12.0% 1,127 13.1% 268 14.9% 805 5.6% 2,503 Agricultural -2.5% -901 -0.2% -17 -1.5% -436 -1.6% -2,179 Forested -1.1% -509 -0.8% -523 -1.0% -374 -0.7% -3,346 Water -4.4% 4 14.1% 21 18.7% 14 0.5% 18 Vacant 4.1% 279 5.3% 251 -0.2% -9 12.1% 3,004

\ THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The current trend in Centre County is one in which the Centre Re- gion is strengthening as the urbanized core of the County. This Region is developing at a more rapid rate than the remainder of the County. However, areas within Centre County adjacent to the Centre Region are also beginning to see an increase in developed land and a decrease in agriculture and forested lands. Table 3.3 compares the land use changes in the Centre, Upper Bald Eagle, and Nittany Valley Regions with the County as a whole.

Port Matilda Borough Land Uses Table 3.4 compares land usage in Port Matilda in 1975, 1985 and 1990. Also refer to Table 3.1 for detailed descriptions of the land uses included in each category.

Percent Percent Rcreage LAND USE 1975 1985 1990 of Chanse Zhange CLASS Acres Acres Acres Total 75-85 8s-9a 1975-90 Residential 58 59 64 18.1% 1.7% 8.5% 6 Commercial 4 4 4 1.0% 0.0% 0.08 0 Industrial 2 3 3 o.wa 50.0% 0.0% 1 Mined Land 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 Transp,Comm, 53 53 36 10.3% 0.0% -32.1% -17 & Utilities Pub1ic/Semi-. ub. 4 6 5 1.5% 50.0% -16.7% -1 Recreational 6 8 8 2.3% 33.3% 0.0% 2

- - 7 DEVELOPED 127 133 120 34.1% 4.7% -9.8% -7 Agricultural 35 34 38 10.8% -2.9% 10.5% 3 Forested 129 127 121 34.6% -1.6% -4.7% -8 Water 10 10 15 4.3% 0.0% 50.0% 5 Vacant 50 47 57 16.2% -6.0% 21.3% 7 - = GRAND TOTAL 351 351 351 100.0%

Source: Centre County Existing Land Use 1985, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1987. 1990 calculations by Stallman & Stahlman, Inc.

3-a EXISTING LAND USE

LandUseTrends. This Comprehensive Plan centers upon the public interest in controlling future land development in Port Matilda. However, before making judgements as to the degree and intensity of control necessary, existing land use conditions must be understood. It is the purpose of this section to help in this under- 11 standing. Table 3.4 quantifies land use in Port Matilda Borough by category, comparing the years 1975, 1985, and 1990. Table 3.3 compares i1 land use changes in the Upper Bald Eagle Region, of which Port Matilda is part, with changes in Centre County as a whole, the Centre Region, and the Nittany Valley Region between 1975 and I1 1985. Map 3.1 shows the pattern of land use in Centre County in 1975; and while seventeen years old, the pattern has not changed, only reinforced. Map 3.2 shows the precise pattern and location of existing land use in Port Matilda in 1990; it is an important I1 historical reference, and will also be an important source for the establishment of future zoning districts. Following is a list of the most significant factors found in these tables and I1 maps. 0 Size. Just 351 acres, or 0.55 square miles, Port Matilda Borough is among Centre County's smallest municipalities, I1 Its small size combined with its environmental limitations (See Chapter 2) provides limited opportunities for further growth. l-l 0 Residential Growth. Since 1975 residential growth has been very small in Port Matilda, expanding by only six acres, or approximately 10% This low growth is primarily due to a I1 combination of (1) a lack of public sewers and (2) the Penn- sylvania Department of Environmental Resources' tight control upon on-lot septic systems. I1 Slow growth has'not been the case in other parts of Centre County, however. Table 3.3 shows residential growth as a very constant 20% in the County as a whole as well as in the I1 Nittany Valley and Centre Regions. In the Upper Bald Eagle Region, growth was a much higher 32%. In the Centre and Nittany Valley Regions growth was directed to areas served by sanitary sewer systems. Having no such systems, growth iI in the Upper Bald Eagle Region was far more scattered. 0 Aqricultural Land. Between 1975 and 1985 a loss of 2,179 acres of agricultural land occurred in Centre County. In I1 the Upper Bald Eagle Region however, loss of agricultural land was less prevalent; the region losing but 17 acres of a total of slightly over 9,000 acres. Port Matilda actually II gained 3 acres of agriculturally used land. The insignificant loss of agricultural land is largely the converse result of new residential patterns noted above. In the sewered I1 Centre and Nittany Valley Regions large residential developments tend to locate on farms close to existing developed areas, while in the sewerless Upper Bald Eagle Valley residential development located in more remote and often wooded ..I areas. 3-9 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

e Forested Land. There have been significant losses of forested land in Centre County as a whole -- 3,346 acres between 1975 and 1985 alone. Because forests represent over 70% of Centre County's land area, this loss represents only 0.7% of the total. In Port Matilda losses during the same period were only 8 acres or 1.6%. While the indiscriminate use of wooded areas for other land uses is not desirable, as a matter of public policy the use of wooded or forested areas as opposed to agricultural land for new residential use is generally preferred. 1 e Commercial and Industrial Land. Centre County's increases in population and residential land uses brought concurrent increases in new commercial and industrial activity. Port I Matilda did not share in this commercial and industrial growth however, growing by only one acre to 7 acres by 1990. Port Matilda has too small a population base to support sig- I nificant commercial activity. However, the anticipated construction of a sanitary sewer system here could bring a small amount of industrial development. I Land Use Problems U.S. 322 / U.S. 220 Traffic. The most significant land use 1 problem in Port Matilda is that of regional traffic, particularly trucks, passing through the Borough on U.S. 322 and U.S. 220. (See more on this matter in Chapter 5.) This 1 problem is also important as a land use matter because the volume and kind of traffic helps determine the intensity and type of land uses that should be permitted to locate on Plank Road and High Street properties. Low traffic volumes i are compatible with low intensity residential and institutional uses -- and there are certainly many such uses already located here. Similarly, higher traffic volumes I1 encourage larger and more intense land uses -- commercial uses such as service stations, truck stops, and fast food restaurants being among these intense land uses. 1 The issue of whether or not regional traffic is removed from the Borough is directly linked to the type of zoning districts as well as specific land uses to be permitted within 1 these districts.1 The Borough must make a basic decision. The Borough must determine that either: (1) U.S. 322/220 will eventually be rerouted around the Bor- ough and, if so, protect existing land uses by preventing (through zoning) additional high intensity land uses; or (2) U.S. 322/220 will remain in Port Matilda indefinitely, and, if so, permit (through zoning) the location of high i. intensity land uses here and by doing so permit owners of existing properties to sell out.

1 This discussion presumes that Port Matilda Borough will enact a zoning ordinance as intended by the current planning and zoning program in which the Borough is currently engaged. 3 - 10 Most factors indicate that the more prudent course of action is alternative (1); to limit future intensive land uses. First, the demand is insufficient. Port Matilda is currently without zoning, and thus it can be argued that if the demand was sufficiently strong, many more commercial activities would have already located here. Second, the negative impact of noise, congestion and litter caused by normal commercial activities should not be indiscriminately introduced into what is overwhelmingly a residential community. If commercial uses were to randomly locate along Plank Road or High Street the adverse affects upon remaining residential properties, both beside and to the rear, would be compounded. Third, if additional commercial activities to serve the trucking industry were to locate in Port Matil- da, and subsequently a by-pass was constructed, the residual effect would be either empty commercial buildings or trucks continuing to come to Port Matilda for service; neither is an appealing prospect. Last, the prospects for the construction of a Port Matilda by-pass seem reasonably certain to plan for this eventuality. (Again see Chapter 5 for additional detail.) Sanitarv Sewers. The provision of public sanitary sewer systems to a municipality is a two-edged sword. They on the one hand can (1) safeguard the public health, (2) remove environmental hazards, and (3) control growth by concentrating new development. But on the other hand, such systems can become a magnet for growth, and at rates and scales not anticipated. It is important that Port Matilda have all needed land use control ordinances in place prior to the completion of its sanitary sewer system. Housinq Conditions. A housing conditions survey was conducted in January of 1990 in connection with the land use survey. Based upon the following findings the overall condition of the Borough's housing was considered to be marginal. (1) Approximately 9% of Port Matilda's housing was evaluated as either deteriorating1 or dilapidatedz. (2) 12% of Port Matilda's housing was mobile homes. While mobile homes are not themselves necessarily a sign of poor housing conditions, circumstances in Port Matilda indicated otherwise. Unlike conventional housing, mobile homes depreciate as rapidly as other vehicles and thus much faster than other dwelling styles. Because Port Matilda's mobile homes tend to be much older than normal

1 Deteriorating Housing is defined as housing which requires more than normal maintenance. Examples are open cracks and rotted, loose or missing materials over a small area of the foundation, walls or roof. 2 Dilapidated Housing is difined as housing which does not provide safe and adequate shelter and presents at least one condition endangering the health or wellbeing of the occupants. Examples are (1) holes, open cracks, missing materials, etc., over large areas, (2) sagging roofs, and (3) bulging walls. 3 - 11

\\ I THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I -- many are in excess of fifteen or twenty years -- they have lost most their original value. Additionally, many mobile homes showed a lack of care -- e.g. poorly kept I- yards and many without foundations or protective skirting. Those mobile homes in the best condition are often found in mobile home parks where operators maintain minimum standards; except for one four unit facility on I West Plank Road, Port Matilda has no mobile home parks. Finally, when mobile homes are not kept in excellent condition they tend to depreciate surrounding properties I more than a conventional home in need of repair and maintenance. (3) A large number of recent conversions from single to multi-family housing has occurred without little consider- I ation for reasonable occupancy requirements, for off- street parking, for individual utilities, for exterior appearance, or for on-going maintenance. i 0 Electrical Transmission Line. The West Penn Power Company owns two transmission line rights-of-way in Port Matilda: 1 (1) East-west along the southern Borough boundary, and (2) North-south in then western portion of the Borough. (See Map 3.2) NO construction is permitted within such rights-of-way and i furthermore development is sometimes hampered by their un- sightliness and the impact of their electromagnetic fields. Ir 0 Creek Crossinas. There is but one crossing of the Bald Ea- gle Creek in Port Matilda; that at High Street. While this would seem to be solely a transportation problem, there are land use implications. I (1) Crossings to the south side of Bald Eagle Creek by the Port Matilda Fire Company with either fire or ambulance equipment and the Port Matilda could potentially be I blocked. (2) Port Matilda in its entirety has the population of a typical neighborhood, but Bald Eagle Creek divides the I neighborhood in two, thus limiting convenient access between homes, and to schools, churches and playgrounds. i I i I I. 3 - 12 I

4. UTILITIES Utilities provide the basic facilities, and installations making modern residential, commercial, and industrial development possi- -1 ble. In current jargon utilities provided the "infrastructure of the urban environment" This chapter will outline the following utilities: A. Sanitary Sewer Systems B. Water Systems C. Natural Gas Distribution 'I D. Solid Waste Collection E. Electrical Distribution F'. Telephone

A. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS Countvoverview. In 1987 approximately 80,400 residents or 67 percent of the population of Centre County were served by seventeen sanitary sewer systems. On an average day, these residents generated 9,674,256 gallons of sewage, or 116 gallons per person, that was treated by ten different treatment plants. The combined capacity of these facilities is 14,545,000 gallons per day. In addition to the ten treatment plants, there are seven collection systems that have their sewage treated at one of the ten treatment facilities (see Map 4.1--Centre County Sewer Service Areas: 1987 and Table 4.1--Summary of Sanitary Treatment Systems by Re- gion, Centre County 1987). The following list shows the current percent of Regional population served by municipal sewer service: iI Reaion Population Served Centre Region 87% Moshannon Valley Region 83% Inter-Valley Region 57% Mountaintop Region 0% iI Penns Valley Region 0% Upper Bald Eagle Region 0% Sanitary waste collection and treatment facilities are primary il among all utilities in its effect upon encouragement / discour- agement of land development. Such facilities are expensive thus normally preventing installation in advance of development or II even without a reasonable density of existing population. Addi- tionally, sanitary waste collection systems are normally gravity I1 1 The data contained in this section was drawn primarily from Centre Countv Water & Sewer Studv Update:- 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA. Data for local sewer 1.1 systems, however, was updated from appropriate local sources. 4-1 I.II1 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

flow systems requiring large pipe size and heavily dependent upon topographical characteristics in any given area, I Within Centre County two types of sewage treatment are in use: secondary and tertiary. Secondary treatment involves the screen- ing and bacterial digestion of the waste solids in large tanks and then running the remaining wastewater through a filtering system to further remove organic material. The final wastewater product is chlorinated to destroy any pathogens and then released into a nearby stream. Tertiary treatment includes the secondary processing plus additional filtering and removal of chemicals such as phosphates or dissolved metals.

Table 4.1 -- Summary of Sanitary Treatment Systems by Region, ...... Centre County, 1987. NUMBER ESTIMATED AVERAGE DESIGN OF POPULATION DAILY FLOW CAPACITY REGION SYSTEMS SERVED t MGD 1 MGD 1

Centre Region 6 59 I 354 6.066 7.965 Sewer Systems Inter Valley Region 7 16 ,617 2.441 3.380 Sewer Systems

Moshannon Valley 4 4,600 1.167 * 3.200 Region Sewer Systems Totals 17 80,571 9.674 14.545

Source: Centre County Water di Sewer Study Update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1989. Note: MGD = Millions of'gallons per day.

The most heavily used stream in Centre County used for the discharge of treated sanitary waste is Spring Creek that flows into Bald Eagle Creek, and eventually into the Blanchard Reservoir. In 1987, Spring Creek and Bald Eagle Creek received 8,230,000 gallons of treated sanitary waste per day. In addition, because of Spring Creek, Bald Eagle Creek and Sayers Dam must meet high- quality water standards, the treatment facilities discharging treated wastewater into these streams must have tertiary treatment in order to conform to Pennsylvania Department of Environ- mental Resources' Water Quality Standards. There are no other municipal sanitary treatment plants in the remainder of Centre County. However, the Borough of Unionville and the Village of Wingate near the lower end of the Upper Bald Eagle

4-2 Y

CENTFIE COUNTY PENNSYLVANtA 4 N

., .. - -

SEWER SERVICE AREAS: 1987 source: Centre Countv Water 8 Sewer Studv Update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Valley Region (in which Port Matilda Borough is also located) have a wastewater collection system that in turn flows to the Mid-Centre Authority treatment plant below Milesburg. The Union- ville and Wingate systems and are included within the Inter Val- ley Region Systems shown in Table 4.1. The remaining areas of Centre County not served by sanitary waste collection and treatment systems use on-site systems instead. These individual systems are regulated by municipal sewage enforcement officers under the direction and supervision of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Planned Svstem for Port Matilda. Port Matilda has the design for, and received necessary approvals for a municipal sanitary collection and treatment system. When construction has been completed, the system will provide sewer service to approximately 800 people in and immediately adjacent to Port Matilda Borough. In addition, this proposed system will have a design capacity of approximately 140,000 gallons per day and receive an estimated 56,000 gallons of sewage per day. The treatment type for this system will be tertiary with discharge into the Bald Eagle Creek in Worth Town- ship just below the Borough line. SeDtaee. Over forty percent of the homes in Centre County rely on septic systems to treat and dispose of their wastewater. Septic tanks are pumped from time to time and the resulting septage generated is currently disposed of at the Bellefonte or Lock Haven Treatment Plant. Bellefonte also currently allows septage from across Centre County to be disposed of at their plant; with a maximum daily limit of 10,000 gallons. In the future, septage disposal will become increasingly more important. The Commonwealth appears to be implementing a policy that will require municipalities to enact necessary ordinances to mandate the pumping of septic tanks on a regular basis. This mandate will place additional pressure upon many existing sewage treatment plants, already burdened with flows at or near capacity, to provide this service. Solutions include cooperative efforts to haul septage to plants best able to handle this waste or the construction -of special septage treatment plants. It should be noted that the quality of septage effluent varies considerably from normal wastewater arriving at a sewage treatment plant in that septage contains many times more solids and organic waste materials and thus places a very heavy load upon a plant's ability to process its waste. Currently, 10,000 gallons of septage is pumped from Centre County septic tanks; with mandated pumping this figure should rise to 25,000 after the year 2000. Currently a sub-committee of the County's Solid Waste Advisory Committee, known as the Septage and Sludge Working Group, is working to develop: 1) A fair share policy for septage; 2) A public education program for septic system users; 3) A septage agreement; and 4) A sludge utilization fact sheet. 4-4 i

UTILITIES

B. WATER SYSTEMS1

CountvOverview. In 1987, it was estimated that 100,925 residents or 84 percent of Centre County's population was served by a community water system (see Table 4.2--Centre County Summary of Wa- ter Systems by Region). On an average day, these residents used 19,896,152 gallons of water derived from approximately 90 different sources and distributed by 46 different water service systems (see Map 4.2 -- Centre County Water Service Areas: 1987). The average daily water usage was 197 gallons per person. This figure included industrial and commercial use, plus any system leakage that may have occurred. The following list shows the percentage of each Region's population served by a community water system: Population Reaion Served Centre Region (9 water systems) 94% Moshannon Valley Region (6 water systems) 93% Mountaintop Region (4 water systems) 86% Inter-Valley Region (14 water systems) 70% Penns Valley Region (9 water systems) 46% Upper Bald Eagle Region (3 water systems) 31% Thirty four of Centre County's water systems use liquid or gas chlorination to purify the water before distribution to individual customers. Eight other systems use a combination of fluorine or sodium phosphate mixed with chlorine to purify their water and the four remaining systems do not provide treatment. Comparing the County's six Regions in terms of daily reserve, the Regions rank as follows: Daily Reaion Reserve Upper Bald Eagle Region 73% Moshannon Valley Region 57% Inter-Valley Region 55% Penns Valley Region 52% Mountaintop Region 43% Centre Region 39% The above list indicates that on a Regional level, large quantities of water are not in use.

1 The data contained in this section was drawn primarily from Centre County Water and Sewer Study Update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA. Data for local sewer systems, however, was updated from appropriate local sources. 4-5 "MBER ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TREATED UNTREATED OF POPULATION DAILY DEMAND YIELD STORAGE STORAGE REGION SYSTEMS SERVED MGDl) -11 (MG2L (MG2L Centre Region 9 64,310 9.175 15.069 8.850 1 .840 Water Systems Inter Valley Region 14 19 ,581 8.233 18.252 6.550 15.778 Water Systems Moshannon Valley 6 7,298 1.530 3.540 2.469 18 .119 OIe Region Water Systems Mountaintop Region 4 2,903 0.273 0.482 0.250 25.070 Water Systems Penns Valley Region 10 5,050 0.603 1.251 0.205 1.859 Water Systems Upper Bald Eagle 3 1,783 0 .083 0.223 0.220 0.370

Region Water Systems - ~ Totals 46 100,925 19.897 38.817 18.544 63.036

WNNNNWNN~~NN~NNWNNNW~WWNMWWNNNWNWWNWMNWMNNwNw~wwNNNwNNNMwNN~mNmNNNNWNNWWNWNNWNNNNNNWN Source: Centre County Water & Sewer Study Update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1989.

Notes: 1 MGD = Millions of Gallons per day. 2 MG = Millions of Gallons. I I CEhlTRE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 4 N

Source: Centre Countv Water & Sewer Studv Update: 1888, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA THE COMPREHENSNE PLAN

Most of the community water supply in Centre County comes from groundwater sources. Wells provide 47% of the County's sources with springs providing 39%. The wells and springs are most often located in the in the broad limestone valleys of the Valley and Ridge Province described in Chapter 2. Surface water sources in the form of mountain streams provide the remaining 14% of Centre County's existing water supply. However, these surface water sources are faced with potentially serious health problems such as Giardiasis and Cryptosporidium, both of which are gastrointestinal illnesses occurring when the springs or streams supplying water to a community are contaminated by human or animal waste.

Regionaloverview. The Upper Bald Eagle Region consists of three small community water systems: Port Matilda Borough Water Works, Oak Ridge Water Association, and the Unionville Borough Water Works. These systems provide water for 1,783 people or 31 percent of the Regional population (See Table 4.3 -- Upper Bald Eagle Valley Region Water Systems). The Upper Bald Eagle Region has a lower percent of its population served by community water systems because this Region is predominantly a rural area, with the population spread out over a large area. This has resulted in the development of many on-site wells to serve individual homes. The residents who are served by a community water system use 83,000 gallons of water per day or only 47 gallons per person per day, representing 37 percent of the total daily yield. Groundwa- ter -- both springs and wells -- is the source of water for these three community systems. Below is a list of the individual water systems and their corresponding service areas: - Port Matilda Borouqh Water Works: Serves Port Matilda Bor- ough only (See Map 4.3 and Table 4.4); - Oak Ridae Water Association: Serves the Village of Bald Eagle at the intersection of U.S. 220 and PA 350 in Blair County and area north on PA 350 in Taylor Township, Centre County; and - Unionville Borouah Water Works: Serves Unionville Borough only.

Table 4.3 shows the basic characteristics of water systems in the Upper Bald Eagle Valley Region. Table 4.4 and Map 4.3 shows Port Matilda's water system in more detail.

4-8 i ESTIMATED SYSTEM AND TYPE POPULATION SOURCE AVERAGE DAILY TREATED UNTREATED TREATMENT OF OWNERSHIP SERVED TYPE DAILY DEMAND YIELD STORAGE STORAGE TYPE

PORT MATILDA BOROUGH 762 3 Wells 50,000 150,000 220,000 150,000 Chlorine WATER WORKS (Municipal)

OAK RIDGE WATER 602 Springs 11,000 28,000 0 100,000 Chlorine \o ASSOCIATION (Municipal)

UNIONVILLE BOROUGH 419 Spring / 22,000 45,000 0 120,000 Chlorine WATER WORKS (Municipal) 2 Reservoirs

TOTALS 1,783 83,000 223,000 220,000 370,000

Source: Centre County Water & Sewer Study Update: 1988, Centre County Planning, Commission, Centre County, PA, 1989, augmented by Stallman & Stahlman, Inc.

Notes: All water quantities are expressed in Gallons. NA = Not Available. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Table 4.4 -- Basic Characteristics of the Port Matilda Borough Water Works, 1991.

Estimated Population Served as of November 30, 1987...... 762

Source T4Tpes ...... Wells

it Average Daily Demand in Gallons ...... 50,000 Li

Estimated Daily Source Yield in Gallons ...... 150,000

Treated Storage in Gallons ...... 22 0,000

Untreated Storage in Gallons ...... O

Type of Treatment...... Chlorine

Rates...... Residential: $25.00 Quarterly Commercial / Industrial: $40.00 Quarterly School: $175.00 Quarterly

Contact Person: Glen D. Hay P.O. Box 156 Port Matilda, PA 16870 (814) 692-0092

Comments: Supply is dependable. Old uncovered reservoir has been filled in; thus there is no untreated storage capacity. Also distribution system has been upgraded. I-

Source: Centre County Water & Sewer Study Update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1989. Updated by Glen Hay, 1991.

4-10 ‘.-I- ” . -. ___ __ ~- ~ ---- - F ------____ ------

SCALE IN FEET BORT MATILDA BOROUGH WATER WORKS

Source: Centre Countv Water 8 Sewer

Studv UDdate: 1988, Centre County Planning LINE SIZE CHANOE i+~ entre County, PA, 1989...... _i , ...... -=. TEE COMPREHENSIVEPLAN

C. NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION1

Natural gas is provided to the more densely populated areas of Centre County by Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania. Map 4.4 below shows the generalized areas of the Nittany Valley with gas service. These areas primarily include the Borough of Bellefonte, the Village of Pleasant Gap, PA Route 144 between Bellefonte and Pleasant Gap, Blanchard Street at the Vo-Tech High School and Su- !' pelco, and College Avenue between Pleasant Gap and Peru. i! Columbia Gas in turn purchases their gas to serve this area from Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Company's Leidy Pipeline Loop which passes through Spring Township. The general alignment of this line is shown on Map 4.4. It is a 36" line with plans for the construction of another 36" line adjacent to the existing line. Map 4.4 1-c NATURAL GAS 4

1 Source: Machelle S. Miller, Marketing Representative, Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, 2550 Carolean Drive, State College, PA 16801. el2

! UTILITIES

Map 4.4 shows that gas service is provided to a very small part of the Nittany Valley. Expansion nevertheless is possible and the Columbia Gas will share the cost of making such expansions. The proportion of this cost underwritten by the Company vs. that required to be paid by a developer or user varies, depending upon the total cost and the expected volume of gas usage. Thus, in general, new development should be encouraged adjacent to existing gas service areas.

D. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL1

Background. Act 101 of 1988 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requires counties to prepare municipal waste management plans with guidance from an advisory committee. Counties in turn are required to notify all municipalities within their county when efforts are initiated to revise an existing plan or prepare a new plan. Each county's waste management plan must: 1) Ensure that the county has sufficient processing and disposal capacity for the waste that will be generated in that county for the ensuing ten years, 2) Ensure a full, fair and open discussion of alternative methods of municipal waste processing and disposal, and 3) Ensure maximum feasible recycling. The Centre County Commissioners adopted the 1990 Centre County Waste Management Plan on June 12, 1990. With the responsibility for the preparation of the Waste Manage- ment Plan resting on Centre County's shoulders and with so recently adopted a plan why should this municipal Comprehensive Plan concern itself with solid waste? The answer is simple for each municipality is responsible for proper collection, hauling and disposal procedures with its own jurisdiction. Thus the purpose of this section is to present a summary of the status of solid waste planning in Centre County for future reference. GeoPraphic Area. The Centre County Waste Management Plan divides the County's 36 municipalities into four watershed districts. These wastesheds are listed below and shown on Map 4.18. The Transfer Station Wasteshed -- eleven south central municipalities including Bellefonte Borough, Benner Township, Spring Township, and Center Hall Borough. The Moshannon Valley/Port Matilda Wasteshed -- seven western municipalities including Port Matilda Borough. x The Mountaintop/Milesburg Wasteshed -- seven northern municipalities. The Eastern Intervalley/Penns Valley Wasteshed -- Eleven eastern municipalities including Marion and Walker Townships. i 1 Source: 1990 Adopted Centre County Waste Management Plan, i prepared by the Centre County Planning Office for the Centre County Solid Waste Authority, June 1990. 4 - 13 k ! j I

I - .. i

-- I

-- 1 -I -I * Transfer Station Location -- I Source! lee0 Adopted Cmtro CounW Wut. Mananmmt Plm. I -- 1 Waste Generation. In 1989 approximately 100,000 tons of municipal waste and recyclables were generated. This number is expected to increase by 94% to approximately 194,000 tons by the year 20001 Table 4.5 shows this increase by a variety of waste categories. -I A high priority for the 1990's will be expansion of the recycling program by establishing curbside pick-up programs and drop-off centers throughout the County. This emphasis is expected to cause -- I the dramatic increase in recyclables shown in Table 4.5 -- over 31,000 tons of new trash by 2000. Leaves and yard waste will add another 3,500 tons, but because these materials are compostable and processed by local municipalities they will not add to the -- t County's collection, transfer and landfill load. The remainder of the growth is expected through continued building construction -- 8,000 tons -- and population growth -- 29,000 tons. I 4-14 I 1 UTILITIES

1989 2000 Tons Tons Tons Tons Percent Per Per Per Per Increase meof Waste Year Davl Year Davl ' 89- ' 00 Trash 71,633 256 100,227 358 40% Recyclables 876 3 32,000 114 3550% Leaves/Yard Waste 1,500 7 5,177 18 245% Medical Waste 191 1 196 1 3% Sludges 3,400 12 4,500 16 32% Construction and Demolition Waste 16 ,000 57 24 ,000 86 50% Discarded Appliances 500 2 1,000 4 100% Residual Waste 6,000 21 12 ,000 43 100% Unregulated Hazardous Wastes 900 3 900 3 0% TOTAL TONS 100,000 362 194,273 643 94%

Notes: 1 - Tons per day has been calculated on the basis of 280 trash hauling days per year. Source: 1990 Adopted Centre Countv Waste Manaqement Plan prepared by the Centre County Planning Office and the staff of the Centre County Solid Waste Authority, June 1990.

Transfer Station. The College Township transfer station currently oc- cupies 15.1 acres of land owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylva- nia, Department of Corrections' State Correctional Institution at Rockview. The station has a capacity of 600 tons per day. The facility is open an average of 5.5 days per week, 23 days per month, and 280 days per year. It is expected that the station will have sufficient capacity to process wastes generated within the Transfer Station Wasteshed for 16 years. Landfill. The basis of the Centre County Waste Management Plan is landfilling. While the Centre County Plan makes strong efforts directed toward waste reduction, recycling, composting, as well as investigation of a waste-to-energy technology option, the bot- tom line is that sufficient landfill capacity must be available during the life of the Plan.

4-15 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

From 1973 to April of 1990 when it closed, the County disposed of its waste at the privately owned Carlin Landfill in the Mountain- top/Milesburg Wasteshed in Snow Shoe Township (See Map 4.5). Since the Carlin Landfill closed, the County Solid Waste Authori- ty has been disposing its waste at the Clinton County Landfill under an agreement guaranteeing six years of disposal capacity. Waste from the Eastern Intervalley/Penns Valley Wasteshed -- in- eluding Marion and Walker Townships -- is transported directly to the Clinton County landfill. Clinton County is in the process of constructing a lined landfill that may permit extension of this agreement. In the meantime, the Centre County Solid Waste Author- ity is seeking alternative sites to the Clinton County facility should it be unavailable when the six year contract expires.

Belle- fonte Benner Marion Spring Walker 1990/ 1990/ 1990/ 1990/ 1990/ Weof Waste 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Trash 4 ,080/ 2 ,463/ 264/ 3,172/ 1,053/ 4 ,803 2801 513 3,860 2 I 050 Recyclables 550/ 28/ 5/ 47/ 22/ I 1,451 701 25 1,174 337 I Leaves/Yard Waste 300/ O/ O/ O/ O/ 400 100 0 300 0 I Medical Waste 1/ O/ O/ O/ O/ 1 2 0 0 0 0 .. Sludges O/ O/ O/ loo/ o/ I 0 0 0 125 0 I Construction and 185/ 284/ 57/ 396/ 172/ Demolition Waste 503 773 156 1,078 468 I Discarded Appliances 29/ 13/ 3/ 23/ 11/ 79 40 9 69 32 Residual Waste 155/ 288/ O/ 1 ,O66/ O/ 226 874 0 2 ,000 0 Unregulated 34/ 21/ 2/ 28/ 9/ Hazardous Waste 36 23 5 39 20 I TOTAL TONS 5 I 334/ 3,097/ 331/ 4 ,832/ l,266/ 7,499 5,312 770 8,619 2,907

Source: 1990 Adopted Centre Countv Waste Manaaement Plan prepared by the Centre County Planning Office and the staff of the Centre County Solid Waste Authority, June 1990. 4-16 UTILITIES

E. ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION1

The advent of rural electrification over half a century ago brought electrical power to all but the most remote home and business. Unlike water, sewer, and gas that are provided only to limited geographic areas, electricity can generally be assumed to be available. Thus for municipal land use and zoning issues, that are the primary concerns of this Comprehensive Plan, electricity need not be considered a land use determinant as are water, sewer, and to some extent, gas. Also, unlike other utilities such as water and sewer in particular, municipalities have no direct responsibility for the provision of electric service. Thus the data included in this brief report are for background and information purposes only.

Service. The West Penn Power Company provides electrical service to all Centre County municipalities except those along the northwestern edge of the County in the Moshannon Valley. West Penn in turn is part of the Allegheny Power System serving a large part of western Pennsylvania. The source of electrical service to all of Centre County’s West Penn Power Company municipalities is a 230 kilovolt (kv) line extending through the County on a north-south axis. The line passes east of State College and Lemont, through the Rockview Prison grounds, and west of Bellefonte and Milesburg before head- ing further north. There are two primary transformer stations -- one near Shingletown serving the State College area and one near Milesburg serving the Bellefonte area.

Tentative Construction Plans. Continued population growth and industrial expansion in Centre County will require that West Penn keep apace. Current plans do not include expansion of the primary 230 kv line but do include smaller projects in areas experiencing or expecting growth. Table 4.7 lists the tentative West Penn projects planned over the next decade for Centre County. Many of these projects have a direct bearing upon the municipalities included in this planning study. It must be emphasized, however, that these plans are tentative, and very dependent upon the nature, location, and timing of future developments.

1 Source: Scott B. Richards, Engineer, Division of Planning, Nittany Division, West Penn Power Company, 2800 East College Avenue, State College, PA 16801 4-17 Table 4.7 -- Tentative Construction Plans, Nittany Division, West Penn Power Company, 1990 to 1999

Year Tentative Prolect 1990 0 Port Matilda Reconductor J Reconductor 2.0 miles of 12kV line from Port Matilda northeast along Rte 220. 0 Bellefonte Sewaae Treatment Plant J Extend 3 Phase, 12kV line from Milesburg Substation along Rte 144 to the Bellefonte Sewage Plant. 0 Tannev Junction - Stone Junction Reconductor J Reconductor 2.6 miles of 46kV line along its existing route south to east of Bellefonte Borough.

1991 0 Cornina/Nittanv S.S. - Hovs Corner Junction Reconductor J Reconductor 2.3 miles of 46kV line from the Corning tap of the 230kV line at Rte 26, along the Benner Pike to Rischel Hill Road. 0 Stormstown Reconductor J Reconductor 1.5 miles of 12kV line from the Port Matilda Substation over Bald Eagle Mountain to Rte 550 near Stormstown.

0 Centre Hall Granae Fair I J Provide an additional 3 Phase, 12kV feed into the Grange Fairgrounds (Possibly along Kurtz Street). 1994 0 Julian Substation (Contingent on growth in the Julian - Unionville areas.) J Construct a 46kV-12kV substation near Julian. J Construct 3.0 miles of 46kV line along Rte 220 from Scotia Fowler to Julian. J Later build a 46kV line from Julian to Milesburg.

1999 0 Hecla Substation (Contingent on growth in Howard, Marion, Walker, and Gregg Townships.) J Construct a 46kV substation along Route 64 near Mingoville. I J Construct a 46kV line from Hecla to PA 192 near Penns Cave. J Construct a 46kV line from Hecla to the Howard Substation.

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~NN~NNNNNNN~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN Source: West Penn Power Company, Nittany Division, 2800 East College Avenue, State College, PA.

4-18 UTILITIES

F. TELEPHONE

Telephone service to the area is provided primarily by Bell of Pennsylvania, a Bell Atlantic Company, but service to some outly- ing areas is provided by two independent companies: Alltel and United Telephone Company. And except for the eastern end of Walk- er Township that has an 717 Area Code, all areas have an 814 Area Code. Local telephone exchange numbers are as follows: Bellefonte -- 353, 355,359 (Bell of Pennsylvania) Centre Hall -- 364 (Bell of Pennsylvania) Howard -- 625 (United Telephone Company) Port Matilda -- 692 (A11 tel ) Zion -- 383 (United Telephone Company) The results of the questionnaires for this municipality are included in Appendix A. Many respondents criticized the telephone system as currently organized -- particularly in Spring and Walker Townships. The three primary complaints were: 0 The residents of Nittany and Lamar in the eastern end of Walker Township are in the 717 Area Code, thus these residents are (1) not in the Bellefonte/State College directo- ry, (2) must make toll calls to any desired number in Bellefonte and State College, and (3) have the inconve- nience of dialing the three digit area code for these many call.

0 The residents of the Zion area (includes the eastern end of Spring Township as well as Walker Township) cannot call State College numbers as part of their local calling area.

0 Although calls from State College to Port Matilda are toll free, the residents of Port Matilda cannot call State Col- lege as part of their local calling area. The problems described above are primarily a result of the location of the affected communities in fringe areas between larger service areas. Nevertheless, the number of complaints indicates that for those customers who are directly affected, the problems are real. Local municipalities do not have jurisdiction in matters regarding telephone communication, but should service not improve, there may be a role for the affected governing bodies as intermediaries between the affected residents and the telephone company.

4-19 4-20 5. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Three transportation systems will be summarized in this Chapter: A. Automotive B. Rail C. Air Because of its direct and more immediate impact upon land usage, automotive transportation will be emphasized.

A. AUTOMOTIVE TRANSPORTATION Planning for new streets and highways in any single municipality is a difficult proposition. At the State level, low funding levels severely limit the consideration and construction of new highways. Maintenance scheduling necessarily takes priority, with the result that the competition for the funds allocated for new construction or even upgrading often becomes frought with politics. And at the County1 level, highway planning has generally been confined to project and priority planning with less emphasis upon comprehensive transportation planning. Most local municipalities are in a dilemma when it comes to highway planning. On the one hand each municipality is too small a geographic area to have the "big picture" and to do any meaningful comprehensive highway planning. On the other hand, however, in growing areas such as Centre County there is a clear need to create a local highway network to support its growing population and expanding land uses. As a community heavily impacted by regional vehicular traffic using U.S. 322 and U.S. 220 and with strong growth potential following completion of the Borough's planned sanitary sewer system, Port Matilda Borough has no alternative but to plan for these impacts as best it can. The approach taken by this Plan for street and highway planning will be: 1. To define the current highway system as currently established by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation as a point of beginning. 2. Second, to redefine the highway system in Port Matilda to best serve Borough activity points and land uses; but at the same time bearing in mind how Port Matilda relates to the region at large and providing appropriate connectors. 3. Third, for roads and highways under the jurisdiction of Port Matilda Borough, to classify and prioritize each according to their need for improvements.

1 In Pennsylvania, with the exception of some bridges, Counties generally have no jurisdiction over roads and highways. 5-1 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Definitions ? The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), as directed by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), has prepared a highway classification system for all highways in the Commonwealth under state jurisdiction. The system is entitled The Functional Highway Classification System. Highways included in this system are defined below and shown on Map 5.1, 1980 Func- tional Highway Classification System.

PrincipalArterials. A principal arterial is a highway, normally a freeway, that serves corridor movements having trip length and travel density characteristics indicative of substantial state- wide or interstate travel. They serve all urban areas over 50,000 population and most of those with over 25,000 population, providing an integrated network except where geographic or other unusual conditions dictate stub connections. Five principal arterials serve Centre County: Interstate 80 crosses north central Pennsylvania in its path from New York to San Francisco. In Centre County it serves the Boroughs of Bellefonte, Milesburg, and Snow Shoe directly. For residents of Port Matilda, 1-80 is most easily accessed via U.S. 220 at Milesburg. U.S. Route 322 crosses Pennsylvania from its southeast to its northwest corner in its general path from Atlantic City, NJ to Cleveland, OH. It passes directly through Port Matil- da Borough and along with 1-80 is one of the two major gateways to Centre County. U.S. Route 220 crosses Pennsylvania in a southwest to northeast direction in its path from Rockingham, NC near the South Carolina border to the New York State line at Waverly. From Altoona, it passes through Port Matilda Borough before joining and becoming coterminous with 1-80 at Exit 23 east of Milesburg. PA Route 26 provides a short arterial connection between US 322 in State College and Exit 24 of 1-80 east of Bellefonte. Enroute it passes through Benner and Spring Townships. PA Route 144 provides a "short cut" arterial connection between US 322 at Potters Mills and PA 26 at Pleasant Gap in Spring Township, passing through Centre Hall Borough enroute.

MinorArterials. Minor arterials are major highways or roads that serve remaining urban areas (over 5,000 population) and other traffic generators having an equivalent population. They form an integrated network with the principal arterials to provide interstate and intercounty service. These generally include all Fed- eral primary routes and U.S. traffic routes not principal arterials. The following minor arterial highways serve Port Matilda and the Nittany Valley study area:

5-2 CENTRE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

Source: Centre County Planning Commission. 0 U.S. Route 322 from Port Matilda west to Philipsburg is classified a minor arterial. 0 PA Route 504 connecting U.S. 322 in Philipsburg east to U.S. 220 in Unionville Borough. 0 PA Route 350 connecting U.S. 322 in Philipsburg south to U.S. 220 north of Tyrone Borough in Blair County. 0 PA Route 150 connects PA 26 at the Nittany Mall through Bel- lefonte and Milesburg Boroughs, and along the north shore of I.I' Blanchard Lake in Bald Eagle State Park enroute Lock Haven. 0 PA Route 64 between PA 26 at Pleasant Gap east through Spring and Walker Townships to Mill Hall. 1:

Maior Collectors. Major collectors are roads that serve small county seats and other established communities not adequately served ii by the arterial systems. They serve consolidated schools, mining, shipping and agricultural centers, county parks, etc., and provide service to all developed areas within a reasonable distance of a collector road consistent with population density. Al- though no major collector highways currently pass through Port Matilda, the following major collectors are accessible to the 1'I Borough via nearby Bald Eagle and Nittany Valley municipalities. PA 550 connects Tyrone to the village of Zion in Walker Town- ship, passing through Halfmoon, Patton, Benner and Spring Townships, as well as Bellefonte Borough enroute. It is accessible to Port Matilda via SR 3017 at the Village of Cen- tennial in Halfmoon Township on the other side of Bald Eagle Mountain. Together, Jacksonville RoadfSR 10081 in Spring Township connects PA 550 in Bellefonte Borough to Exit 24 of 1-80, and PA 26 from Exit 24 extends to PA 150 north of Howard Borough serving Bald Eagle State Park enroute. Fox Hill Road (T-784) and Rock Road (T-969) together function as a service route for the University Park Airport, connecting State College Borough to the south with PA 550 in Benner Township. SR 3032 connects U.S. 220 at the Village of Julian in Huston Township to PA 504 at the Village of Antes in Rush Township, serving Black Moshannon Lake in the Black Moshannon State Park enroute. II PA 144 connects U.S. 220 at the Village of Wingate in Boggs Township to 1-80 at the Borough of Snow Shoe. PA 144 then continues north to U.S. 6 at Galeton in Potter County. I. I Local Streets. These include all remaining streets and roads, both State and Borough. They primarily provide access to adjacent land, generally producing the lowest level of mobility and upon which through traffic is deliberately discouraged. Map 5.2 shows the complete highway and street system for Port Matilda.

5-4 t b PORT MATILDA BOROUGH

Ii I 1 1

I I i

i I i

i i I t I i ! i I 1 i i

I t

I i

Source: Centre Countv MuniciDal Road Atlas, 5-5 0 300' 600' 1200' Centre County Planning Commission, 1 Centre County, PA, 1989. APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Table 5.1 -- Port Matilda Borough Streets

Alder Street Mountain Street Beckwith Road North Street Beech Street Oak Street Brick Street Park Street Center Street Pine Alley Cherry Street Plank Street Elder Street Plum Alley Elm Street Prospect Street Front Street Smith Street Hazel Alley Spring Street High Street Spruce Street Hill Street Strawberry Street 1 Huckleberry Alley Sycamore Street Locust Street Water Street Main Street West Street Maple Street Wood Street

Source: Centre County Municipal Road Atlas, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1989; updated Stallman & Stahlman, Inc., 1992.

5-6 ?1 i TRANSPORTATION I US 322 /I-80 Connection i Theproblem. An issue that has gained significant current publici- ty is that of connecting Centre County's two most significant arterial highways -- US 322 with Interstate 80. The problem is how to best get truck traffic from Potters Mills to Interstate 80 and 11 at the same time how to best serve the burgeoning metropolitan area of State College. Because it is an issue of great impact upon each of the seven municipalities participating in this study and because it is an issue with enormous long range land use implications for these same municipalities as well as Centre County at large, it has been separately defined and addressed by this report. For many years trucks have used U.S. 322 to and from Clark's Fer- ry (at the junction of the Juniata and Susquehanna Rivers) as a shortcut to 1-80 for west bound and return traffic. Between Clark's Ferry and Potter's Mills near the southern border of Centre County U.S. 322 is a four-lane limited access highway with two short, but well defined two-lane sections. But at Potter's Mills there are three choices: 1. Through Centre Hall and over Nittany Mountain via PA 144 to PA 26 in Pleasant Gap, then to 1-80 at the Bellefonte Interchange. 2. Around the nose of Nittany Mountain via PA 322 to PA 26 in College Township, then to 1-80 at the Bellefonte Interchange. 3. Continue on PA 322 past State College, through Port Matilda and Philipsburg to 1-80 at Woodland, near Clearfield. As a result of a fatal truck accident in Centre Hall in 1985, trucks are currently banned from using PA 144 between Potter's Mills and Pleasant Gap. However, the future construction of bypass's of all three of tliese communities remain under consideration by PennDOT.

Port Matilda 322 Bvpass. In January of 1985 the Pennsylvania Depart- ment of Transportation published a feasibility study of possible bypasses of communities along the PA 322 corridor in Centre and I Clearfield Counties.1 One of the bypasses studied was that of Port Matilda. The proposal and discussion of a US 322 bypass around Port Matilda as contained in the 1985 PennDOT study is

I cited below. Figure 5.1 shows the proposed alignment superimposed i upon a U.S.G.S. base map. "The bypass of Port Matilda would be a two lane roadway on the northern side of the Borough. Existing Traffic Route 322 has a northeast-northwest direction through Port Matilda with a right turn at the traffic signal in the center of town. A northern

1 Feasibility Study and Environmental Overview of Possible Bypasses, Centre-Clearfield Counties, Route 3221144 Corridor, Vollmer / RK ti K, A Joint Venture for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 1985. 5-7 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

bypass would be the most logical since it would reduce the travel length for the through traffic. "The bypass would begin approximately one mile northeast of Port Matilda and swing over the hillside to the existing four lane section of Traffic Route 322. The construction length would be 2.15 miles. An interchange and a grade separation structure would be provided for eastbound traffic to pass over existing Traffic Route 322. This would allow uninterrupted flow for both Traffic Routes 322 and 220 traffic. A westbound truck climbing lane would be required along the mountainous terrain. The realignment of a portion of Bald Eagle Creek would also be required. Advantaqes and Disadvantaaes llAdvantagesinclude: Truck and through movement would be removed from Port Matil- da.... The decrease in traffic will reduce congestion and conflicts within Port Matilda, thereby reducing accident potential for both local traffic and pedestrians. The reduction of traffic through Port Matilda, particularly the heavy trucks, will result in a corresponding reduction of traffic noises and air pollution. The construction of a bypass would provide a free flow of traffic for trucks travelling through this area.. . . The time saved by skirting these delays will reduce trip costs for the trucking industry. The development of this bypass would not require the acquisition of any public buildings, park lands or schools.... "Disadvantages are: Roadway construction will require the acquisition of some houses and farmlands. Care will be taken to reduce the impact on farm lands and reduce land acquisition. Traffic noise and Exhaust emissions will be increased along the bypass route.... Traffic Route 220 traffic would continue to travel through Port Matilda.... "Environmenta 1 Concerns The construction of the bypass will require the acquisition of between four and eight houses, some farm areas, and one business.... The impacts of introduced traffic noises and exhaust emissions will have to be determined... [and] Mitigation measures ... developed if these impacts exceed the allowable levels. The construction of the interchange ramps will require the relocation of a section of Bald Eagle Creek.. .."l a 1 Feasibility Study and Environmental Overview of Possible i Bypasses, Centre-Clearfield Counties, Route 322/144 Corridor, Vollmer / RK & K, A Joint Venture for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 1985. 5-8 flq#k?fSl -- Port Matilda Bypass Study, Proposed Alignment; U.S.322 / U.S.220, Centre County, Pennsylvania. Scale 1"=2000'. Feasibility Study and Environmental Overview of Possible Bypasses, Centre-Clearfield Counties, Route 322/144 Corridor,Vollmer/RK &'K, A...... Joint Venture for the Pennsylvania Dept of Transportation, 1985.

5-9 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Currently, PennDOT is giving emphasis to potential improvements in either or both the PA 144 - PA 26 route via Centre Hall (Choice 1 on page 5-7) and the U.S. 322 - PA 26 route via State College (Choice 2 on page 5-7). Both these routes are signifi- cantly shorter than the U.S. 322 route via State College, Port Matilda, Philipsburg to the Woodland Interchange (#20) near Clearfield (Choice 3 on page 5-7). Results of destination surveys within the trucking industry conducted by the Department indicated a strong preference for connecting to 1-80 as quickly as 1 possible, and Choices 1 and 2 have a strong advantage in this regard. Environmental impact evaluations are in progress along both these corridors.1

Port Matilda 220 Bmass. While no feasibility study has been prepared specifically for a U.S. 220 bypass of Port Matilda, the possibil- ity warrants serious consideration. Already extensive sections of U.S. 220 (also known as the "Appalachian Thruway") have been relocated and reconstructed at Interstate standards. New sections ii include those at Bedford, Altoona, Tyrone, Lock Haven and Wil- liamsport; and additionally 1-80 between the Bellefonte and Mill Hall Interchanges has been dually designated as U.S. 220. The significance of these efforts for Port Matilda is that they provide a strong argument to complete the unfinished links in what now is an unfinished chain. Port Matilda lies along one of these unfinished links; the end of the improved Tyrone section at Bald Eagle is nine miles southwest, and the end of the 220/322 interchange at Martha's Furnace is just two miles northeast. State College can also have a potential impact upon a 220 bypass for Port Matilda. Because State College is clearly Centre Coun- ty's largest and Central Pennsylvania's fastest growing metropolitan area, proposals have been forwarded to improve its three primary arterial connections consistent with those already provided other metropolitan areas such as Johnstown, Altoona and Williamsport. 1. PA 26 North of State Collese to the Bellefonte Interchange of 1-80 has been proposed as either a new four lane limited access highway or a widened four lane highway along its existing II alignment, or a combination of both. 2. U.S. 322 East of State Collese to Potters Mills has been proposed in all choices listed on page 5-7 as being widened from two to four lanes on its existing alignment. 3. U.S. 322 West of State Colleae to U.S. 220 at Bald Eagle has been suggested for improvement to a four lane facility. One alternative for this improvement includes a bypass south of

Source: James R. Bathurst, P.E., Design Services Engineer, i District 2-0, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. 6 5- 10 TRANSPORTATION

Port Matilda, making a new crossing of Bald Eagle Mountain, and proceeding north through Halfmoon Valley to the current terminus of State College's U.S. 322 bypass. Another is to bypass Port Matilda to the north using the 322 bypass proposal shown in Figure 5-1, and then proceeding over Bald Eagle Moun- tain via Skytop. The second alternative is clearly in the best interest of Port Matilda. The first two proposals are very visible in that both are con- cepts included in the current evaluations for improved access between 322 and 1-80 for truckers and for improved regional access to and from State College. For these reasons, some action is likely in both corridors. Assuming some action is taken to improve PA 26 north as a four- lane limited access highway, U.S. 322 west of State College can be viewed in a new light. For with the PA 26 improvement, the current U.S. 220 alignment that now proceeds up the Bald Eagle Valley to join 1-80 at Milesburg could instead join 322 at Mar- tha's Furnace and proceed to 1-80 via State College and Belle- fonte; thus providing another link in the Appalachian Thruway and improved access to State College.

DecisionNeeded. While the final decision upon which alternative or alternatives to take rest with PennDOT, local opinion is important, and Port Matilda must take a stand.

B. RAIL TRANSPORTATION 1

The task of public rail line preservation in Central Pennsylvania is implemented through the SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority. The Au- thority was formed in June 1983 with the objective of making public, rail lines that Conrail had decided to abandon. The purpose of the six county (Centre, Clinton, Columbia, Montour, Northum- 'berland, and Union) municipal authority is to preserve service to rail-dependent industries through short line rail operations. In 1984, the SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority purchased an initial 82 miles of Conrail lines that served 22 industries. Included in the original $4.1 million purchase was the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad serving the Nittany Valley and Port Matilda. The purchase was funded by the federal Economic Development Administra- tion and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Capital Budget, with the rail dependent industries themselves contributing $400,000.

1 The data contained in this section was drawn primarily from SEDA-COG Joint Authority Railroads, SEDA-Council of Govern- ments, 1988. 5- 11 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Subsequently, the Authority purchased the Bald Eagle Branch located in the Bald Eagle Valley between Milesburg and Mill Hall. The interchange with Conrail at Mill Hall allows for shipments to the north and northwest from Centre County industries and augments the earlier southern interchange with Conrail at Tyrone.

0 Forty-five miles of former Penna Railroad (PRR) lines. 0 Thirty-one miles consists of the PRR's Bald Eagle Branch, that, at one time, was considered the world's busiest single track railroad. 0 Has hosted inaugural runs of the recently restored PRR H-4 Steam Locomotive. 0 The Bellefonte Historical Society operates regularly sched- uled passenger excursions over the Nittany & Bald Eagle Railroad through the summer months.

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~NN~ Source: SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority Railroads, SEDA-Council of Governments, Timberhaven, R.D. 1, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania

Cerro Metal Products Zinc, Copper Claster's Lumber Corning Glass Works Sand, Minerals Lezzer Lumber Lumber i Centre Lime & Limestone Lime, Limestone SMS Sutton Machinery I Sunoco Petroleum 84 Lumber Lumber 1 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~N-N Source: SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority Railroads, SEDA-Council of Governments, Timberhaven, R.D. 1, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania I 5-12 1 1 TRANSPORTATION

Table 5.4 -- Carload Activity, Nittany & Bald Eagle RR, 1986-'89.

1986 1987 1988 1989 Averaqe January 55 65 79 165 91 February 77 77 12 1 154 107 March 58 85 125 203 118 April 71 112 102 158 111 May 104 118 127 183 133 June 83 113 156 166 130 July 82 113 126 152 118 August 37 125 153 173 122 September 52 94 149 168 116 October 76 67 158 155 114 November 67 117 182 167 133 December -66 119 140 157 121 TOTALS 828 1,205 1,618 2,001 Carloads/Month 69.0 100.4 134.8 166.8 117.8 Annual Growth NA 46% 34% 24%

Source: SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority Railroads, SEDA-Council of Governments, Timberhaven, R.D. 1, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania The steady increase in carload activity shown in Table 5.4 is a clear indication of the railroad's economic importance to region. Map 5.3 below shows the general alignment and location of the SEDA-COG railroads in Centre County. Today they are the County's only railroads as the Bellefonte Central line from Bellefonte to State College and the Bellefonte Secondary track from Lemont east through Centre Hall to Coburn have both been abandoned.

Map 5.3 SEDA-COG JOINT RAIL SYSTEM :

~llllwuu~l~uu~Bald Eagle -.-- Nittany & B 1111111 Conrail Main Lines

Source: SEDA-Council of Qovemmenb I I 5- 13 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

C. AIR TRANSPORTATION

Universitv Park Abort1 Backround. The University Park Airport is located on the south side of Fox Hollow Road in Benner Township. The 370 acre site is owned by the Pennsylvania State University and is designated as University Park Airport property. Operation of the airport however, has been granted to, and is the responsibility of the Centre County Airport Authority. In addition to providing general aviation activity and services, the University Park Airport is also provided commercial service by USAir Express (flying as Pennsylvania Airlines and Allegheny Commuter) and United Express (flying as Air Wisconsin). General aviation activity includes activity by area industries, private individuals, the military, the University, and transient air- craft; this activity represents approximately three-fourths of the airport’s total activity. The commercial airlines provide service to Baltimore-Washington, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Pitts- burgh, and Washington (Dulles) via Harrisburg, with connections to other locations.

Facilities. Landing facilities include two hard-surfaced runways: 0 Primary Runway 6-24 is a 5000 x 100 foot grooved, asphalt runway with full instrument approach. 0 Crosswind Runway 16-34 is a 2350 x 50 foot asphalt runway limited to visual (VFR) landings only. airport’s buildings are listed below: Two corporate hangers (GPI Aviation and HRB Singer Inc.), A maintenance hanger, Three 6-bay T-hangers, Two 2-bay T-hangers, One unit Hanger, The administration building, The temporary general aviation building, The fire, crash and rescue building, The electrical service vault building, and The air terminal building. All hangers are owned by the University and leased to the ten- ants. The terminal building is owned and operated by the Centre County Airport Authority.

1 Source: Master Plan Report, University Park Airport, 1990, prepared for The Pennsylvania State University by L. Robert Kimball & Associates, Ebensburg, PA, supplemented by Robert Dannaker of the University Park Airport. 5- 14 TRANSPORTATION

In addition to the above facilities, the following expansions are either underway or planned. 0 A 1700 foot extension of Primary Runway 6-24 with 1000 foot overruns at each end; land purchases of approximately 300 total acres at the western and southern runway ends will be required to complete this proposal. (See Map 5.4) 0 A hanger/operations building for the Federal Express mail service. 0 An Air Traffic Controller Training Facility to be built by the Air National Guard on approximately 5 acres of land.

Prospective. The nearest competitive commercial air service is located 45 miles southwest at the Altoona-Blair County Airport. The nearest full service commercial airport is two hours away at the Harrisburg International Airport in Middletown, PA. These are too distant for reasonably accessible air service; and thus the opportunity exists for continued expansion of the University Park Airport. Continued population growth in Centre County, future development of the University's science and technology park, expanded business opportunities offered both on and adjacent to the airport site, and affiliation of the University with the Big-lo, are all factors that can contribute to the expansion of service at the airport. *

Bellefonte Skypark. Bellefonte Skypark is a privately owned airport located approximately two and one-half miles northeast of the University Park Airport. Much smaller, it provides general aviation services and is limited to a single VFR Runway -- 7-25.

5- 15 I I

--\ \ \ 1 I L c--

LEGEHD -. - Arporl Dcdicoted Properly ------Penn Stoic Properly Map 5.4 Airport Povemenl Pm~adRrct~ases The University Park Airport Source: Master Plan Rewtt. Universihr Park Almott. 17Easement Rrchoses L Roben Klrnballtl Assodam. 1990. I-(.w lorn sw 200 urn-- 6. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Comprehensive Plan is fundamentally concerned with the future physical environment of Port Matilda Borough. The purpose of this chapter is to set forth the Plan's objectives to be used as a basis for the major proposals contained in Chapters 7 through 9.

The Maior 0b iective Every municipality performs certain economic and social roles within its area region. The larger the community, generally the more varied and complex these roles become; for example, every city in the Commonwealth provides a good example of a community ti providing multiple roles. But sheer size is not always the determining factor. Many Town- -1 ships in the Commonwealth have experienced large population growth in recent years yet the role of many of these Townships is i almost exclusively limited to providing homes for workers who I I live elsewhere -- i.e.: "Bedroom Communities". Other Townships have not experienced this growth and their role remains primarily agricultural. i Yet most boroughs, regardless of size, have traditionally performed multiple roles as places of work, places of residence, and places of trade. They are throwbacks to a time when transportation modes and opportunities were limited, making close proximity I of all elements of daily life extremely important. But the need for such proximity has been eroding for decades. i Increased automotive mobility has changed forever our earlier way of life. For everyone, the car has made longer trips to work and shop possible; it has made our industries highway rather than I rail oriented, and it has to a large degree turned our shopping areas into gargantuan places that cater to entire regions instead of individual communities. i Many boroughs have lost their multi-story, rail oriented industrial bases, others have lost their trade prominence to outside competition, some have lost their identity when engulfed within t suburbia, and a few have lost all three -- their industry, commerce and identity. Most boroughs have on the other hand maintained their primary roles as residential neighborhoods, i including associated institutional uses such as schools, churches, social clubs and recreational areas. Port Matilda has in some ways been fortunate. While substantial 1 growth has occurred in Centre County, it has almost exclusively centered upon the State College Region and has not found its way f over Bald Eagle Mountain to Port Matilda, at least not yet. In i Port Matilda change has been slow and the Borough remains much i 6-1 TEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN .

the same as it was a generation or two ago. Its population has remained constant for thirty years (See Table 3.6). And its identity at the intersection of U.S. Routes 220 and 322 remains clear. In other ways Port Matilda has not fared well in recent years. When once the Borough could say it served three roles -- industrial, residential, and commercial -- today its role is almost exclusively residential. It is an isolated rural neighborhood serving a minor secondary role as a truck stop. The isolation has brought little demand for its housing and as a result much is in a state of deterioration. Also, the trucks have been more a nuisance than a boost to the Borough's economy. As it always has, Port Matilda's continuing strength will rest as much upon external factors as what the Borough can do for itself. The following factors are critical to Port Matilda's future: 1. The economic vitality and the employment base of the surrounding region to provide employment for Port Matilda's residents; particularly State College and i Altoona. 2. The commitment of the Commonwealth to eliminate truck traffic and unsatisfactory sanitary sewage disposal; each of which have thus far exerted enormous negative pressures upon the Borough. I' These factors do not mean, however, that Port Matilda should be pessimistic in regard to the control of the Borough's destiny. Quite to the contrary, there is much that needs to be done and by and large the Borough must look to itself to ensure that these factors be identified and resolved. This, then, is the purpose of this Comprehensive Plan.

THE MAJOR GOAL OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN is that Port Matilda Borough retain a single role as a strong rural residential neighborhood, at all times giving maximum concern to attaining and maintaining those economic and environmental qualities that will enhance Port Matilda as a desirable place to live.

Su~~ortin~Objectives While the major goal is the most significant idea expressed by the Comprehensive Plan, the following objectives serve to clarify the Borough's role as stated in that major objective. It shall likewise be the objective of Port Matilda Borough to:

6-2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

0 -Protect the Environment. An outstanding natural environment is one key to the quality of residential life. In the past, we have often ignored the effects_of our individual actions upon the environment. It is the intent of this Plan to make environmental preservation and protection a major factor in the future development of Port Matilda Borough. Specific directions will be: 1. To perpetually maintain the slopes and forests of Bald Eagle Mountain and the Allegheny Front. 2. To develop land use regulations and controls that will ensure protection against environmental degradation of any Borough property. 3. To protect the Bald Eagle Creek from pollution and encroachment.

0 Improve the Vitality of Existing Borough Neiphborhoods.- Inasmuch as the ma- jar goal of this Comprehensive Plan is to maintain the Borough as a place of residence, it is important to state those supporting objectives that will assist in attaining the major objective. 1. The current levels of providing public services and maintaining public facilities must be improved./ 2. The location of non-residential uses within any residential neighborhood should be discouraged. 3. Residential amenities -- open space, street trees, street signs, underground utilities, sidewalks, etc. -- should be provided as often as opportunities arise. 4. Existing housing and property maintenance codes must be strengthened to prevent and reverse property deterioration. 5. To the extent possible, regional and interstate truck traffic must be kept from passing through the Borough.

0 Strengthen the Borough Core. The Borough should be ever vigilant to keeping existing and encouraging appropriate new commercial, service, and work activities in its center. 1. Port Matilda's central area fills two roles: (a) Commercial services, such as convenience foods, hardware, and personal services, and (b) Employment such as offices and small industries. It.is important that such activities be encouraged within the Borough Core. 2. Precise limits of the Core area should be established and maintained in order to minimize interference with adjacent residential areas. 3. Appropriate public improvements should be made in the Core area as a means of encouraging private investment.

6-3 0 Reinforce the Tax Base by creating conditions encouraging property development, redevelopment, recycling and/or maintenance. 1. Vacant land should be encouraged to be developed, primarily for residential usage. 2. Existing buildings should be properly maintained through strong housing and property maintenance codes. 3. Existing buildings of declining value should be encouraged to be recycled by conversion to appropriate new uses. 4. Although very high value commercial or industrial uses will likely not find suitable location within the Borough itself, their location upon other suitable sites in the Bald Eagle Area School District is an advantage to Port Matilda and should consequently be encouraged.

i 0 Provide Public Services that are efficient in operation and adequate in extent to supply desired amenities as well as required necessities for Borough residents and businesses. 1. The Bald Eagle Area School District is encouraged to continue to provide elementary education to the Boroughs children upon a site located within the Borough limits. 2. The Borough recognizes and accepts a responsibility to provide park and recreational facilities for educational activities as well as a beneficial use of leisure time. 3. The Borough intends to improve its current adequate water system as funds permit. 4. The Borough is currently working to provide public sanitary waste collection and treatment. Storm water collection and disposal will be included in its long range plans.

0 Maintain and Improve the Transportation Svstem as a support for the Borough‘s residents and activities. The system should include all transportation modes. 1. Establish a street classification system and street construction standards consistent with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. I’ 2. Create a street network by planning for specific new street connections and extensions. i

3. Keep regional truck traffic from passing through the t Borough. 1 4. Support any efforts to provide public transportation to Port Matilda.

6-4 GQALS AND OBJECTIVES

0 Use The ComDrehensive Plan as the basis for evaluating proposed actions affecting physical development. Also to: 1. Use the Plan as a guide for establishing budget priorities, 2. Use the Plan as the primary means of communicating overall Borough policy to any concerned organization or individual, and 3. View this Plan as having a useful life of approximately ten years at which time it will be updated in light of I intervening events and trends. I -1 I .i i I i I I I i i

6-5 6-6 i I I 7. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

I THE MAJOR GOAL OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN is that Port Matilda Borough retain a single role as a strong rural residential neighborhood, at all times giving maximum concern to attaining and I maintaining those economic and environmental qualities that will 'I enhance Port Matilda as a desirable place to live. For the large majority of the residents of Port Matilda, the Bor- ~l ough is a place to live -- a place to make a home, a place to raise a family, or a place to retire. This idea is clearly expressed in the major goal of this Plan. Facing squarely the problems of growth and change while conserving the qualities that attracted most residents to Port Matilda is the Borough's responsibility to its residents.

A. LAND DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS With the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, Port Matilda Bor- ough has opted to take direct action to guide the Borough's future. No longer will the Borough allow private development or construction to occur without Borough and Centre County approvals. Public improvements such as parking lots and sidewalks need to be coordinated and directed. Even more important, the potential risks of incompatible land uses locating upon inappropriate sites within the Borough need to be eliminated. Land use control ordinances are the only means of exerting controls such as these. Although several other ordinances are proposed later in this Chapter, the following two land use control ordinances are particularly important and critical in guiding the Borough's future.

0 Zonina Ordinance. The Plan proposes the enactment of a Zoning Ordinance in Port Matilda Borough. Eight zoning districts are proposed. /Forest District /Single Family Residential Dist. JStream Valley District /Two Family Residential District JPlanned Commercial Dist. /Multi-Family Residential Dist. JLight Industrial District JVillage Residential District Each of these districts is intended to be unique to itself, clearly defining the type and intensity of permitted future development. The character of each district is described throughout the remaining sections of this chapter.

'I I I 7-1 0 Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. The Centre County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance is currently in effect in Port Matilda. In addition to regulations regarding the subdivision of land, in which most people are familiar, this Ordinance provides that all new non-residential uses and i any residential use involving two or more dwelling units, have a Land Development Plan approved by the County Planning Commission. This is a critically important tool to control land development. The majority of modern developments fall into the category of land development rather than subdivision, thus it is important that Port Matilda ensure that these regulations are fully met by all future developments, both private and public.

B. CONSERVATION AREAS r Lying in the Bald Eagle Valley between the Allegheny Front to the i north and Bald Eagle Mountain to the south, Port Matilda is domi- nated by its natural features -- features that create much of the unique atmosphere that is Port Matilda and without which Port Ma- tilda would in no way be the same. Because these features are so important to the Borough the Plan proposes that they be designated conservation areas within which essentially no development or construction would occur. The Comprehensive Plan further proposes the establishment of two separate conservation districts as : follows I 1 0 Forest District. It is proposed that a Forest District be included in the Port Matilda Zoning Ordinance. While the steepest slopes of the Allegheny Front and Bald Eagle Mountain lie in Worth Township outside the Borough, the northeast corner of the Borough around the Presbyterian Cemetery has perimeter slopes too steep for public streets and is thus appropriate for designation as a Forest District. Use here should be limited to agriculture and cemetery. 0 Stream Valley District. It is proposed that a Stream Valley District be included in the Port Matilda Zoning Ordinance. Such district should include the entire floodplain of the Bald Eagle Creek plus adjacent areas generally unsuitable for -. development due to insufficient size, poor accessibility, or other similar limitations. Furthermore, it is recommended that the Port Matilda Floodplain Ordinance be amended to prohibit any construction within the floodplain as opposed to the current regulations permitting construction providing the floor level is above the elevation of the flood of record at that point.

7-2 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

C. RESIDENTIAL AREAS

TVD~of New Housing. Most communities pride themselves in their ability to provide a range of housing for all age groups: young marrieds and singles, families, empty nesters, and the elderly. Port Matilda is no different. The Borough has historically provided housing for all ages and will do so in the future. The Plan proposes that all types and styles of housing units be provided in Port Matilda: single familylmultifamily, stick-builtlmodular, high income/low income, and all archi- tectural styles.

Densitvof New Housing. Two densities of housing are proposed for Port Matilda: 0 Low Density Housinq @ six or fewer dwelling units per acre is proposed in four Borough neighborhoods as shown on the Future Development Plan Map. These neighborhoods include the two existing central neighborhoods flanking the Bald Eagle Creek, and two new neighborhoods on the plateaus above the Bald Ea- gle Creek in the western end of the Borough. In the central neighborhoods single family residences already predominate, and future residences here and in the two new neighborhoods should be at similar densities. Both single and two family homes should be included. Medium Density Housinq @ six to twelve dwelling units per acre is proposed in two Borough neighborhoods as shown on the Fu- ture Development Plan Map. These neighborhoods include the existing mixed residential-commercial neighborhood along Plank Road and North High Street and a new medium density neighborhood above the Bald Eagle Creek in the southeastern corner of the Borough. Most housing types -- single, double, multiple, conversions and mobile homes -- would be permitted here.

Protection of Existing Homes. The overwhelmingly predominate land use in Port Matilda is that of single family homes. This Plan proposes that the Borough take all needed and necessary public action to protect its existing homes from negative or blighting influences and to encourage high standards of maintenance by private property owners. Specific Borough actions to achieve these results include: 0 Zoninq. The Borough needs a strong zoning ordinance to prohibit in residential areas any activity that does not posi- tively enhance residential values. Sidewalks. One clear advantage of town (Borough) living vs. rural living is the ability to walk to important activity points -- to shop, to school, or to church -- or simply to walk for its own sake. Port Matilda needs to extend its existing sidewalk system.

7-3 Vehicular Traffic. Although the major problem of vehicular traffic is regional traffic on U.S. 220 and 322, through traffic should also be discouraged within each neighborhood. Traffic control devices to discourage through traffic and at the same time to promote pedestrian safety should be placed at appropriate locations. Such devices include posted maximum speed limit signs, stop signs, traffic signals, and pedestrian crosswalks . Street Maintenance. If the Borough expects its private property owners to maintain their homes and properties in excellent repair, the Borough must reciprocate by maintaining its streets in a similar manner. Without exception, all Borough streets should be surfaced with asphalt, have proper storm drainage, be curbed, and have sidewalks on at least one street side. Street Siuns. Signs located within the public right of way should be kept to a minimum; to include only those required for public safety. Even necessary street signs can be reduced in number by placing more than one sign on a single standard, or by painting of curbs in lieu of any sign. Also, street identification signs need to be attractive and coordinated throughout the Borough. Shade Trees. A hallmark of towns and villages settled in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are their trees. The Plan recommends the establishment of a Shade Tree Commission in Port Matilda to oversee the care of existing street trees, but even more importantly to be a leader in the planting of new trees throughout the Borough. Siuns. The size and number of signs in residential areas should be regulated through the Zoning Ordinance. Generally signs in residential areas should be of an absolute minimum in size, number, and illumination.

HousbOuality. The quality of existing housing in Port Matilda can be described as good. Although most housing is of excellent original construction and most of it remains in excellent condition, there are pockets of deteriorating and dilapidated housing. The problems of poor housing quality fall into the following general categories: (1) Overdue maintenance, (2) Less than standard housing additions, (3) Over crowded buildings, and (4) Poorly sited mobile homes. It also needs to be recognized that completion of the Borough's planned sanitary sewer collection and treatment system can potentially bring a significant amount of residential expansion. To correct these problems and to ensure that the Borough sets high standards for its potential growth, the Plan recommends enactment of the following ordinances:

7-4 1

f t a Buildina Code. The Borough must begin to enforce the manner in which new construction and alterations occur. If the Bor- I ough takes no action in this regard, today's less than adequate construction practices can potentially occur even more often in the future. To ensure comprehensiveness, and for i ease in administration, a recognized national building code (such as the NSBC or National Society of Building Contractors Code) should be enacted. IL e Public ImDrovements Standards. Anticipating residential expansion following completion of the Borough's sanitary sewer system, the Borough needs to ensure that the standards for ~I public improvements (streets and sidewalks, utilities, storm drainage, street lighting, plus bonding requirements) are clear and appropriate for use at the time of subdivision and/or land development review and approval. e Property Maintenance Code. The Borough needs to establish appropriate minimum standards for the maintenance of both residential and nonresidential property. Matters such as weed control, unlicensed vehicle control, outdoor storage, basic building repair, and nuisances can be regulated by such an ordinance.

a Housina Code. A housing code, sometimes referred to as a public housing code, regulates rental housing within a municipality by providing minimum standards for habitability and regular inspection/enforcement procedures to ensure that these standards are being met. A high incidence of conversion apartments occurring in Port Matilda indicates that it is time for the enactment of a housing code.

Conversion Awrtments. The conversion of single family dwellings in- to apartments is a commonly used means of putting new value into older buildings. When properly done such conversion benefit all parties -- the owner, the occupants, and the community. The owner gains increased property revenue and value, the occupants gain suitable housing, and the community gains new residents and additional tax revenue. But when such conversions are slipshod and not properly done, only the owner benefits, all other parties suffer. In recent years Port Matilda has had installed a dispro- portionately large number of conversion apartments. Unfortunately many have been far below standard and Borough action is now required. The key to achieving conversions where all parties gain is insis- tence upon effective and proper standards. The most important standards governing conversion apartment conversions are as follows : Transition Areas. Limit conversions to areas that are undergoing change or transition; here new life and new investments are needed. Conversely, the premature permission of cower- 7-5 I i THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I

sions in otherwise stable neighborhoods can bring on a state of transition, and thus should not be permitted. In Port Ma- i tilda transition areas appropriate for conversions are along Plank Road and North High Street. i 0 Minimal Structural Chanaes. Generally prohibit structural changes to the building facade facing the public street, but at the same time encourage improved building appearance. Drastic changes in the exterior appearance of a building can I be devastating in terms of its negative effect upon adjacent properties, particularly if an area is predominantly residential. I 0 Avoid Overcrowdinq. Ensure that overcrowded living conditions do not result from a conversion. There is no doubt that many I conversions have resulted in far worse conditions than ex- isted prior to the conversion For the most part such situations have resulted from overcrowding -- to many dwelling units within a building or upon a given lot. To prevent over- I crowding, permitted conversions in Port Matilda must: 4 Not result in any greater density (dwelling units per acre) than permitted in a newly constructed multi-family development . I J Provide off-street parking at required minimum standards. J Enact and enforce a Housing Code. J Prohibit conversion apartments within any building not I having direct access to a Borough street (alleys are specifically excluded). I 1 D. NON-RESIDENTIALAREAS -i BorouPhCore. The intersection of Plank Road and High Street has historically been the prime location for the Port Matilda's re- i tail activities. The Plan proposes no fundamental changes to this 1 role. But the Borough Core has not remain static in the past; nor will it in the future. Whereas in past times the businesses served Borough residents and those of neighboring Worth Township I with their routine needs for food, sundries, hardware, and agricultural products, now the market emphasis is upon gasoline and convenience food service to the regional traffic passing through Port Matilda. As more time passes some existing businesses, hav- I ing served their useful life, will close and new businesses will be created, occasionally with new buildings. The following specific proposals are intended to describe the nature of this evo- I lutionary change.

0 Convenience Stores. The fundamental role of the Borough Core is to provide a location for convenience stores. It must re- I main so, for convenience stores provide service to both local residents and the regional highway traveller. Convenience i 7-6 I FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

stores are those that provide those goods and personal services to the general public that are required on a regular basis and for which the shopper is not generally willing to travel long distances. Food, sundries, hardware, periodicals, barber and beauty shops, restaurants, service stations, banks, and various offices are good examples of convenience commercial stores and activities. Examples of activities that are inappropriate for location in the Borough Core are those requiring large amounts of storage space such as lumber yards, automobile sales agencies, feed mills, and wholesale warehousing. Villaae Atmosphere. The Borough Core has much of the atmosphere of a 19th Century village. The important elements of such a village are buildings set forward on the street line, a strong pedestrian system, traditional two or three story architecture, and street trees. The antithesis of the village is the modern shopping center whose typical characteristics are exactly opposite those of a village. To maintain a village atmosphere in the Borough Core, the Plan proposes that the area be zoned Village Commercial and that the district regulations contain appropriate design and dimensional requirements for new buildings in addition to its use regulations. It is recognized that more recent commercial expansion in the Borough has been more closely aligned with typical highway commercial development than being compatible with a village. The Borough, nevertheless, must steadfastly look forward to the time that regional traffic is removed from Borough streets and the village can more clearly re-emerge. In the meantime, new commercial development must meet the older, more traditional standards to be compatible with the long term interests of the Borough. Clear Boundaries. Because the nature of activities within a commercial district are almost by definition much more intense than those in a residential district, care must be taken to clearly define the Borough Core and to avoid having non-residential activities intrude into residential neighborhoods. To minimize such intrusions the Plan proposes that without exception, the Village Commercial zone be sharply defined by North Street, Main Street on the east, West Street and on the south be limited to properties fronting on Plank Road; with particular emphasis upon this southern boundary. The Borouqh Core as an Employment Area. The nature of any central place is not that of a single use zone as are many residential neighborhoods, but instead that of a happy mix of different uses. With this thought in mind, the Plan proposes that selected employment activities be permitted in the Bor- ough Core. Activities such as offices, repair shops, and small manufacturing operations are appropriate when small of scale and without nuisance. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CI.NCIL...I)...CI.ee--eeuN-eu--e----ee---ee--e---e---e------e-e-~--

Meadow Industrial Area. Port Matilda has no defined employment area. Borough residents for the most part work elsewhere as there are substantially populated areas in every direction -- Philipsburg, Milesburg/Bellefonte, State College, and Tyrone/Altoona. The Bor- ough believes it has an opportunity to reverse this trend to a small extent by providing an local opportunity for employment.

0 Opportunitv. The industrial opportunity that the Borough be- ! lieves it has are based upon the following factors: J The availability of vacant, accessible, gently sloping land most suitable for industry. J The prospective availability of public sewer. I J The existing availability of public water. I J A central location in the region for prospective employees to commute to Port Matilda rather than the reverse as is now the situation. J The availability of a small work force in Port Matilda. J The availability of two major regional highways in US 220 and 322 to transport goods, thus taking advantage of the highway system rather than have it work against the Borough. J The availability of the adjacent Borough Core for commercial support.

0 Location. The Meadow Area bound by Worth Township on the north, Laurel Run on the east, North Street on the south, and the old mill race on the west is proposed as a Light Indus- trial zone.

E. TRANSPORTATION PLAN Public highway and railroad transportation systems provide access to homes, business, and industry. Moreover, the precise routes taken by these systems and the location of their nodes1 are the primary determinants of land use patterns. Thus to guide future land use in Port Matilda and to carry out the land use proposals previously set forth in this chapter, the Borough must take an active role in changing and improving the existing transportation system. The background for the Transportation Plan was established in Chapter 5, Transportation, and should be reviewed simultaneously with this section.

TransDortation Objectives As a guide for the Transportation Plan’s proposals to follow, Port Matilda Borough‘s Transportation objectives are listed below. They amplify the objectives conta,ined in Chapter 6.

1 Nodes as used here are terminals and stations for mass transportation, and interchanges and intersections for vehicular traffic. 7-8 IWTUBE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

J Establish a street classification system and street construction standards consistent with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. J Create a street network by planning for specific new street connections and extensions. J Keep industrial and regional truck traffic from passing through the Borough. J Support any efforts to provide public transportation to Port Matilda.

Hiphwav and Street Svstem HiPhwav ClassMcation Svstem. -- The Pennsylvania Department of Trans- portation is responsible for maintaining a highway classification system for the Commonwealth. The system is entitled The Punction- a1 Highway Classification System. Chapter 5 defines each level in the system and lists the Centre County highways included in the system. The purpose of the system is twofold: 1. To organize the Commonwealth's highways in a hierarchy primarily based upon usage, a hierarchy that in turn is used to determine improvement priorities. 2. For each level of highway, to establish design standards appropriate to its traffic load and general usage. While such classifications may appear to be mere administrative matters, they are important recommendations with important implications for the Borough for planned highway improvements follow design standards for given classification levels, and the higher the classification the more sophisticated any subsequent improvement. Port Matilda Borough concurs in general with Pennsylvania's Functional Classification System but recommends the following three changes to the classifications of the State highways serving the Borough. U.S. 322. Fort Matilda Borough recommends that U.S. 322, or North High Street and Plank Road as they are also known in the Borough, be downgraded to Major Collector streets rather than Arterial highways as they are currently classified. U.S. 220. Port Matilda Borough recommends that U.S. 220, or Plank Road as it is also known in the Borough, be downgraded to a Major Collector street rather than an Arterial highway as it is currently classified. Port Matilda is well aware that reclassification of these two highways is dependent upon agreement upon and subsequent construction of a system of Principal Arterial Highways that will adequately serve the larger geographic areas of Centre County and Central Pennsylvania, and that will include bypasses of Port Ma- tilda. But following such events downgrading to the anticipated new level of use would clearly be warranted.

7-9 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -

SR 3017. Port Matilda Borough recommends that SR 3017, or South High Street as it is known in the Borough, be upgraded to a Major Collector street rather than a Local street as it is currently classified. SR 3017 joins PA 550 at Centennial in Halfmoon Township on the southeastern side of Bald Eagle Mountain. It is an important alternative route between Port Matilda and State College and thus warrants upgrading. And as Port Matilda grows in the future following the completion of its new sanitary sewer system, the role of SR 3017 will become even more important.

U.S.322Relocation. -- The roles of U.S. 322 and 220 were thoroughly discussed in Chapter 5. They are major regional and interstate routes carrying heavy commercial traffic. Such heavy traffic is clearly inappropriate for Port Matilda's streets and offensive to its residents and businesses. Regional traffic is slowed and made less efficient. Local vehicular and pedestrian traffic is placed in danger. And adjacent properties are suffer the noxious effects of noise, fumes and dirt. It seems clear that the relocation of U.S. 322 around Port Matilda is in the interest of all, and the only remaining questions are along what alignment? and when can funding be obtained? As proposed in a 1985 feasibility study1 and summarized in Chap- ter 5, two general alignments were investigated: (1) one as a complete by-pass as shown in Figure 5.1, (2) the other through Port Matilda following Laurel Run. The second alternative was re- jected because of its significant negative impact upon the Bor- ough, including the potential demolition of ten to fifteen homes. Aliunment. The Plan proposes that a relocated U.S. 322 be located generally along the alignment shown in Figure 5.1, l but be extended east to Martha's Furnace to connect to the recently reconstructed interchange there. I Capacitv. The Plan further proposes that a relocated U.S. 322 be constructed as a four lane facility. Even if traffic volumes on 322 alone call for only two lanes, four lanes are clearly justified if a 322 bypass is combined with a U.S. I 220 bypass as proposed below. Interchanae Locations. The Plan proposes that a relocated i U.S. 322 be constructed as a limited access facility with interchanges at the western end at existing 322, and at the eastern end at existing 220 at Martha's Furnace. 1

1 Feasibility Study and Environmental Overview of Possible Bvoasses, Centre-Clearfield Counties, Route 322/244 Corridor, Vollmer / RK & K, A Joint Venture for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 1985. 7- 10 ! f FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN I U.S.220Relocation. -- The potential for a U.S. 220 bypass of Port -1 Matilda is discussed in Chapter 5. The discussion centers upon 1 the eventual completion of 220 -- a.k.a. Appalachian Thruway -- as a full blown limited access highway. To achieve this goal one section of the proposed Thruway would have to bypass Port Matil- I da. There are three alternative routes: 1. South of Port Matilda, making a new crossing of Bald Eagle Mountain, and proceeding north through Halfmoon ‘It Valley to the current terminus of State College’s 322 bypass ; ? 2. South of Port Matilda along the north face of Bald i Eagle Mountain to Martha’s Furnace; or 3. North of Port Matilda through the foothills of the Al- legheny Front (See Chapter 3) to Martha’s Furnace, us- i ing the previously discussed U.S. 322 bypass enroute. -i Preferred U.S. 220 Bvpass Route. The Plan proposes that a U.S. i 220 bypass be constructed around the north side of Port Matil- da. The following significant advantages result: I J Combining both the 322 and the 220 bypasses into a single i alignment will be less costly than if done separately; J A high standard, four lane limited access highway can be justified by combining the bypasses, thus continuing the i concept of a high design Appalachian Thruway; I J The Commonwealth will retain a choice at Martha‘s Furnace as to whether to continue U.S. 220 up the Bald Eagle Valley to Milesburg, or to cross Bald Eagle Mountain via Skytop con- 1i necting to the northern end of the Nittany Expressway that bypasses State Col1ege;l i J Virtually all regional traffic could be removed from Port i Matilda: and 1, J There will be less environmental damage through the foothills of the Allegheny Front than either along or over Bald I Eagle Mountain. i Primarv Street Network. -- Within the Commonwealth’s Highway Classi- i fication system, Port Matilda Borough needs to establish its own network of streets. Currently the Borough has no organized system to supplement the Commonwealth system. As now defined under the Commonwealth’s system all streets located within the Township’s ! geographic limits, other than State highways, are massed together r as local streets. A defined Borough street network would accom- I I plish two purposes: (1) it would indicate those streets to re- I ceive priority for maintenance and for emergency routing, and (2) it would indicate important future street connections to be made t to complete a total street network for the Borough. 1 1 This Plan endorses diverting U.S. 220 traffic over Bald Eagle I Mountain via Skytop by means of an improved highway connecting L to existing U.S. 220 at the Bellefonte Interchange via the existing Nittany Expressway and a relocated PA 26.

I i 7-11 i 1.

Primary Streets. The following Borough streets supplement the Commonwealth's highway system by providing important intra- Borough connections. Because of their important role, the Plan proposes that they be called "Primary Access Streets" and are shown on Map 7.1, Future Development Plan. J Brick Street between Cherry and Oak J Cherry Street J Church Street between High and Locust J Front and Water Streets in combination between Park and High J High Street between SR 3017 and Oak J Locust Street between Church and Spruce J Main Street between North and Church J Oak Street J Spruce Street between High and Smith

Future street Connections. -- However, the above system of existing primary streets is by no means a complete system. Some earlier subdivisions have not provided interconnecting streets, and some of the fringes areas of the Borough have yet to be developed. The' result is that a number of additional primary street connections will be needed. The paths of these proposed primary streets would use what is currently vacant land. Thus construction of these streets should generally occur at the time of development of these vacant parcels, with funding by the owner of each parcel. It may not seem fair for individual developers to bear the burden of construction of the Borough's streets, but on the other hand these are streets that would be needed for development in any case, and the Borough is merely directing the starting and ending points of each new street connection. The Borough recognizes, however, that in some exceptional cases it may be necessary to for the Borough to par- ticipate either through land condemnation or financing to complete a given street section. 0 New Primarv Streets. The Plan proposes that as a minimum, the following listed street connections be made to complete Port Matilda Borough's primary street system. The location of each primary street extension is shown on Map 7.1. Although specific locations are shown, these locations are intended to be concep- tual in nature and not describe a specific alignment that might vary due to topographic or other specific site conditions.

7- 12 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

J Extend North Main Street to North Hiqh Street -- From its present termination at North Street, Main Street would be extended north through the Meadow Industrial Area to High Street near the Borough line. This extension would provide primary access to the Meadow Indus- trial Area. J Extend South Main Street to Cherry Street -- From its present termination at Church Street, Main Street would be extended south across the Bald Eagle Creek to Cherry Street. This extension would provide an important second vehicular crossing of Bald Eagle Creek; for both emergency and circulation purposes one crossing is not sufficient. Unlike all other proposed extensions, this proposal could not be built by private developers but would necessitate public funding. (See Chapter 9)

J LOOP Cherrv and Oak Streets west from High Street into the proposed new low density residential neighborhood in the southwestern corner of the Borough. J Extend Park Street south across the railroad to the previously proposed westward extension of Cherry Street. This extension will provide direct access to the Port Matilda Community Park from this new low density neighborhood, and also provide an alternative access to an area that has a potential for significant residential growth.

J Loop Cherry and Oak Streets east from Brick Street into the proposed new medium density residential neighborhood in the southeastern corner of the Borough. J Provide a LOOD Street from Plank Road West into and through the proposed new low density residential neighborhood in the northwestern corner of the Borough.

Pedestrhncrossinps. The Bald Eagle Creek and the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad divide Port Matilda Borough in half. Moreover, crossings of these two strong barriers are limited exclusively to the High Street Bridge. To help relieve this situation two additional street crossings were proposed in the previous section at Main and Park Streets. These crossings would be for both vehicles and pedestrians. Because of the expense and the uncertainty of achieving these proposed crossings the Plan proposes two new bridges across the Bald Eagle Creek limited to pedestrian use only.

0 For Access to the Port Matilda Elementary School from the Cherry Street - Oak Street Neighborhood a pedestrian bridge is proposed across the Bald Eagle Creek north from a point near the intersection of Cherry and Spring Streets to the School Playground. 7 - 13

... 0 For Access to the Communitv Park from all neighborhoods lying on the north side of the Borough a pedestrian bridge is proposed across the Bald Eagle Creek west from a point near the intersection of Spruce and West Streets. These exclusively pedestrian bridges are proposed because they will offer: 1. Increased opportunity for use of the Borough's two primary recreation facilities; 2. Safe access for the Borough's children to the school and park by offering pathways isolated from vehicular traffic; and 3. Substantially lower cost when compared to the cost of bridges for vehicular use.

Public Transportation Port Matilda Borough and its surrounding area has no bus service. Potential bus users of public transportation generally fall into one of two groups: 1. Individuals without means or unable to operate a motor vehicle -- the elderly, the handicapped, children, students, etc. 2. Individuals wishing to avoid the time and expense of commuting to work.

0 The Plan makes no specific proposal for public transportation to serve Port Matilda Borough. The Borough does, however, pledge-appropriate cooperation and assistance to any such system for public transportation when the need and demand so warrants.

Air Transport The University Park Airport in Benner Township provides adequate air service and facilities for the region. It is expected that this service will expand to meet the needs of both the University and the region over the life of this Plan. No specific proposals are made by Port Matilda Borough relative to air service.

7- 14

8. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES PLAN

Port Matilda Borough's schools, recreational facilities, utilities, and governmental services are as important to the Borough's 'I vitality as the Borough's homes, businesses and industry. By and large these services are public with the Borough playing some role in their operation and management. The availability and - quality of these facilities and services are in many instances a very important reason for residents initially choosing to reside in the Borough. Thus, the quality of facilities exerts considerable influence upon the style and quality of life in Port Matilda Borough. The purpose of this chapter is to provide guidelines for the improvement and expansion of each service as the Borough continues a period of potentially strong population growth.

0 biectives As a guide for the Plan proposals that follow, Port Matilda Bor- ough's Community Facility and Utility Objectives (as established in Chapter 6) are repeated below: J The Bald Eagle Area School District is encouraged to continue to provide elementary education to the Borough's children upon a site located within the Borough limits. J The Borough recognizes and accepts a responsibility to provide park and recreational facilities for educational activities as well as a beneficial use of leisure time. J The Borough intends to improve its current adequate water system as funds permit. J The Borough is currently working to provide public sanitary waste collection and treatment. Storm water collection and disposal will be included in its long range plans.

A. PUBLIC SCHOOLS Backround. -- Although the Borough Council has no direct responsibility in the planning for the location of the Bald Eagle Area School District's educational facilities, the Council, nevertheless, is vitally concerned because of the effect schools can have upon surrounding land uses and because of the importance that good schools have in attracting families to the Borough and to adjacent Worth Township.

1 The data presented in this section was provided primarily by Mr. Daniel F. Fisher, Superintendent of the Bald Eagle Area School District. 8-1 TEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The Bald Eagle Area School District is situated primarily in the Bald Eagle Creek Valley in north central Centre County, but also continues north to the Clearfield and Clinton County lines to include Snow Shoe and Burnside Townships. As shown on Diagram 8.1, the District serves the Boroughs of Port Matilda, Milesburg, Ho- ward, Snow Shoe and Unionville, plus the Townships of Worth, Hus- ton, Union, Boggs, Howard, Snow Shoe and Burnside. The area is rural; and in 1990 according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census had only 12,368 residents in its 342.6 square mile area. While the Bald Eagle Area is the largest school district in Centre County in area, it is also the least dense with only 36 persons per square mile.

CLINTON CO. ,'I c" . ,/'- i

The district includes five elementary schools: 1. The Clarence Elementary School in the Village of Clarence in Snow Shoe Township, 2. The Howard Elementary School in Howard Borough, 3. The Port Matilda Elementary School in Port Matilda Borough, 4. The Snow Shoe Elementary School in Snow Shoe Borough, and 5. The Wingate Elementary School at Wingate adjacent to the Bald Eagle Area High School. Each elementary school serves kindergarten through the sixth grade except Clarence, a 4-6 school, and Snow Shoe, a K-3 school; operating together to serve the Burnside and Snow Shoe area. 8-2 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES PLAN

Grades seven through twelve are served by the Bald Eagle Area Junior-Senior High School located on U.S. 220 in the Village of Wingate, outside Milesburg Borough. In January 1992 the school district's total enrollment was 2,394 studentsl: School Enrollment Rated Capacity Clarence Elementary 127 180 Howard Elementary 149 233 PORT MATILDA ELEMENTARY 245 473 Snow Shoe Elementary 152 231 Wingate Elementary 571 991 Junior-Senior Hiah School 1,150 1,609 TOTAL 2 I 394 3,717 The enrollment of the Bald Eagle Area School District as a whole, as well as that of the Port Matilda Elementary School, is expected to remain steady over the next five school yearsl; leaving substantial residual capacity for long term as well as any unex- pected short term growth. The thirteen room Port Matilda Elementary School located on Lo- cust Street was built in 1963 and renovated in 1971. All, about 35%, of Port Matilda's children walk to school. The remaining 65% are bussed from Worth Township, 25%, and Huston Township, 40%. The school's floor plan is shown in Figure 8.2.

1-I

Scale: 1"- 45' Source: 1988 Lonn Ranae Plan for the Bald Eanle Area School District.

1 Mr. Daniel F. Fisher, Superintendent, Bald Eagle Area School District, 1991. 83 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES PLAN

Recommendations. -- The Plan encourages the Bald Eagle Area School Board to adopt the following policies with regard to the Port Matilda Elementary School: 0 School Location Policy. The Plan recommends that the Bald Eagle Area School District maintain an elementary school in the Borough of Port Matilda and upon the existing site during the life of this Plan and beyond. 0 Site Size. In order to be prepared for future contingencies for expansion, renovation, or reconstruction the Plan recommends that the Bald Eagle Area School District enlarge the site by purchasing contiguous properties as they may become available from time to time.

B. PARKS AND RECREATION Standards. -- Probably the best method of evaluating the adequacy of an area's recreational facilities is to compare the existing facilities to recognized standards. Table 8.2 indicates general standards for the types of recreation areas appropriate for the Borough. These areas are defined and further described below: 0 Plav Lot. Play lots are directly related and oriented to the individual home. They are designed for pre-school children in areas where individual yard space is insufficient. Play lots are usually located in the middle of a block and are accessible without crossing a major street. They should include both paved and turf surfaces, play equipment, fencing, landscaping, and benches. 0 Plavqround. Playgrounds are designed to serve the active play needs of children from 5 to 15 years of age. The well developed playground usually provides an apparatus area, open grassed areas for informal play, fields and courts for games, shaded areas for passive activities, and a sheltered area with a drinking fountain and toilet facilities. 0 Plavfield. Playfields provide diversified recreational opportunities for all age groups. Activities commonly included activities that require more space than a playground can provide, such as baseball and football. Playfields also include specialized facilities such as swimming pools, skating rinks, and bandstands. Since playfields provide many adult activities, facilities such as off-street parking, night lighting, and toilet facilities should be included. 0 Parks. Parks fulfill a community's needs for passive recreation -- places where families can picnic, older residents gather, and children play informally. They are often provided in conjunction with a playground or playfield. Since the value of parks depends to a large degree upon its natural amenities, a large part of any park should be in woodland, open lawn, or meadowland. The size should be sufficient to neutralize adjacent land uses. 8-5 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Acres per 1,000 Site Size (Acres) Radius of meof Area Population Ideal Minimum Area Served Play Lot 0.5 1 None NA Playground 1.5 4 2 0.5 Miles Playfield 1.5 15 10 2 Miles Park 2.0 10 5 1.5 Miles

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN-NNNNNNNNNNNNN~NNN Source: Planning Design Criteria, DeChiara and Koppelman, 1969.

Table 8.2 shows as a rough guide that each municipality should have approximately five acres (Playlots were not counted) of recreational land per 1,000 residents. Using this guide Port Matilda Borough currently requires just 3.5 acres to serve her 1990 total population of approximately 700 persons. The Port Matilda Ele- mentary School site, 3.5 acres, and the Port Matilda Community Park, 10 acres, easily make up this total.

Considerations. -- Responses to the 1989 Port Matilda Borough Citi- zens Questionnaire contained in Appendix A show that recreational facilities were a public service in need of improvement. 80.9% of the survey's respondents evaluated the area's recreation facilities as either not available or needing improvement. And when asked to rank issues of greatest importance to the Borough, the respondents listed recreation third, behind only construction of a sewage disposal system and elimination of truck traffic. The only recreational facility cited as needed was a community swimming pool.

Recommendations. -- To meet recommended levels of recreational land for Port Matilda's resident population, to provide recreational sites throughout the Borough, and to respond to the citizens' desires for expanded recreational facilities the following proposals are made: ? Plavlots. Playlots work best either as part of a larger public facility, or when privately owned and maintained as part of a medium to high density residential complex. The Plan proposes that playlots be provided in Port Matilda as private facilities only -- in backyards of single family homes, and required in any future multi-family complex or mobile home park as part of the Borough's Land Development review process.

8-6 i i COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES PLAN 0 Plavsrounds. Playgrounds are typically the primary element in a community's recreational system. The Plan recommends i that suitably improved playground facilities be provided at each of the Borough's two recreational sites -- the school and the Community Park. Together these sites provide playground facilities within one-half mile of every point in the I- Borough and thus satisfy the criteria set forth in Table 8.1. Key to this proposal to limit the number of playgrounds in i Port Matilda to two is the need to have three new pedestrian access points provided as proposed in Chapter 7's Transpor- ~f tation Plan. If these connections cannot be made, then new 'I playgrounds should be considered for the Borough's three proposed new neighborhoods (Also see Chapter 7).

0 Community Park and Playfield. In response to the citizens I survey, the Plan recommends that Port Matilda Borough investigate the need for and the financial feasibility of making major improvements at the Borough's Community Park to make it the Borough's primary recreation site for all ages. Such improvements could include swimming, tennis, or indoor facilities, but most importantly include facilities that Bor- ough residents desire most. Any Borough growth will warrant serious consideration of such improvements.

C. WATER SUPPLY Background. -- Table 4.4 and Map 4.3 in Chapter 4 identified the basic characteristics of Port Matilda's water system. The system in general operates effectively. It uses wells instead of surface water sources thereby avoiding contamination of giardiasis and cryptosporidium occurring in other Centre County water systems using surface sources; furthermore, the water is chlorine treated. The system's 220,000 gallon distribution tank is well in excess of the average daily demand of 50,000 gallons. Like many small municipal water systems, however, Port Matilda's system is below present day standards. The Borough's two and four inch water mains are too small. For financial reasons, mains that should have been previously replaced have not been. The single storage tank located on Bald Eagle Mountain does not consistently supply adequate pressure to all parts of the Borough. And if the Borough as expected experiences future population growth as a result of the installation of its new sanitary sewer system, these current problems can only become more severe as an old system tries to cope with demands beyond its design and capacity.

Considerations. -- According to the survey conducted in November of 19891, satisfaction with Borough's water was moderately high.

1 See Appendix A for the results of the 1989 Port Matilda Citizens Questionnaire. 8-7 70.3% of those responding thought that the water service was adequate, but at the same time 71.4% thought that improvements to the system should also be investigated, and a few commented as to perceived lack of water pressure, dirt in the water, and a need to replace some water lines.

Recommendations. -- In response to responses to the citizen survey and to needed improvements to the water system, the Plan endorses the 1982 "Water Systems Improvements"1 as a general guide. The following specific recommendations are made for those improvements which should recieve high priority. Map 8.1, Plan for Wa- ter Supply, diagrams these improvements. Water Main Extensions. The Plan recommends that at such time development is proposed to new Borough neighborhoods and to the Meadow Industrial Area, that water be provided these areas by water mains of at least 6" in diameter and of a quality commensurate with current industry standards. Water Main Upurades. The Plan recommends that all existing water mains be upgraded to a larger size as suggested by the 1982 Water Systems Improvements studyl. Understanding the serious expense of such a program, the Plan further recommends that such replacements: J Be initially limited to those lines that comprise the primary distribution system; J Be partially constructed by developers needing certain sections improved to provide water to their developments; and J Be financed by Commonwealth of Pennsylvania grants and low rate loans as possible. e Water Supplv Protection. The Plan recommends that all water supply and storage sites be adequately protected to ensure the continuing high quality of the Borough's water supply. Such actions should include: J Fencing to protect all sites from the unwanted intrusion of animals and vandals; and J Long term development of a water filtration system.

1 Encrineerinu Report, Water System Improvements, Borough of Port Matilda, Centre County, PA; prepared by John T. Funk, Jr., PE; January 1982. 8-8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES PLAN

D. SANITARY SEWERS Citizen Ouestionnaire. -- According to the Citizen Questionnaire conducted in November of 19891, the need to improve Port Matilda's sewage disposal system was rated as the Borough's number one need -- even out-ranking the very obvious problem of heavy truck traffic through. 89.2% of those responding thought that providing a public sewage collection and disposal system was a definite need, and only 2.7% indicating that they thought there was no need. Ad- ditionally, when respondents were asked to rank the most important problems facing the Borough, sewage disposal ranked number one by a wide margin.

Bacbround. -- Much work has been done toward the completion of a sewage collection and disposal system since this Comprehensive Plan was started in 1989. A feasibility study has been completed, financing is in place, and work has started with anticipated completion in the spring of 1992. The system under construction is shown on Map 8.2, Plan for Sani- tary Sewers, displayed at the end of this chapter. The system is a gravity system with two primary interceptors -- one following the main branch of the Bald Eagle Creek and the other up Laurel Run to North High Street -- joined near the treatment plant in Worth Township just east of the Borough line. The plant has a 59,000 gallons per day (gpd) capacity and is located on a 2.58 acre site accessed from U.S. 322/220. All collection lines in the system have minimum 8" diameters.

Considerations. -- The purpose of the sewage collection and treatment system now under construction in Port Matilda is to correct existing health, sanitary and environmental problems. It is not intended to provide excess capacity for new development in the Borough, although that will be possible. The plant's 59,000 gpd capacity is only slightly above the Borough's average daily water usage of 50,000 gpd, close enough that no additional dwellings or businesses should be connected until the system is in operation and actual average daily flows can be determined. But even pre- suming that customer usage is not excessive and that infiltration is minimal, new hook-ups to the system will be limited to a hand- ful of new homes unless the system is expanded. Expansion is possible, however. The system's 8" collector lines can carry many thousands of gallons of additional waste. The treatment plant is modular and new modules can be added as needed.

See Appendix A for the results of the 1989 Port Matilda 'i Citizens Questionnaire. 8-11 Recommendations. -- The Plan makes the following recommendations with regard to the new Port Matilda sanitary sewer system: Endorsement. The Plan strongly endorses the completion of construction of the Port Matilda Sanitary Sewer System. When finished and in operation the system will eliminate existing health problems and will provide a base for economic growth in the Borough. I 0 Monitorinq. At the same time the Borough must effectively

monitor all remaining individual septic systems not initial- I ly connected to the new sanitary system. To insuring public health such systems must continue to meet all requirements of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources; failure would mandate connection to the Borough's new sanitary system. Additionally, the Borough should mandate peri- odic pumping of all septic systems remaining in operation, with disposal of such pumped septage at the Borough's or other approved plant. System Expansion. Anticipating that the completion of Port Matilda's sanitary sewer system will attract new development to Port Matilda, the Plan proposes that no portion of the cost any such development be borne by Port Matilda Borough. Specifically: J The developer of any lot or tract in Port Matilda shall either add an appropriately sized module to the Borough's treatment plant or pay a fee appropriate to the portion of the plant's capacity to be used; J Existing sanitary collection lines may be connected-eo and used by new development occurring upon heretofore vacant land, but J The costs to extend any new interceptor or collection line to serve a new lot or development will be borne by the developer of that lot or development;

8 - 12 paioain SCHEDULE

RWE I - WATER STORAGE I TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS T BLOW-OFF ASSEUBLY I WASE II - WATER CiSTRIBUTK34 / FIRE PROTECTIOH. BASE 6 AIR RELCASE AISSEYBL? =STEM ...... w VAL* ... .. PnnY Ili WATER LYSTRIBUTIOH / FIRE PROTECTION. EXTENDED - A FIT1Iffi . SYSTEM LIII -5EC PHASE WATERLINE I:;.;..;... PI+= H - WATER DISTRIBUTIW I FIRE PROTECTON, VLTlMiTE 11 SYSTEM -YO P*AY WATERLINE ._.. . ---- m ..'. . . , ' .- .. . ' - paopoY0 maY 5! w~TERLINE ...... ,;;;. ... . ,' i LOCATDN MAP I",u.-

CWTRACT DRAIIYOS SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM

- 1; 9. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The Comprehensive Plan has in previous chapters primarily dealt with questions of what, why and where. WHAT kinds of land uses are appropriate for Port Matilda? WHY? And WHERE would these land uses be best located? Similar concerns were addressed in regard to transportation, utilities and community facilities. This chapter will deal with some of the questions of how, who and when. HOW will the many proposals contained in this Comprehensive Plan be carried out? Will they be mandated by Borough Ordi- nances? Will they be voluntary? Or will they be keyed to other initiatives? WHO should be responsible for implementing each proposal? Should it be a private or public effort, and if public should it be a Borough, County or State responsibility? And WHEN should each proposal be accomplished? Immediately, or as circumstances warrant? Chapter 9, The Implementation Plan, will provide guidelines for answering these questions.

LAND USE CONTROLS Considerations. -- Three land use control ordinances are proposed for Port Matilda. These are: J A Port Matilda Borough Zoning Ordinance. J A Port Matilda Borough Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. 4 A Port Matilda Borough Property Maintenance Code. These ordinances are particularly important and critical in guiding Port Matilda's future land development. By enacting these ordinances the Borough needs to deal with the primary issue of how to encourage the infusion of new uses and new economic activity into Port Matilda that are compatible with those activities and buildings that are already here. Existing buildings need to have a variety of re-use opportunities, but without overcrowding or introducing incompatible uses. Likewise, new buildings and new developments need to recognize the limitations of their sites and also be compatible with the nature and scale of existing development.

Recommendations. -- The following general recommendations are made with regard to enacting a Port Matilda Borough Zoning Ordinance, a Port Matilda Borough Subdivision and Land Development Ordi- nance, and a Port Matilda Borough Property Maintenance Code: 0 Zoning Ordinance. The Plan proposes the immediate enactment of a Port Matilda Borough Zoning Ordinance. Zoning ordinances offer the most complete form of land use controI, and with a 9-1 public sanitary sewer system for the entire Borough, Port Matilda cannot afford to be without one. Such an ordinance is currently in preparation as part of the joint planning effort by Port Matilda with the six other Centre County municipalities on the south side of Bald Eagle Mountain. The most important characteristics of this new Ordinance should be (1) Consistent organization with the other participating municipalities, (2) clear definitions and strong use regulations to ensure clarity as to what uses are and are not permitted within each zoning district, (3) appropriate supporting regulations covering off-street parking, signs, environmental matters and nonconforming uses, (4) clear procedures to guide all Borough Boards and officers regarding zoning permits, variances, special exceptions, and amend- ments and (5) assurance that the new ordinance reflects updated standards and is in conformity with recent changes to the Municipalities Planning Code.1 Eight zoning districts are proposed. CONSERVATION DISTRICTS J Forest District J Stream Valley District RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS J Single Family Residential District J Two Family Residential District J Multi-Family Residential District J Village Residential District COMMERCIAL and INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS J Planned Commercial District J Light Industrial District Each of these districts is intended to stand alone, clearly defining the type and intensity of permitted future development. The character of each district should be as described in appropriate sections of Chapter 7, The Future Development Development P1an. Preparing and enacting the Borough‘s Zoning Ordinance must be given the highest priority, for without a Zoning Ordinance to reflect and carry out the land use proposals contained in this Plan, the effort and time to prepare it will be wasted. Reference: The specific powers granted to Port Matilda Bor- ough relative to Zoning can be found in Article VI of the Municipalities Planning Code.

0 Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. Port Matilda Borough does not currently have its own Subdivision and Land Devel- opment Ordinance, but like all other Centre County municipalities without their own ordinance, subdivision and land development matters are controlled directly by the Centre

1 Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act of 1968, P.L. 805 No. 247; Reenacted and amended December 21, 1988. 9-2 County Planning Commission. Because a County Ordinance is already in effect, the Borough's passage of its own ordinance is not as critical as is the case with the Zoning Or- dinance. Nevertheless this Plan strongly recommends that upon enactment of its Zoning Ordinance Port Matilda proceed with the preparation and enactment of its own Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. The Borough will find that following enactment of its Zoning Ordinance, it will be heavily involved in land use control. Because zoning and subdivision matters are intertwined, having control of these two ordinances with different government agencies will be awkward. Furthermore, even if the Borough enacts its own Ordinance, review and comment by the Centre County Planning Commission is still required. The big difference is that the power of approval rests with the Borough, and it is the Borough's Ordinance the County must use in making its review. Recent changes to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code have broadened the definition of land development. In addition to regulations regarding the subdivision of land, with which most people are familiar, the new definition provides that all new non-residential uses and any residential use involving two or more dwelling units, have a Land Devel- opment Plan, approved by both the Planning Commission and Borough Council, and ultimately recorded with the Centre County Recorder of Deeds. This is a critically important tool to control existing and future land development in Port Matilda. Because the majority of modern developments now fall into the category of land development rather than subdivision, it is important that Port Matilda have its own Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance to meet these recent changes to Act 247 and to tie into the Zoning Ordi- nance. Reference: The specific powers granted to Port Matilda Bor- ough relative to Subdivision and Land Development can be found in Article V of the Municipalities Planning Code. As with the Zoning Ordinance this Ordinance should be prepared by the Planning Commission initially, reviewed by the Centre County Planning Commission and enacted by Borough Council.

Chapter 7 proposes one other land use control ordinance for Port Matilda -- a Property Maintenance Code. The purpose of such a Code is to ensure that each property owner manage his or her property in manners that will improve the Borough in general and neighboring properties in particular. Matters such as weed control, refuse disposal, junked automobiles, outdoor storage and basic building maintenance are nuisances that need public standards and regulations should they get out of control. While Port Matilda is in general a community whose residents tend to keep their properties in good condition, the Borough must be prepared

9-3 for any maverick who may degrade neighboring properties by not keeping to these same high standards. Among other powers, The Borough Code includes the following specific powers applicable to property maintenance: J "To prohibit and remove any nuisance, including but not limited to accumulations of garbage and rubbish and the storage of abandoned or junked automobiles and to prohibit and remove any dangerous structure on public or private grounds . . . . J "To make regulations relative to the accumulation of manure, compost and the like. J "TO prohibit accumulations of garbage and other refuse material upon private property . . . . J "TO make such regulations as may be necessary for the health, safety, morals, general welfare and cleanliness and the beauty, convenience, comfort and safety of the borough. 0 Property Maintenance Code. The Plan proposes the preparation and enactment of a Property Maintenance Code in Port Matilda. This Code should be customized to meet the potential problems and needs of Port Matilda. Work On this proposed ordinance should not occur before work has been completed on the updating of the Zoning, and Subdivision and Land Development Ordinances.

BOROUGH ORGANIZATION Considerations. -- Like most municipalities, Port Matilda is organized to respond to its specific responsibilities. In Chapter 7, however, the Plan made recommendations that may require changes to the Borough's current organization in order that the Plan's proposals be carried out. These proposals include: J Enhancing the Borough's appearance. J Broadening Borough responsibilities for recreation and open space management.

Recommendations. - - The Plan recommends the following Borough organizational changes: ShadeTreeCommission. Pursuant to Article XXVII (b) (1) of The Borough Code, The Plan proposes the creation of a Shade Tree Commission for Port Matilda. Following are the basic guidelines for such Commission as prescribed in the Borough Code:

1 The Borough Code, Section 1202. Specific Powers. 9-4 1. .. i

I i i J "The Commission shall be composed of three residents of i the Borough . . . appointed by Council . . . [to] serve i without compensation . . . for a term of five years. (s. 2722) ! J "The Commission shall have exclusive custody and control i of the shade trees in the Borough, and is authorized to plant, remove, maintain and protect shade trees on the streets and highways in the Borough. (s. 2724)

J [The Borough may] In. . . accept, purchase and plant, or I contribute to the purchase and planting of shade trees i along the streets and sidewalks of the Borough. I 1 (s. 1202.63) J "The cost of planting, transplanting, or removing any f I shade trees in and along the streets and highways in the i Borough, of the necessary and suitable guards, curbing and grading for the protection thereof, and of the ! replacing of any pavement or sidewalk necessarily dis- i turbed in the execution of such work, shall be paid by i the owner'of the real estate abutting that the work is done. (s. 2727) I J "Any Borough may, by ordinance, upon the petition of a i majority of the property owners upon any public street thereof, require the planting and replanting of suitable i shade trees . . . by the owners of property abutting the -I street . . . as may be designated by such ordinance . . . (s. 2741) 1 J I "The Commission may . . . require owners of property to cut and remove plants, shrubs and trees afflicted with the Dutch elm or other disease . . . .I1 (s. 2743) i i In addition to the above responsibilities of the proposed Port Matilda Borough Shade Tree Commission, the Plan recom- i mends the such Commission also be assigned responsibility i for the maintenance of the Borough's curbs and sidewalks, and street signs and street lights. While these additional responsibilities are not explicitly assigned to the Shade 1 Tree Commission by the Borough Code, they are responsibili- 1 ties of the Borough Council and the Plan recommends that they be so delegated. By doing so, responsibility for the Borough's overall street appearance, or streetscape, can be i coordinated by a single organization. J Curbs and Sidewalks. "Any borough may lay out, ordain and i establish sidewalks, curbs, gutters and surface water i drains along any street, . . . and may, with or without petition, require owners of property abutting on any street or State highway to grade, construct, drain, pave i: and repave the sidewalk, curb or gutter and keep the same 4 in repair, and in safe and usable condition along such r property . . . . (9. 1801 of the Borough Code) i

I 9-5 i t THE COMPREaENSIVEPLAN i

J Street Liuhts. [The Borough may] 'I. . . provide street .I lights and make regulations for the protection thereof; '! and, upon a petition of a majority of abutting property owners of the section affected, provide for the ornamental illumination of any section of the Borough and collect the 1 cost of the installation of such illumination from the I owners of property fronting upon which the same is installed by the front foot rule. (s. 1202.50 of the '/ Borough Code) I d Street Siuns. The Shade Tree Commission should be responsible for the appropriate location, design and maintenance of the Borough's street signs.

'I 0 Parks andRecreation Commission. Port Matilda currently manages .i its park and recreation matters through the Park and Recre- 1 ation Committee of Borough Council, having some years ago abandoned its former Park and Recreation Board. Pursuant to Section 2708 of the Borough Code, the Plan proposes that at :I an appropriate future date this responsibility be trans- ferred to a Borough Parks and Recreation Commission. As ex- cerpted from Section 2708 of the Borough Code the Borough's I[ authority in regard to recreation is as follows: "The authority to supervise and maintain recreation places, may be vested in any existing body or board, including the Borough Council, or in a recreation board, as the Borough Council shall determine. The [Council] may equip, operate and maintain the recreation places, as au- i thorized by this article, and may for the purposes of car- 1 rying out the provisions of this article, employ . . . employees, as it may deem proper. If nSuch board shall consist of a minimum of five and a iiI maximum of nine persons. 'I "The members . . . shall elect their own chairman and sec- 'i retary and select all other necessary officers to serve I .If for a period of one year . . . 'I I The reorganization of park and recreation responsibilities i under a Parks and Recreation Commission should occur when the responsibilities be too time consuming for members of Council to manage. And, any serious consideration of implementing the proposals for additional recreation sites, and I for the creation of a pedestrianlbicycle system, are indicative of broadened responsibilities requiring the creation of such a Commission. The responsibilities of a Parks and I Recreation Commission would minimally include: J The planning and supervision of each year's recreation programs, both indoor and out. t d The management of the Borough's existing and potential recreation sites. I 9-6 I i IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

J The preparation of an annual budget to include proposals for: (1) the current year's operating expenses, (2) the current year's equipment purchases, and (3) current capital expenses. J The preparation of a long range plan for site improvement and development, and for site purchases.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Considerations. - - The financial responsibility for, and the installation of, public improvements in any municipality is the joint responsibility of private developers and public agencies. Private developers construct the initial streets and utilities, and subsequently dedicate them to public ownership and use. Occa- sionally developers provide land for recreation or open space use. In a few circumstances off-site improvements have been made to mitigate the off-site impacts of their developments; primarily vehicular traffic. Public responsibilities include subsequent up- keep of the facilities built by these private developers, as well as the construction and subsequent maintenance of facilities that serve the entire community rather than a single development or neighborhood. Appropriately, public improvements provided by private developers are done concurrently with the development of their individual projects. The Borough has no power to require such improvements in advance. But since timing is automatic, attention must be given to the kinds of improvements provided and the standards to which these improvements are constructed.

Recommendations for Privatelv Financed Improvements. - - As an incorporated municipality already possessing a normal level of public facilities and services, it is important that Port Matilda at least maintain, but preferably improve and expand, this current level of service by establishing clear standards for future private developers to meet. Following is a summary of these standards : 0 Requiredhprovements. Private land developments in Port Matilda Borough should in the future be required to provide the following public improvements: J Water Supplv improvements in the form of water service lines to new homes and businesses are already mandatory. Future requirements should include (1) the sizing of water mains so that they are appropriate for and compatible with the Borough system as a whole, (2) the looping of water mains by providing multiple connections to the existing system or stubs to adjacent properties for future connection, and (3) appropriate financial contributions toward the construction of expanded water storage facilities.

9-7 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

J Sanitary Sewer improvements must be mandatory for all developments, however small. Even in situations where a single lot or use cannot convenientlymake a connection to the existing system, any approved on-lot system must be designed and located with consideration to a future connection. In other developments not only must direct connections be made to the existing collection system, if circumstances warrant, developers should be required to make contributions toward (1) pump station construction or expansion, and (2) toward necessary enlarged or parallel interceptors. J Streets are the most basic improvement requirement in any development -- they provide primary access and must be ad- equatelyprovided in all cases. But the standards for the construction of new streets, particularly width standards, vary according to an individual street's function. As part of the Borough's enactment of a Subdivision and Land De- velopment Ordinance, the Plan recommends a close analysis be made of different widths appropriate for these different street functions: 1. Primary Streets, 2. Local Streets in Commercial, Industrial and Urban Residential Districts, and 3. Local Streets in Other Residential Districts. J Street Connections. Another important requirement for new developments in Port Matilda will be to provide, when applicable, the primary street connections as recommended in the Transportation Plan contained in Chapter 7 and as displayed on Map 7-1. These connections cannot be an optional matter, they are absolutely necessary to provide for adequate future traffic circulation and if not provided upon initial development of a given tract the opportunity will be lost forever. J Curbs should be provided on both sides of all new streets in all zoning districts except forest and stream valley. In commercial, industrial districts, and village residential districts, curbs should be straight faced and constructed of concrete; in all other residential districts curbs could be either slant faced concrete or rolled as- phal t in design. J Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of all new streets in all zoning districts except forest and stream valley. Such sidewalks could be concrete or asphalt. J Storm Drainaqe Systems have heretofore not often been provided in Port Matilda. Most of the Borough's current developments were constructed prior to requirements for stormwater detention and retention measures. Port Matilda uniquely spans the Bald Eagle Creek and stormwater rapidly drains into the Creek with little need for sophisticated stormwater systems. Nevertheless, threats to downstream properties protected by Commonwealth law obligates the Borough to require that all future development plans --

9-8 regardless of site size -- make adequate provisions for storm drainage collection and detention systems. J Recreation Contributions. Residential developments are normally given an option of either providing land for recreational usage or a fee, on a per unit basis, in lieu of land contribution as part of their developments. The Plan recommends that Port Matilda Borough collect a fee in lieu of land as a general policy. The Borough is too small to require additional sites and fees should be used to improve and/or expand existing sites. (Also see Chapter 8 -- B. Parks and Recreations).

0 Discretionary Improvements. Some improvements are discretionary in that they apply only when unique certain circumstances exist, but it must be emphasized that any such improvements must be agreed to by both the Borough and the developer. The Munici- palities Planning Code does not currently permit the imposi- tion of impact fees upon developers by municipalities. J Off-Site Street Improvements. Because of possible growth brought on by the completion of the Borough's sanitary sewer system, Port Matilda is a community with potential for off-site traffic improvements. Transportation impact fees should be limited to improvements to streets or intersections projected to be impacted by a particular development. Water and Sewer Fees. Port Matilda must be ready to as- sess developers for off-site water and sewer improvements according to the parameters of the law. Examples of appropriate purposes of water and sewer impact fees include contributions toward: (1) Future expansion of the proposed Port Matilda Wastewater Treatment Plant, (2) Construction of new water supply storage tanks or sewer pumping stations, and (3) Installation of new water distribution or sewer collection mains.

Recommendations for Publiclv Financed Improvements. -- Private developers can not and should not bear the entire responsibility for providing future public improvements in Port Matilda. There are many projects and tasks that the Borough must accomplish itself. Fol- lowing is a list of projects recommended in previous Chapters of this Plan including recommended revenue sources. 0 Imurovements to Existing Playground Sites has been recommended (See page 8-6). Financing should be through the Borough general funds with planned annual expenditures as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission. 0 Port Matilda Sanitary Sewer Proiect has been endorsed and recommended by this Plan. Financing should be through a combination of (1) property assessments, (2) revenue bonds, and (3) grants and low interest loans sponsored by the Commonwealth. 9-9 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I cm.cI-m--mmm--mm--mm-m-----m--m----m---~-----m--m------m-mm-----m-~m--- Two Pennsylvania programs that have some potential for utility expansion in Port Matilda -- PENNVEST and BID. The Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PEN- WEST) is an initiative of Governor Casey to fund drinking and wastewater improvements throughout the Commonwealth. PENNVEST offers low-interest loans (and grants in distressed communities) to municipalities and some private entities at interest rates ranging from 1% to 6%. PENNVEST provides funding for water projects including filtration, treatment, source, storage and distribution. Wastewater projects including treatment, infiltration, rehabilitation, new collector sewers, new interceptor sewers and combined sewer overflows are also funded under PENNVEST. The Business Infrastructure Development Program (BID) is a program offered by the Department of Commerce, providing assistance for infrastructure improvements to complement industrial investment by private companies. BID assistance is administered in the form of grants and no or low-interest 1oans . BID Grants are extended to federally designated distressed communities. No-interest loans may be used for improvements that are made to publicly-owned property; Low-interest loan funds may be used for improvements made to privately owned property. Eligible applicants for BID funds include local governments, industrial development authorities or corporations and municipal authorities. Private companies that are eligible to receive assistance include agricultural, industrial, manufacturing and R & D Enterprises. Eligible BID projects en- compass drainage systems, energy facility, fire and safety facilities, sewer systems, transportation facilities, waste I disposal facilities and water supply systems. BID Projects must include a match of at least $2 of private investment for every $1 of State (BID) assistance. At least ten net new full-time iobs must be created within three years, and further, one job must be created for every $15,000 of BID funds. I

f 9- 10 f APPENDICES INDEX TO THE PORT MATILDA BOROUGH QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

Index ...... A- 1 Description ...... A-1 Cover Letter to Questionnaire ...... A - 3 Questionnaire as Mailed 10/30/89 ...... A - 5 Numerical Responses to Questionnaire...... A - 9 Percentile Responses to Questionnaire...... A - 13

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

In November 1989 the Port Matilda Borough Citizens Questionnaire was mailed to each of the Borough’s then registered voters. It was hoped that responses to the questionnaire would provide an insight to the opinions and feelings of the Borough’s residents regarding past, present and future growth in Port Matilda, with the results subsequently steering the updated Port Matilda Borough Comprehensive Plan. Two hundred forty-five questionnaires were mailed and seventy-six completed questionnaires, 31.O percent, were returned. In the past, typical rates of return for similar surveys performed by Stallman & Stahlman, Inc. in other communities ranged between twenty and forty-five percent. Thirty-one percent can be considered a very good return. Six rnudcipali- ties -- Bellefonte and Port Matilda Boroughs, and Benner, Marion, Spring and Walker Townships -- participated simultaneously in this survey. The rate of returns among these six municipalities ranged between twenty-seven and thirty-four percent.

Found on succeeding pages are (1) the questionnaire format as mailed, (2) the questionnaire results in both numerical and percentile formats, and (3) random written responses. Because of their subjectivity, no conclusions have been drawn, and the reader is left to form his or her own conclusions.

r !

A-1 PORT MATILDA BOROUGH CITIZENS OUESTIONNAIRE

I i I I i I I i I i I i I I

I I

A-2 PORT MLATILDA BOROUGH Borough Building High Street Port Matilda, PA 16870 October 30,1989 PORT MATILDA BOROUGH CITIZENS QUESTIONNAIRE

The Port Matilda Borough Council is currently preparing a Comprehensive Plan and a Zon- ing Ordinance to guide our future growth. We are participating jointly with six other Centre County municipalities. The seven municipalities are: !- i - Bellefonte Borough - Port Matilda Borough i - Benner Township - SpringTownship - Centre Hall Borough - WalkerTownship - MarionTownship Jointly we have engaged George Stallman of Stallman & Stahlman, Inc. in York to help us prepare our Comprehensive Plans and Attorney Ben Novak of Novak, Stover & McCarty in Bellefonte to prepare our separate Zoning Ordinances. Only an occasional glance at the newspapers tells us that much is happening in Centre Coun- ty. University expansion, water and sewer problems, and new highways are only a few of the changes. We feel that a Comprehensive Plan and a new Zoning Ordinance will help us better cope with these trends. A Comprehensive Plan will look at the historical development of the Borough, where it is today, and where it is going in the future. A Zoning Ordinance will be the primary Borough law to guide the location and intensity of future development. An important part of this work is for YOU and all other Borough citizens to help our Coun- cil and our Planninp Commission determine Port Matilda Borough’s future direction. You can do this by completing the attached questionnaire. Your responses will help guide our decisions regarding residential and industrial growth, and regarding new or existing public services and utilities. Please take the few minutes necessary to complete and return the questionnaire. No postage will be necessary as the postage has been prepaid. Simply refold and seal (with a staple, tape or adhesive) the questionnaire making sure that the return address is on the outside, and drop it in the nearest mailbox. And do it as soon as you possibly can--we need your response within ten days. Sometime next spring the findings and recommendations of these studies will be presented at a public meeting. We invite you to attend--look for an announcement! As a finote, on the reverse side of this letter you will find a list of Port Matilda Borough officials. Keep it as a reference should you need to contact any one of us. !

PORT MATILDA BOROUGH OFFICIALS I

Gerald Smith...... yor

Borough Council

Dean A. Rudy ......

Edward ...... President I Ronald Fleck ? Glen Hay Lewis Laird Leland McMonagle Donald Turner

Borough Staff

Thomas H. Smith...... Borough Manager Kay Koon...... Secretary

Miller, Kistler, & Campbell ...... Solicitor Sweetland Engineering ...... Engineem

Plannin~Commission

Frederick E. Hartman ...... Chairman Glen Hay ...... secretary Eric Hamold Verne Neff Clarence Thompson

-4' - PORT MATILDA BOROUGH QUESTIONNAIRE It will be of great help to our Council and to our Planning Commission to have you complete this questionnaire. Please check or write your answers and opinions as appropriate in the spaces provided. Port Matilda Borough Council ......

1. Respondent Household .Age: years Do you own-or rentdour home? Male-Female- How many persons live in your household?

2. How long have you currently lived in the Borough?

-Less than two years 72-4 -5-10 years -10-15 years -More than 15 years -All my life

3. In what style of house do you live? -Single Family House -Two Family House -Apartment -Mobile Home -Town House -Am a property owner only

4. Why did you choose Port Matilda as a place to live? (Two answers only) -Convenient to Work -Reasonably Priced Home -Attractive Environment -Low Taxes Closeto Friends and Relatives -Born or Raised Here -Near Good Schools -Other Reason: -Good Place to Raise Children

5. At the present time do you plan to live here indefiitely?-Yes No-Uncertain 6. What reasons make you want to stay or not stay in Port Matilda? stav Not Stay a. a. b. b. C. C.

7. Where do you work? Indicate employers zip code if known -At Home -Within Borough -State College Area -Bellefonte Area -Other Centre County -Outside Centre County -Retired -Unemployed

8. Where do you shop most frequently for groceries and clothing? Two answers are requested; indicate a "G" for groceries and a "C" for clothing. -Bellefonte -Philipsburg -Milesburg -Mill Hall -Lock Haven I State College Borough -Nittany Mall -Hills Plaza -K-mart Plaza Other (indicate where)

-1- !

PORT MATILDA BOROUGH CITIZENS OUESTIONNAIRE

9. Indicate how you feel about the following statements: I Disagree Don’t Agree -1 Strongly Disagree Know Agree Stronp;lv A. antre County is becoming too built up. - B. I would like to have a home with a larger lot. -f--I C. In our area mobile homes seem to fit in well with their surroundings. D. Each Township should do as much as possible to keep their farms in active use. E. Living in a village with people of various incomes, ages, and backgrounds appeals to me. P. We need small stores for groceries and gas closer to our home. G. Environmental matters need to be given precedence over economic considerations. - .. I H. The only way the water supply problem will be solved is through inter-municipal cooperation. I. New sewer systems here would be a good thing because they would bring new development. J. New industry should be encouraged in the Borough to help pay taxes and to provide employment. K. Apartments and townhouses should be built in the Borough for those wanting orneedingthem. , L. It is important for the Borough to build sewer system to correct health problems. M. It is important for the Borough to adopt a building Code. PORT MATILDA BOROUGH CITIZENS OUESTIONNAIRE

10. Evaluate the following existing public services: Need Do Not Admuate Have - - Emergency Medical Service Fire Protection Insect Control Library Law Enforcement Recreation Refuse Disposal Schools Sewage Disposal Street Lighting Traffic Safety Water Supply

List the problems in those services you evaluated as needing improvement.

11. Following is a list of public services which are under consideration for new construction or expansion. How strongly do you support improvements to each service? Would be willing Do Not Should Definitely to Support through Need Investigate Need Increased Taxes - - Bus Transportation - - New Streets - Recreation - - Sewage Disposal - Street Lighting - - Water Supply - - Other

12. Below is a partial list of the issues addressed in this questionnaire. Please rank your top ten issues in the order they should be resolved. Place 1 by the most urgent, 2 the next urgent, 3..., 4..., etc., through 10, the least urgent. Agricultural Preservation Recreation Bus Transportation Refuse Disposal Commercial Development Road Maintenance Environmental Protection Sewage Disposal Fire Protection Street Lighting Industrial Growth Truck TSic New Homes Water Pollution New Streets Water Supply Other - Other - I IF MAILED Port Matilda Borough IN THE Borough Building UNITED STATES High Street I I- Port Matilda, PA 16870 IBUSINESS REPLY MAIL1 FIRST CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO 274 YORK, PA -i ~~ ~ POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE

Stallman & Stslhlman, Inc. Planning consultants P.O.Box 5071 York, PA 17405-99rn

BULK RATE '1 US. POSTAGE ;I Port Matilda Borough PAID Borough Building LANC., PA 17604 High Street PERMIT No. 857 i .- Port Matilda, PA 16870

I NUMERICAL RESPONSES TO TEE PORT MATILDA BOROUGH QUESTIONNAIRE The following three pages numerically summarize all responses to the Port Matilda Borough Questionnaire. Each total indicates the number of respondents marking that block. Except for minor adjustments the format is essentially the same as mailed and as shown commencing on page A-5. There were a total of 76 responses. The responses to each question will not, however, come to 76 as some respondents did not answer all questions......

1. Do you own?= or rent?A your home?

2. Indicate the number of years you have currently lived in the Borough 2 Less than two years 7 2-4 years 4 5-10 years XlO-15 years =More than 15 years =All my life

3. In what style of house do you live?

767 Single Family House -3 Two Family House 2 Apartment MobileHome -Town House Sproperty owner only

4. Why did you choose Port Matilda as a place to live? (Two answers only) 17 Convenient to Work 29 Reasonably Priced Home TAttractive Environment 76Low Taxes =Close to Friends and Relatives =Born or Raised Here -Near Good Schools =Other Reason ZGoodPlace to Raise Children

5.,Do you plan to live here for the foreseeable future? Yes?& No?= Uncertain?=

6. What reasons make you want to stay or not stay? (Written responses to this question are listed commencing on page 17.)

7. Where is your place of employment?

4 At Home 4 Within Borough 732 State College Area TBellefonte Area Tother Centre County Area ZOutside Centre County =Retired -1 Unemployed

8. Where do you shop most frequently for groceries and clothing? Groceries 2Iefonte 8 Philipsburg -Milesburg -Mill Hall Lock Haven =State College Borough -Nittauy Mall Hills Plaza -Z;Z~K-M~U~Plaza -6 Other

wefonte 1 Philipsburg -Miles burg Mill Hall Lock Haven TStateCollege Borough TNittany Mall -THills Plaza -z5ic-~artPlaza -9 Other

A99 I

PORT MATILDA BOROUGH CITIZENS OUWTIONNAIRE 1 I, 9. Indicate how you feel about the following statements: Disagree Don’t Agree Strongly Disagree Know Agree Strongly I A. Centre County is becoming too built up. -3 -16 B. I would like to have a home with a larger lot.

C. In our area mobile homes seem to fit in well with their surroundings. D. Each Township should do as ! much as possible to keep ? their farms in active use. E. Living in a village with people of various incomes, ages, and backgrounds appeals to me. P. We need small stores for groceries and gas closer to our home. G. Environmental matters need to be given precedence over economic considerations. H. The only way the water supply problem will be solved is through inter-municipal cooperation. I. New sewer systems here would be a good thing because they would bring new development. i,i J. New industry should be encouraged in the Borough to help pay taxes and to provide employment. -2 -11 -3 -39 -18 K. Apartments and townhouses i should be built in the Borough for those wanting needing them. -11 -26 I L. It is important for the Borough to build sewer systems to correct health problems. -2 -2 1 M. It is important for the Borough to adopt a building code. -6 -3 I

A-10 PORT MATILDA BOROUGH CITIZENS OUESTIONNAIRE

10. Evaluate the following existing public services: Need Do Not Have 3 Emergency Medical Service -22- Fire Protection - 49 Insect Control -66 Library -2 ?1TT Law Enforcement 2 -2+ Recreation 7- 7- Refuse Disposal -v Schools iz 49 Sewage Disposal 2 7- Street Lighting 8 Traffic Safety 8 7- Water Supply List the problems in those services you evaluated as needing improvement. (Written responses to this question are listed commencing on page 17.)

11. Following is a list of public services which are under consideration for new construction or expansion. How strongly do you support improvements to or implementation of each service? Would be willing Do Not Definitely to Support through Need Increased Taxes 8 Bus Transportation -iww 9 New Streets 10 33 3 Recreation 2 57 T- Sewage Disposal 32 15 7- Street Lighting -nr -22- 3 Water Supply - -5- -5 Other

12. Below is a partial list of the issues addressed in this questionnaire. Please rank your top ten issues in the order they should be resolved. Place 1 by the most urgent, 2 the next urgent, 3..., 4..., etc., through 10, the least urgent. The responses below show the total number of responses to each issue on the right, and the average ranking of these responses on the left. 5.6 Agricultural Preservation4 6.1 Recreationm BUS Transportation2 'PI$Refuse Disposal 38 -Fl;$commercial Development 41 -Road Maintenmag -Environmental Protectionm VSewage Disposal F$- =Fire Protection3 -Street Lighting 52) 6.fIndustrial Growth* -;IJ;bTruckTraffic mNewHomes 20 mwater~ollutioX3 mNewStreets= Wwatersu ply55 mother 15

A-11 PORT MATILDA BOROUGH CITIZENS OUESTIONNAIRE

A-12 PERCENTILE RESPONSES TO TEE PORT MATILDA OUESTIONNAIRE , The responses to the Port Matilda Borough Questionnaireare summarized by percentiles on the following three pages. Each percentile shown indicates only the percentage of respondents answering that particular question. For comparison purposes each block shows two percentiles. The left or upper number indicates responses by Port Matilda Borough residents, while the smaller number in parentheses represents the combined responses of all six Centre County municipalities participating in this survey.

1. Do you own? 92.8% (86.4%) or rent? 7.2% (13.6%) your home?

2. Indicate the number of years you have currently lived in the Borough 2.7% ( 8.0SC)LeSS than two years 9.3% (11.44902-4 years 5.3% (11.8%)5-10years 17.3% (13.7%)10-15years 41 3%(35.O%)MOre than 15 years 24.0% (20~%)Allmy lie

3. In what style of house do you live? 89.3% (82.1 %)SingleFamily House 4.0% (4.6SC)TWO Family House 2.7% (4.89k)Apartment ( s.s%)MobileHome (I .I %)TownHouse 4.0% (1 .Q%)Propertyowner only

4. Why did you choose Port MatiIda as a place to live? (Two answers only) 19.5% (38.1 %)Convenientto Work 33.3% (31.7%)ReasonablyPriced Home 4.6% (3om%)AttractiveEnvironment 11.5% ( 4.996)Low Taxes 27.6% (24.8%)Closeto Friends and Relatives 32.2% (3n.o%)Bornor Raised Here 52.9% ( s.a%)NearGood Schools 12.6% (17m%)OtherReason 5.8% (lB.O%)GoodPlace to Raise Children

5. Do you plan to live here for the foreseeable future? Yes? 53.3% No? 14.7% Uncertain? 32.0% (60.4%) (Q290 (21 .S%) 6. What reasons make you want to stay or not stay? (Written respomes to this question are listed commencing on page 17.)

7. Where is your place of employment? -5.4% ( 7.8%)At Home 5.4% ( 7.6K)Within Borough 43.2% (2Q.09b)State College Area 5.4% (1 7.4K)Bellefonte Area 4.1 % ( 4.0%)OtherCentre County Area 5.4% ( 2.8%)OutsideCentre County 29.7% (2;r.osc)Retired 1m4% ( 4~~)Unemployed

8. Where do you shop most frequently for groceries and clothing? Groceries 2.7% (81 m%)Bellefonte 10.8% (o.s%)Philipsburg (I .I %)MillHall ( 1.7%)LockHaven 46.0% pa%)StateCollege Borough (2.ssc)Nittany Mall ( 2.6%)HillsPlaza 32.4% (1 .s%)K-MartPlaza 8.1 % (2.1 %)Other Clothing 1.4% (@.a%)Bellefonte 1.4% (0.1 %)Philipsburg ( 1.6sc)Mill Hall @.a%)LockHaven 6.8% (s~%)StateCollege Borough (62.096)Nittany Mall 9.5% (S.S%)HillsPlaza 31.1 % (s.;r%)K-MartPlaza 12.2% ( 8.0K)Other

A-13 PORT MATILDA BOROUGH CITIZENS OUESTIONNAIRE 9. Indicate how you feel about the following statements: Disagree Don't Agree Stronglv Disagree Know Agree Stronglv A. Centre County is becoming too 4.1 % 21.9% --16.4% 37.0% 20.6% built up. (4990 (27.6%) (1 0.7%) (40.1 %) (1 7A%) B. I would like to have a home 12.3% 37.0% --11.0% 24.7% 15.1 % with a larger lot. (1 52%) (39.9%) (8.0%) (29.5%) (12.6%) C. In our area mobile homes seem to fit in well with their 28.4% 38.2 % --9.5% 20.3% 2.7% surroundings. (25.7%) (28.0%) (13.0%) (29.8%) (3.6%) D. Each Township should do as much as possible to keep 2.7% --4.1% 43.2% 50.0% their farms in active use. ( 1.0%) (2.85c) (5.4%) (46.7%) (442%) E. Living in a village with people of various incomes, ages, and 2.7% 8.1 % --13.5% 56.8% 18.9% backgrounds appeals to me. ( 1.9%) (9.4%) ( 9.5%) (64.1 %) (1 5.1 W) P. We need small stores for groceries and gas closer -5.4% 37.8% --5.4% 35.1% 16.2% to our home. (23.7%) (49.6%) (6.5%) (25.9%) (6.9%) G. Environmental matters need to be given precedence over 2.9% 20.0% --10.0% 37.1% 30.0% economic considerations. (3.0%) (12.7%) (13.4%) (43.5%) (27A%) H. The only way the water supply problem will be solved is through 1.4% 36.1 % --31.9% 16.7% 13.9% inter-municipal cooperation. (1 1.O%) (1 9.8%) (24.6%) (33.3%) (1 1.3%) I. New sewer systems here would be a good thing because they -8.2 % 16.4% -2.7 -45.2 27.4% would bring new development. (1 6.7%) (34.4%) (21 A%) (23.1 96) ( 4-4s) J. New industry should be encouraged in the Borough 2.7% 15.1 % 4.1% 53.4% 24.7% to help pay taxes and to (0290 (1 5.7%) (8.6%) (49.0%) (1 7.6%) provide employment. K. Apartments and townhouses should be built in the 15.3% 36.1 % --12.5% 23.6% 12.5% Borough for those wanting (1 3.7%) (27.9%) (14.6%) (38.0%) (6.6%) needing them. L. It is important for the Borough to build sewer systems to 2.7% 2.7% --2.7% 34.7% 57.3% correct health problems. (8.0%) (15.8%) (17.4%) (45.7%) (1 31%) M. It is important for the Borough 8.0% -4.0% --9.3% 44.0% 34.7% to adopt a building code. (6.7%) (1 3.6%) (15.3%) (48.1 %) (16.3%) I,I'

A-14 i PORT MATILDA BOROUGH CITIZENS OUESTIONNAIRE 10. Evaluate the following existing public services: Need outstanding Adequate Imurovement Do Not Have 32.9%(13.7%) 50.7%(60.0%) 12.3%(21.3%) 4.1 %( 5.0%) Emergency Medical Service 30.6% (31.1 %) 66.7%(602%) 2.8%( 7.3%) ( 1.5%) Pie Protection ( 2.450 13.7%(41.7%) 19.2%(25.1%) 67.1 %(30.7%) Insect Control (1 7.2%) 12.2%(52.2%) 6.8%(8.4%) 81.1 %(222%) Library 2.7%( 6.0%) 19.2% (58.1 %) 63.0%(27.1%) 15.1 %( 8.9%) Law Enforcement 2.7%( 42%) 16.4% (43.5%) 52.1 %(39.8%) 28.8%(12.5%)Recreation 5.5%(112%) 79.5%(74.1%) 13.7%(11.5%) 1.4%(3.1 %) Refuse Disposal 16.7%(12.0%) 73.6%([email protected]%) 8.3%(16.6%) 1.4%(1.8%) Schools -4 6.3%) 4.1 %(67.8%) 29.7% (1 2.7%) 66.2%(132%)Sewage Disposal 2.7%( 5.8%) 53.4% (54.8%) 42.5%(20.5%) 1.4%(1 8.8%) Street Lighting -( -( 3.1 50 23.0% (53.9%) 66.2%(36.0%) 10.8%(7.0%) Traffic Safety 8.1 %(26.0%) 62.2%(~.8%) 28.4% (24.5%) 1.4%(5.7%) Water Supply List the problems in those services you evaluated as needing improvement. (Written responses to this question are listed commencing on page 17.)

11. Following is a list of public servic:es which are under consideration for new construction or expansion. How strongly do you support improvements to or implementation of each service? Would be willing Should Definitely to Support through Do Not Need Investigate Need Increased Taxes 55.7%(40.0%) 32.9%(35.4%) 11.4%(21.6%) ( 3.1%) Bus Transportation 58.8%(53.0%) 27.9%(33.4%) 13.2% (1 1.6%) ( 2.0%) New Streets 14.1 %(27.2%) 32.4%(35.0%) 46.5%(31SK) 7.0%( 6.3%) Recreation 2.7%(40.9%) 8.1 %(33.9%) 77.0% (20.4%) 12.2%( 4.8%) Sewage Disposal 46.4% (48.5%) 30.4%(27.6%) 21.7%(19.8%) 1.5 %( 4.1 %) Street Lighting 28.6%(39.1 %) 35.7%(29.1%) 31.4%(24.6%) 4.3%( 722%) Water Supply ( 6.7%) -( 6.750 50.0%(49.3%) 50.0%(37.3%) Other

12. Below is a partial list of the issues addressed in this questionaaife. Please rank your top ten issues in the order they should be resolved. Place 1 by the most urgent, 2 the next urgent, 3..., 4..., etc., through 10, the Beast urgent. The responses below show the total number of responses to each issue on the right, and the average ranking of these responses on the left. -5.6 (4.O)Agricultural Preservation 63.2 % (71 A%) 6.1(6.3)Recreation 80.3%(53.0%) -7.3 (6.5)Bus Transportation 43.4%(39.9%) -7.4 (6.3)Refuse Disposal 50.0%(501%) -6.4 (5.8)Commercial Development 54.0%(48.090 -6.1 (s.s)Road Maintenance 51.3%(63.7%) -5.8 (4.O)Environmental Protection 75.0%(75.1%) -1.7 (5.B)Sewage Disposal 84.2%(47.7%) -5.5 (5.s)Fire Protection 46.1 %(57.4%) -6.0 (6.4)Street Lighting 39.5%(32.0%) -6.7 (5.7)Industrial Growth 59.2%(48.9%) -3.0 (4.8)Truck Traffic 84.2%(5@2%) -7.0 (6.8)New Homes 26.3 %(25.5%) -5.1 (4.3)Water Pollution 69.7%(70.@%) -7.0 (6.Q)New Streets 30.3%(21.1%) -5.0 (4.s)Water Supply 72.4%(60.7%) -4.9 (s.s)Other 15.8%(10.8%)

A-15 PORT MATILDA BOROUGH CITIZENS OUESTIONNAIRE

1 i

A- 16 !

Municipal Documents A Comprehensive Plan, Bellefonte Borough, Centre County, PA 1970. Bellefonte Borough Zoning Ordinance, Bellefonte Borough, Centre County, PA 1974. A Comprehensive Plan, Benner Township, Centre County, PA 1969. Benner Township Zoning Ordinance, Benner Township, Centre County, ! PA, 1983. I!!.. Centre Hall Borough Citizens Survey, Centre Hall Borough, Centre County, PA, 1987. Code of Ordinances of the Borough of Centre Hall, Centre Hall Borough,-Centre County, PA, 1989. Code of the Township of College, Chapter 200, Zoning, College Township, Centre County, PA, 1986. A Comprehensive Plan, Marion Township, Centre County, PA 1971. Marion Township Zoning Ordinance, Marion Township, Centre County, PA, 1974. Patton Township Zoning Ordinance, Patton Township, Centre County, PA, 1977. Potter Township Zoning Ordinance,.Potter Township, Centre County, PA, 1985. Porter Township Zoning Ordinance, Porter Township, Clinton County, PA, 1977. A Comprehensive Plan, Spring Township, Centre County, PA 1969. Spring Township Municipal Analysis and Action Program, Local Government Research Corporation, 1972. Spring Township Zoning Ordinance, Spring Township, Centre County, PA, 1983. A Comprehensive Plan, Walker Township, Centre County, PA 1970. Walker Township Zoning Ordinance, Walker Township, Centre County, PA, 1973.

B-1 Bibliography [' L County Documents [[i A Comprehensive Development Plan for the Inter-Valley Region, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1967. Centre County Existing Land Use 1985, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1987. Centre County Fact Book, Centre County Planning Commission, li Centre County, PA, 1983. [Ii Centre County Groundwater Resources Study, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1987. Centre County Industrial Sites Catalog, Centre County Planning II Commission in cooperation with the Centre County Industrial Development Corporation, Centre County, PA, 1987. Centre County Labor Force Profile, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1985. Ii Centre County Land Use/Open Space Plan: Evaluation and Policies, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1976. c Centre County Municipal Road Atlas, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1989. [, Centre County Profile of Households, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1986. Centre County Recreation and Open Space Plan: 1980 Update, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1980. li Centre County Storm Water Management Plan Feasibility Study, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1981. It Centre County Water & Sewer Study Update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1981. Directions for the Future: Guidelines For Decision Making, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1977. Ii Directions for the Future: Guidelines For Decision Making Summary Report, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1977.

Highway Improvement Plan & Guide for Centre County, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1976.

B-2 Bibliography

Historic Preservation Handbook, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1980. Historical Reflections of Centre County, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1972. Industries in the Centre County Area, Centre County Industrial Development Corporation, Centre County, PA, 1988. Land Atlas and Plat Book, Centre County Pennsylvania, Centre County Grange Encampment and Fair, 1988. Mountaintop Region Comprehensive Plan,, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1970. Purpose, Goals, Objectives and Policies, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1981. Rural Mass Transit Study, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1975. Transportation Update, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1975. The Future of Public Transportation in Centre County, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1976. 1976 Water and Sewer Study for Centre County: Update and Projections, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1976.

Commonwealth Documents The Borough Code, Act of February 1, 1966 (1965 P.L. 1656, No.581) As Amended. Feasibility Study and Environmental Overview of Possible Bypasses, Centre-Clearfield Counties, Route 322/144 Corridor, Vollmer / RK 61 IC, A Joint Venture for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 1985. Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act of 1968, P.L.805 No. 247; Reenacted and amended December 21, 1988. Pennsylvania's Recreation Plan, 1986 - 1990, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 1986. Routes 144/26 Alternatives Study Centre County, Pennsylvania; Preliminary Alternatives Analysis, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, 1988.

B-3 Bibliography

Federal Documents 1980 Census of Population and Housing, General Housing Characteristics for Pennsylvania, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1980 Census of Population and Housing, General Population Characteristics, United States Summary, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1980 Census of Population and Housing, General Social and Economic Characteristics for Pennsylvania, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Number of Inhabitants for Maryland, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Number of Inhabitants for Pennsylvania, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Characteristics for Governmental Units and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in Pennsylvania, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1984 Population and 1983 Per Capita Income Estimates for Counties and Incorporated Places, Northeast United States, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1987 Census of Agriculture, Volume I Geographic Area Series, Pennsylvania State and County Data, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1987 Census of Retail Trade for Pennsylvania, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1987 Census of Service Industries for Pennsylvania, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1987 Census of Wholesale Trade for Pennsylvania, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Flood Insurance Study, Borough of Bellefonte, Centre County, Pennsylvania, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, 1976. Flood Insurance Study, Township of Benner, Centre County, Pennsylvania, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, 1976.

B-4 Bibliography

Flood Insurance Study, Township of Marion, Centre County, Pennsylvania, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, 1984. Flood Insurance Study, Borough of Port Matilda, Centre County, Pennsylvania, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, 1989. Flood Insurance Study, Township of Spring, Centre County, Pennsylvania, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, 1983. Flood Insurance Study, Township of Walker, Centre County, Pennsylvania, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, 1989. Soil Survey of Centre County, Pennsylvania, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1981.

Other References Centre Region Comprehensive Plan (Draft), Centre Region Planning Commission, 1989. Centre Region Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan Update, Centre Region Council of Governments, Centre County, PA, 1989. Master Plan, University Park Campus, The Pennsylvania State University, 1987.

Master Plan, University Park Airport, L. Robert Kimball & Associates for The Pennsylvania State University, 1990. Master Transportation Plan, University Park Campus , Travers Associates Consultants for The Pennsylvania State i- University, 1988. Demographic and Income Forecast Report for Pennsylvania, CACI, li Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, 1989. . i Demographic and Income Forecast Report for the United States, CACI, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, 1989. i i Planning Design Criteria, DeChiara and Koppelman, 1969.

1 The Urban General Plan, T. J. Kent, Jr., Chandler Publishing i' 4 Company, San Francisco, CAI 1964.

P The 1988 Sourcebook of Demographics and Buying Power for Every /. Zip code in the USA, CACI, Fairfax, VA, 1988.

B-5 i I b Bibliography I

I.!

B-6