1992

SPRING TOWNSHIP

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Spring Township 6309 Blanckd Street Bellefonte 16823 Centre County, PA

Prepared By: George L. Stallman, III, A.I.C.P. stallman & Stahlman. Inc. Engineering and Planning Y ork, i

SPRING TOWNSHIP OFFICIALS

Township Supervisors

John H. Auman...... Chairman Melvin J. Zimmerman...... Vice Chairman Samuel E. Markle ...... Secretary/Treasurer

Township Staff

Stellard T. Beightol, Jr ..... Code Enforcement Officer

Miller, Kistler, & Campbell ...... Solicitor Sweetland Engineering ...... Engineer Glace Associates...... Alternate Engineer Korena DeFurio ...... Township Clerk Molly Patton ...... Township Clerk

Planning Commission

Rodney Musser...... Chairman James I. Smith...... Vice Chairman Linda Lowe ...... Secretary Michael Bonchack William MacMath

William H. Weaver, I11 NITTANY 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 Port Matilda Borough J Spring Township J Walker Township Huston Township was originally part of the group, but subsequent- ly resigned and was replaced by Port Matilda Borough. 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 in , and Port Matilda Borough just over 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0 All of the participating municipalities either did not have or had outdated plans and ordinances, @ By participating together, the region's problems could be faced squarely with less chance for duplication of effort or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 that were best both for the region and for the individual municipalities; decisions that might not otherwise have been made. And thirdly, by presenting a united front it is hoped to better gain the attention of both State and County Agencies re- garding funding for needed projects. The group plans to continue joint efforts in the future. - iv - CONTENTS Spring Township 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 ...... 4-15 C . Natural Gas Distribution..... 4-35 D . Solid Waste Disposal ...... 4-36 E . Electrical Distribution...... 4-40 F . Telephone ...... 4-42 G . Cable Television ...... 4-42 5 . Existing Transportation Systems ...... 5-1 A . Automotive ...... 5-1 B . Rail ...... 5-9 C . Air ...... 5-12 Comprehensive Plan 6 . Goals and Objectives ...... 6-1 7 . Future Development Plan ...... 7-1 A . Land Development Controls .....7-1 B . Conservation Areas ...... 7-2 C . Limestone Deposits ...... 7-4 D . Residential Areas ...... 7-6 E . Work and Service Areas ...... 7-11 F . Transportation Plan ...... 7-15 8 . Future Community Facilities and Utilities Plan ...... 8-1 A . Public Schools ...... 8-1 B . Parks and Recreation ...... 8-3 C . Water Supply ...... 8-4 D . Sanitary Sewers ...... 8-9 E . Township Building ...... 8-11 9 . Implementation Plan ...... 9-1 Appendices Questionnaire Results ...... A-1 Bibliography ...... B-1

-V- Contents

Table No. 3.1 Land Use Classifications for Spring Township and Centre County ...... 3-2,3-3 3.2 Existing Land Use in Centre County; 1975, 1985 and 1990 ...... 3-5 3.3 Land Use Changes by Percentage and Acreage in Centre, Penns Valley, and Nittany Valley Regions of Centre County PA, 1975, 1985 and 1990...... 3-7 3.4 Existing Land Use, Spring Township, 1975 - 1990...... 3-8 3.5 Rate of Population Change, Spring Township Compared with Selected Regions, and Selected Municipalities of Centre County, 1960 - 1990...... 3-14 4.1 Summary of Sanitary Treatment Systems by Region, Centre County, 1987 ...... 4-2 4.2 Inter Valley Region Sewer Systems, 1987 ...... 4-5 4.3 Basic Characteristics of the Spring, Benner, Walker Joint Sewer Authority Sewer System, 1990 ...... 4-10 4.4 Basic Characteristics of the Bellefonte Borough Authority Sewer System, 1987 ...... 4-12 4.5 Basic Characteristics of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview Sewer System, 1987 ...... 4-14 4.6 Summary of Water Supply Systems by Region, Centre County, 1987 ...... 4-1 6 4.7 Inter Valley Region Water Systems, 1987 ...... 4-20 4.8 Basic Characteristics of the Bellefonte Borough Authority Water System, 1989 ...... 4-22 4.9 Basic Characteristics of the Spring Township Water Authority System, 1990 ...... 4-24 4.10 Basic Characteristics of the Walker Township Water Authority System, 1989 ...... 4-28 4.11 Basic Characteristics of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview Water System, 1987...... 4-30 4.12 Basic Characteristics of the Nittany Water Company System, 1987 ...... 4-32 4.13 Basic Characteristics of the Howard Borough Water System, 1987 ...... 4-34 4.14 Amount and Type of Waste Generated in Centre County on an Annual and Daily Basis, 1989 and 2000...4-38 4.15 Amount and Type of Waste Generated in Nittany Valley Municipalities on an Annual Basis, in Tons for 1990 and 2000 ...... 4-39 - vi - Contents

TABLES (Contd.) Table No . 4.16 Tentative Construction Plans. Nittany Division. I .. West Penn Power Company. 1990 to 1999 ...... 4-41 5.1 Spring Township Highways and Roads ...... 5-6 5.2 Characteristics of the Nittany & Bald Eagle Railroad ...... 5-10 5.3 Rail Traffic Analysis. Nittany & Bald Eagle Railroad ...... 5-10 5.4 Carload Activity. Nittany & Bald Eagle Railroad. 1986-1989 ...... 5-11 8.1 School Building and Land Inventory. Bellefonte Area School District. 1990 ...... 8-2 8.2 Guidelines for Recreation Areas ...... 8-3

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 Agriculture 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 2.11tComposite Natural Features in the Nittany Valley ...... 2-25 3.1 Generalized Existing Land Use in Centre County, 1975 ...... 3-6 3.2 Existing Land Use in Spring Township. 1990 ...... 3-15 4.1 Centre County Sewer Service Areas; 1987 ...... 4-4 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5' Spring, Benner, Walker Joint Sewer Authority .....4-6,7,8, 9 4.6 Bellefonte Borough Authority Sewer System ...... 4-11

.vii ...... Contents

MAPS (Contd.) Map No . 4.7 State Correctional Institution at Rockview Sewer System ...... 4-13 4.8 Centre County'Water Service Areas; 1987 ...... 4-19 4.9 Bellefonte Borough Authority Water System ...... 4-21 4.10 Spring Township Water Authority System ...... 4-23 4.11, 4.12, 4.13 Walker Township Water Authority System ...... 4-25.26. 27 4.14 State Correctional Institution at Rockview Water System ...... 4-29 4.15 Nittany Water Company System ...... 4-31 4.16 Howard Borough Water Company System ...... 4-33 4.17 Natural Gas, Nittany Valley ...... 4-35 4.18 Solid Waste Wastesheds, Centre County . :...... 4-37 5.1- 1980 Functional Highway Classification System for Centre County ...... 5-3 5.2 Spring Township Road Map ...... 5-5 5.3, SEDA-COG Joint Authority Rail System ...... 5-11 5.4: ...... 5-14 6.1 Nittany Valley Future Development Plan Schematic ...... 6-9 7.1 Spring Township Future Land Use Plan ...... 7-21 8.1. Plan for Water Supply, Nittany Valley ...... 8-7 8.2 .. Plan for Sanitary Sewers, Nittany Valley ...... 8-13

FIGURES Figure No . 2.1 Farm Acreage in Centre County. 1940 to 1988 ...... 2-10 2.2 Development Limitations Related to Slope ...... 2-16 5.1 Route 144 Bypass Alternatives ...... 5-9 5.2 Route 26 Improvement Alternatives ...... 5-9 7.1 Proposed Conceptual Bellefonte Interchange Design ....7-17

.viii. .. ! TOWNSHIP OF SPRING Centre County, Pennsylvania

RESOLUTION

Resolution No. 105 - 1992 January 6,1992

TITLE: Adoption of Comprehensive Plan

WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of Spring Township, after careful study and public discussion, including a survey of Town- ship 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 Spring Township Supervisors a Comprehensive Plan for Spring Town- ship; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered the Comprehen- sive Plan, having on November 14, 1991 held a public hearing thereon, and finds that said Plan constitutes a suitable, ratio- nal, and timely Plan for the Future development of Spring Town- ship;

NOW,THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED, that the document consisting of the following textual matter by chapter: Backmound Reports Comprehensive Plan 1. The Planning Process 6. Goals and Objectives 2. Natural Features 7. Future Development Plan 3. Existing Land Use 8. Future Utility Plan 4. Utilities 9. Implementation Plan 5. Transportation

duly submitted by the Spring Township Planning Commission, and entitled The Comprehensive Plan dated May 15, 1991 is hereby adopted as the Comprehensive Plan of Spring Township.

RESOLVEDFTJRTHER, that, Spring Township Comprehensive Plan shall be the guide and basis for all public and private actions specified in and required by Section 303 of the Pennsylvania Mu- nicipalities Planning Code, as amended. Resolution Adoption of Comprehensive Plan

RESOLVEDFURTHER, that, in order that the Comprehensive Plan shall at all times be current with the needs of Spring Township and shall represent the best thinking of the Township Supervi- sors, Planning Commission, and boards and commissions of the Township in the light of changing conditions, the Planning Com- mission shall annually review the Comprehensive Plan and recom- mend to the Township Supervisors extensions, changes or additions to the Plan which the Commission considers necessary. Should the Commission find that no changes are necessary, this finding shall be reported to the Supervisors.

SPRING TOWNSHDP SUPERVISORS Attest: Approved :

n H. Auman, Chairman ..

an, Vice Chairman' /E- Z/&:kP, SSuel E .' Markle, CSecretary/Treasurer

-x- BACKGROUND REPORTS 1. THE PLANNING PROCESS

"The...( comprehensive) ...p lan is the official statement of a municipal legislative body that sets forth its major policies concerning desirable future physical development; the pub- lished ... plan document must include a single unified physical design for the community, and it must attempt to clarify the relationship between physical development policies and social and economic goals."l

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- 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 and the community at large. Equally important is the dependence of communities upon one an- other for housing, employment, resources, and a variety of ser- vices; 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 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 determine the ex- tent of their dependence and provide the necessary facilities. The Spring Township Supervisors and Planning Commission believe planning is necessary to insure development that will be orderly, coordinated, and meaningful and that will lead to the results de- sired by Township residents. J Secondly, in any community, change can take place rapidly, and for the effects of change to be beneficial to all concerned the I Spring Township must have plans that look into the future and an- ticipate future change. But inherent in planning is an even more important idea--the idea that within geographical and economic limits, we as citizens can make of Spring Township whatever we wish if we can agree upon our goals, adopt a plan to achieve them, and use the mechanics of our Township government to realize them. I In brief, we believe planning is the only logical choice'and the only rational means of guiding physical development in Spring Township, and we believe the rights of citizens and the responsi-

1 T. J. Kent, Jr. in The Urban General Plan. I 1-1 bilities of government require the use of planning in making de- cisions concerning physical development.

What is a Comprehensive Plan? 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 provi- sions for the amount, intensity, character, and timing of land use proposed for residence, in- dustry, business, agriculture, major traffic and transit facilities, utilities, community facilities, public grounds, parks and recre- ation, 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, termi- nals, airfields, port facilities, railroad fa- cilities, and other similar facilities or uses. 0 A statement indicating the relationship of the existing and proposed development of the munic- ipality to the existing and proposed develop- ment 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.

Steps of the Plannlng Process

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

Inventorv. The initial step in any planning process is to objec- tively review a wide range of existing conditions. The basic ar- eas 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 bibliogra- phy). These reports enabled the Township Planning Commission to determine the facts and draw important conclusions concerning the social, economic, and physical factors that determine the exist- ing character of the Township and that control the possibilities for future development. In other words, the inventory of exist- ing conditions provides an information base upon which policies and the plan are based.

Policy Determination. The identification of the Township'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 exists. 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 w-. 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.

Plan Formulation. A plan synthesizes the information gained during the inventory step with policies established in the policy deter- mination step by making sufficient and specific proposals that best and fully carry out the established policy. A community comprehensive plan is characterized by three ele- ments. A plan must be comprehensive in that it must define and deal with all factors -- physical and nonphysical, local and re- gional -- that affect the physical development of a community. A plan must be creneral in that it should not focus on questions of detail that will detract from the major policies and the major 1 1 plan proposals. Finally, a plan must be loncr-ranqe in that it should be forward looking and provide for the future needs of the community.

1-3 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Implementation. The final and critical step is that of implement- ing 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 ac- tions monitored by responsible public agencies and of major pub- lic 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 indi- vidual decisions in the context of a long-range scheme.

i

1-4 1 2. NATURAL FEATURES

Physiographically2, Centre County is divided into two provinces of the Appalachian Highlands: J The Allesheny Plateau Province, and J The Ridse and Valley Province. The 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 and defines the southern limit of this province. The foothills are known as the . 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 at- tractive 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. All the Nittany Valley municipalities, including Spring Township are located here. 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 chan- nel. By definition channels occupy the lowest part of the land- scape. 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 wa- tershed are important for long-range planning considerations. Land use management, water supply, floodwater management, and recreational use are all issues that can generally be better

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 Makinq published by the Centre County Planning Commission. 2 Defined as "physical geography, 'I 2.- 1 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 Spring Township.

A. GEOLOGY 1 Carbonate Geology 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. Sienificance. 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 under- ground 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 dur- ing dry periods. Third, the weathering of carbonate rocks has created highly pro- ductive agricultural soils. These rich soils also support di- verse and productive wildlife habitats on land and in streams. It is clear that without the carbonate geologic formations in the Nittany, Penns, and Bald Eagle Valleys, Centre County would not be as widely settled and developed as it is today. I I 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. 2-2 1 .., .., f>? ALLEGHENY PLATEAU PROW NCE Mas 2.1 FOOTHI L LS

CENTRE COUNTY PENNSVLVAN IA

N I w

PHYSIOGRAPHY Map 2.2

DRAINAGE AREAS & COMMUNITY WATERSHEDSr.otn <-,I plvrvq 'a*nhuon

L: -_/... . . Special 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 ground- water 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. li 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 by weakening foundations. II

1

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

2-5 As a general policy, proposed development within carbonate geolo- gy 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.

Mineral Resources Historv. Recovering mineral resources has been an important eco- nomic activity in Centre County since its settlement. Iron ore was first discovered in 1784. The first iron furnace began oper- ation 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 . The iron industry lost its locally prominent position by the mid- 19th Century, however, due to high transportation costs, general depletion of iron ore fields, less expensive iron from England, and competition from . 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 min- eral activities to replace the ironworks.

Map 2.4 CENTRE COUNTY P E N N SY LVANlA

.-

Source: Directions for the Future: Guidelines For Decision Making Centre County Planning Commission, 1977. 2-6 1 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 , normally white to light gray or buff in color, composed primarily of cal- cium 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 maxi- mum 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 ex- tracted 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 re- I sources. 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 i! operations and the mined-out lands must be reclaimed when opera- I8 tions are complete. Last, like agricultural lands, once the min- eral resources are depleted, they are gone forever. Implicit in these concerns are the requirements that accurate distributions of reserves be mapped, that they remain recover- able, the environmental safeguards be applied during the process of extraction, and that reclamation is properly performed.

2-7. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Groundwater Resources 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 sur- prisingly 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, pol- lution 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 run- off, 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 intro- duced, pollutants flow along the caverns and underground water- ways to contaminate private and community water sources located miles away. Quality alone does not suffer by the intervention of our activi- ties. 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. 2-8 .. Map 2.5 B. SOILS

Soil functions in two major ways: J As 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 charac- teristics. Because of the wide variety of characteristics soil testing is advised for agricultural activities and required for on lot sanitary sewage disposal.

Agricultural Capabilities 1 The fertile limestone soils of Centre County have historically supported a large farming economy. These soils form the “third 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 fl$h‘ffZ.I -- 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 zso,ooo peaked310,000 inacres 1880 of at land2,400 and farms has ondwin- A la’=\ dled since to 133,000 acres in pro- C zoo,ooo duction in 1988. Map 2.6 shows agricultural land usage in Centre RIf County in 1975. The bulk of this f 150,000 ‘a 8- usage is in the Nittany and Penns Valleys. There is one very simple I reason for the development of farm- 100,ooo land: The same characteristics that I - make agriculture a desirable land n n n n n n use also are desirable for 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1988 development purposes -- gentle Y€A R 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 NATURAL FEATURES

I able in large tracts that are already cleared of trees and have the best soils for drainage and construction. The farmer, in 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. I desirable for development; consider that every borough in Centre County sits almost entirely on either prime agricultural lands or pasture land. When do we start to conserve this resource? or do we at all? National Significance of Amiculture. 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 else- where by either bringing new areas into production or by increas- ing overall productivity. Until recently, the loss of farmland has been offset by general, even astounding, increases in produc- tivity. But today, productivity increases are coming more slowly -- 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. Local Sienificance of APriculture. 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 prod- ucts 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 amended) 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 1 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 agree- I - ment as to how. Among the techniques considered are: I J Encouragement and enhancement of the agricultural economy. J Encouraging development on less than prime agricultural soils. J J Using agricultural security districts as protective devices. J Encouraging higher population densities in our already developed areas. J Encouraging alternate land uses on good agricultural land, i.e.: recreat-ional, forest, or vacant. 2-12 .I Limitations of On-Site Sewage Disposal 1 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 suitability of soil for on-site subsurface sewage disposal sys- tems. When mapped, this information shows land areas generally suitable or practical for development. Map 2.7 shows the loca- tion and limitations of Centre County soils for on-site sewage disposal. It must be understood, however, that soils are rarely uniform and 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 de- termine specific characteristics of permeability, bearing capaci- ty, and drainage. The parameters used to determine suitability for subsurface sew- age 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 catego- ries that are listed in terms of the relative degree of limita- tion 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 I limit their use. Using soil with a severe limitation.wil1 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 ex- ception and not the norm. Sanitary sewage treatment plants must be considered the norm.

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 CENTRE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

Source:LandUse 0 nS acaPlan Evaluation 6 Poiicik.FenbD. County Planning Commission, 1876.

101 234561 - .0" ./

/''\ ... ,

b ..'

,,' LEGEND

SLIGHT LIMITATIONS ._/ '. \ MODERATE LIMITATIONS n I 1 SEVERE LIMITATIONS SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR ON~SITESEWAGE DISPOSAL NATURAL FEATURES 1 C. SLOPES1

1 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 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 Spring Township, and the lowest is 850 feet in the channel of Little Fishing Creek at the Clinton County Line. I' Of course the most evident and dramatic slopes are the faces of the mountain ridges as they cross Centre County. It is impossi- ble to be anywhere in the Nittany, Penns, and Bald Eagle lime- I! stone valleys without feeling a sense of confinement. Map 2.8 clearly shows the dominance of Nittany and Bald Eagle Mountains. Also evident on Map 2.8 are the steeply sloping banks of Spring I' Creek and Logan Branch.

l-

Source: Directions for the Future: Guidelines For Decision Making 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 f 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: d 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 develop- ment. flqURE2.2

f

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 lo- cated 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 es- tablished up the slopes or in the mountains, land that heretofore has been used as a repository for natural resources, for recre- ation, and for open spaces becomes converted to other uses. Some of the specific problems that are apt to arise from develop- ment on the mountain slopes and ridges are: J Sewaqe disposal 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 unavail- able 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 prob- lem, public facilities and services are less easily supplied and where available are at a higher public cost, and watershed pro- tection becomes more difficult. In many cases on excessive slopes -- or in scenic areas, on slopes with poor soils, in pro- tected 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 en- vironmentally sound if it is properly designed.

2 - 17 J D. FORESTS1

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. 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 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 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, 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. Although the timber potential is there, there are many other rea- sons that the forests are significant to residents of Centre 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 binding the soil with their roots, thus lessening run-off and al- lowing water to seep down through the porous cover to the ground- water reserves. Related to this soil-binding action of the tree roots is the forest's role in soil conservation by controlling

I erosion and sedimentation. A tree is part of soil building, too. As the tree grows, root action breaks up rock to help soil formation; and leaves, fallen branches, even entire dead trees slowly decompose to become soil components. Forests also have an effect upon the air by playing a major role J in the oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen cycle. Forests also help neu- tralize pollutants in the air, and, in the summertime they lower 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 i planned development. J

Other uses for forests include: 1 J The potential for recreational opportunities, 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.

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 - 18 J Discussion. It is because forests are valuable in so many ways 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- 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 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 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 produc- tion; control of erosion, sedimentation, and flooding; watershed protection and regeneration; wildlife habitat protection; protec- tion 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, howev- er, during severe storms the stream will flood over a wide area. It is not difficult to imagine that these severe flooding condi- tions are the true limits of a stream that normally flows within a much smaller channel. Floodplains were historically attractive to settlement for a num- ber 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

i Source: Directions for the Future: Guidelines For Decision Making 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 i i the Centre County Planning Commission in June of 1977. . .1 2-20

.Id NATURAL F'IZATURES

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- I! toric times. The second and perhaps more meaningful way is the I record of actual flooding conditions from major historic floods. I I 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 I 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 flood- plains 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 I, 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 I! tends to become higher and spreads out over a larger area; there- fore, making flooding conditions worse.

I Another natural advantage is that floodplain soils are often as- L sociated with prime agricultural soils. In these cases, past flooding deposited rich alluvial silt that became productive farmland. 1 2-21 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The floodplain also provides unique habitats for many wetland plant and animal species. By supporting special plant and wild- life, floodplains contribute to the natural diversity of our en- vironment -- 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 recre- ational 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 ad- vantage 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 advan- tages, 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 construc- tion, 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 treat- ment 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 pro- tected 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 pro- tection 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 Nittany Valley's significant natural features. Each has and will continue to limit and guide future development in the Nittany Valley. Drainaae Basins. All of central Pennsylvania, including the Nittany Valley, is part of the Susquehanna River Valley that eventually empties into the Chesapeake Bay. Nittany.Valley, in turn is drained by a series of small creek basins that flow to Bald Eagle Creek and the West Branch of the Susque- hanna. These basins are shown on Map 2.11 and are listed be- low by municipality:

%WflW &fl8&t J Buffalo Run J Buffalo un J Logan Branch J Logan Branch J Spring Creek J Spring Creek

J Cedar Ruh BGffalo Run J Lick Run J Logan Branch J Nittany Creek J Nittany Creek J Muehp7&8&p Spring Creek JLittle Fishing Creek J Nittany Creek

2-23 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

0 Floodplains. Because the Nittany Valley's drainage basins are relatively small and because they are located at the top of the Susquehanna Watershed they tend to be very narrow and to rise and fall quickly. Map 2.11 shows that while the Val- ley's floodplains are narrow they occur along almost the entire length of all its creeks and runs. This pattern is in marked contrast to the floodplains found along the Bald Eagle Creek, location of Foster Joseph Sayers Lake, and the West Branch of the Susquehanna River where Lock Haven Bor- ough and Williamsport City have extensive flood control projects. Little Fishing Creek in Walker Township is the broadest of the Valley's floodplains. Each of the Nittany Valley's five municipalities have ordinances in effect limiting the construction of buildings within the floodplain. However, each community needs to consider strengthening their zoning ordinances to more care- fully control land usage within the floodplain. 0 Slopes. Large areas with slopes exceeding 15% exist on the faces of Nittany and Bald Eagle Mountains. Significant but smaller slope areas also occur along the walls of Spring Creek and Logan Branch. These slopes, in combination with the surrounding woods, waterways and floodplains, form the environmentally significant stream valleys of Spring Creek and Logan Branch. 0 Limestone Rock. The entire Nittany Valley is underlain by limestone rock, including all of the stream valleys and also Sand Ridge. Only Nittany and Bald Eagle Mountains do not have underlying bedrock limestone, as their geologic founda- tion is generally diabase rock. @Valentine Limestone Member. Near the base of Nittany and Bald Eagle Mountains and at the edge of the limestone rock formation narrow bands of Valentine Limestone are found. 0 Prime Soils. Not surprisingly the Nittany Valley's prime agricultural soils occur in the same broad band as their underlying limestone rock. But prime soils do not occur consistently across the entire valley as does the limestone; J the pattern varying considerably. Some areas have seen heavy erosion leaving little soil for agriculture use. Other areas, such as Sand Ridge, have surface deposits of stony soils and thus have little value for farming. i 0 Wooded Areas. The most predominant wooded areas in the Nit- tany Valley occur in two broad bands along the ridges and facing slopes of the Nittany and Bald Eagle Mountains. Heavy woods are also found on Sand Ridge between Marion and Walker Townships, and the Spring Creek Valley of Benner Township. These are areas that historically have been found too diffi- cult to farm and in recent years, without satisfactory sup- port for residential development. 2-24 I 3. EXISTING LAND USE

The mapping and tabulation of existing land use in a community is indispensable to its physical planning. The term land use refers to the spatial distribution of existing land use functions -- the residential or living areas; the industrial or working areas; and the support functions offered by commerce, institutions, and 1 utilities. By studying existing land use patterns, a variety of information will be gained providing the basis for future land use planning in Spring Township.

Land Use Classifications The Centre County Planning Commission1 has established eleven land use classifications as appropriate for measuring and evalu- ating 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 d 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 the management of farmers and foresters. In developed areas how- ever, 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 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 Nittany Valley, outside of Bellefonte Borough, most land remains undeveloped; which is ap- propriate for future development? For purposes of comparison and standardization the same classifi- cations will be used in surveying existing land use in Spring Township. These classifications should also be valuable later when redrafting the Township's Zoning Ordinance.

1 Centre County Existina Land Use, Centre County Planning Commission, 1985. 3-1 CLASSIFICATION/ Definition/ Z. Categories: examples.

RESIDENTIAL/ Residential land use is classified on the basis of either land area occupied by a dwelling or the char- acter of the dwelling itself/ A. Single-Family Conventional B. Single-Family Mobile Home: including mobile homes in parks. C. Two-to-Four-Family Residence: such as converted Single-Family Units; Duplexes. D. Multi-Family Residence: such as Townhouses; Apartments; Dormitories; and converted Single ------or------Two-Family Units. COMMERCIAL/ Commercial land uses are based upon differing types of sales or econom- ic activity/ A. Retail and Services: such as Pharmacies; Department Stores; Banks; Craft Shops; Doctors Offices; Theaters. B. Heavy Commercial: such as Automobile Dealers; Lumber Yards; Warehouses; Fuel Distribu------tors;------Automobile Salvage. INDUSTRIAL/ Industrial land use categories are based upon the intensity with which the land is utilized/ A. Heavy Industry: such as Chemical Manufacturing; Metal Manufacturing. B. Light Industry: such as Publishers; Bottling Compa- nies;------Research and Development. J Any activity where natural re- sources or materials are removed from the earth's surface/ A. Strip Mine B. Quarry C.------Natural Gas ------TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNI- CATIONS & UTILITIES/ . Land areas and buildings pertaining J to the supply and/or service of public utility, communication, and transportation facilities/ I .J 3-2 0) CLASSIFICATION/ Definition/ 2. Categories: examples.

5) TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNI- CATIONS & UTILITIES/(Ctn.) A. Highway: such as Streets and Roads; Bus Terminals; Large Parking Lots. B. Railway.or Terminal C. Airport D. Utility: such as Sewage Disposal Plants; Power Generating Stations; Water Utilities. E. Pipe or Transmission Line Easement F. Communication: such as Television and Radio ------Facilities.------PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC/ 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. RECREATIONAL/ such as Parks; Playgrounds; Golf ------Courses;------Beaches; Swimming Pools. AGRICULTURAL/ Any land area used for growing crops, pastureland, or location of ------agricultural------buildings...... FORESTED/ Undeveloped woodland and forests. 10) WATER/ such as Streams; Rivers; Creeks; ...... Canals; Lakes. 11) VACANT OR UNUSED/ such as Swamps; Nonagricultural Fields; Empty Lots. NNNNNN-NNNNNNNNNNNN”NNNNNNNNUNNNNNNNNNNNNN---N-NNNNN-NNNNN~NNN-N Source: Centre County Planning Corn.; Stallman & Stahlman, Inc. 3-3 ,

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Centre Countv Land Uses It is an understatement to say that Centre County is predominant- 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 County fell into the "developed" categories: residential, commer- cial, industrial, mined land, transportation, public, and recre- ational. Most of the County is forested, 70.3%, or agriculture, 18.7%.

Although Centre County is predominately rural, there was an in- crease 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- oped land use categories. The major changes between 1975 and 1985 occurred in the following land use categories: commercial 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, "only" 2,503 acres is almost four square miles -- not an insignificant area! One other land use category that saw a significant increase be- tween 1975 and 1985 was vacant land that increased 300 acres or 12.1 percent from 25,000 to 28,000 acres. 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 were converted from agricultural to other uses -- the equivalent of eleven average size farms! It is true that some of this land slipped into the vacant category and could be brought back into agricultural production, but unfortunately the majority of it was removed from farm use, virtually forever, as a result of the con- struction of homes, businesses, and highways. 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 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 1975 and 1985. This loss was a result of three factors: (1) a decrease in the demand for coal that slowed the expansion of sur- face mining; (2) the reclamation of recently surfaced mined land as required by new regulations; and (3) $he natural revegetation of previously surface mined areas. Even though the County has seen an increase in developed land be- tween 1975 and 1985, the increases have been largely confined to the Nittany and Penns Valleys. Physical barriers, such as the

3-4 EXISTING LAND USE

1990 % Percent Acreage LAND USE 1975 1985 1990 of Chanqe Change CLASS Acres Acres Acres Total 75-85 85-90 1975-90 Residential 10 ,017 12 ,112 15 ,944 2.2% 20.9% 31.6% 5,927 Commercial 885 1,173 1,795 0.3% 32.5% 53.0% 910 Industrial 575 677 839 0.1% 17.7% 23.8% 263 Mined Land 16,156 15,464 12,484 1.7% -4.3%-19.3% -3,672 Trans.,Comm. 12,721 12,900 15,393 2.2%. 1.4% 19.3% 2 ,672 & Utilities Public and 1,506 1,686 1,912 0.3% 12.0% 13.4% 406 Semi-Public Recreational 2,515 2,866 3,040 0.4% 14.0% 6.1% 525 TOTAL 44,375 46,878 51,406 7.2% 5.6% 9.7% 7 ,031 DEVELOPED Agricultural 135,649 133,470 127,278 17.8% -1.6% -4.6% -8,371 Forested 504,830 501,484 495,820 69.6% -0.7% -1.1% -9, 010 Water 3,881 3,899 3,864 0.5% 0.5% -0.9% 17 Vacant 24,910 27,914 35,277 4 :9% 12.1% 26.4% LO, 367 GRAND TOTAL 713,645 713,645 713,645 LOO. 0%

NNNNNNNNN-NNNN-NNNNNNNNNNNN~N~-NN~~NN--~~NN-~NN-N~N-N-~NN-N-NNN-N Source: Centre County 1990 Existinu Land Use & Land Use Trends, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1992. ridges of the Valley and Ridge Province, the ruggedness of the Appalachian Plateau Province, and institutionally owned lands (Rockview Correctional Institution and Penn State University), have played key roles in determining the location of development that has occurred. And most of the development that has occurred has been adjacent to, or within developed areas, generally not scattered throughout the County. Map 3.1, Generalized Existing Land Use, clearly shows this pattern.

3-5 Map 3.1 Source: Centre Countv Existing Land -4 Use. 1975; Centre County Planning Commission, 1975.

CENTRE COUNTV PENNSVLVA NI A mA.

EVELOPEP AREA5

LAND USEc~975~

I. , . .. . , I .. ... _. .. .” ...... CENTRE REGION PENNS VALLEY NITTANY VALLEY CENTRE COUNTY REGION REGION Percent Acreage Percent Acreage Percent Acreage Percent Acreage Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change LAND USE CLASS 1975-90 1975-90 1975-90 1975-90 1975-90 1975-90 1975-90 1975-90

Residential 62.7% 2,442 55.2% 862 84.6% 1,404 59.2% 5,927

Commercial 84.2% 342 125.2% 139 133.8% 198 102.8% 910

Industrial 102.3% 135 38.2% 13 54.7% 82 45.7% 263

Mined Land -74.9% -239 67.7% 44 32.7% 249 -22.7% -3,672 w < Transportation, 71.9% 1,964 -4.4% -86 29.5% 591 21.0% 2,672 Corn. & Utilities

Public/Semi-Public 12.0% 72 18.5% 38 7.6% 31 27.0% 406

Recreational 15.6% 202 20.2% 96 8.0% 21 20.9% 525 - - TOTAL DEVELOPED 52.5% 4,918 25.1% 1,106 47.8% 2,576 15.8% 7,031

Agricultural -8.7% -3,123 -3.9% -1,897 -6.8% -2,005 -6.2% -8,371

Forested . -3.0% -1,343 0.1% 97 -3.1% -1,156 -1.8% -9,010

Water 4.4% 4 1.8% 7 9.3% 7 0.4% 17

Vacant -6.7% 456 47.1% 687 13.1% 533 41.6% 10,367

-----N---N---N--NNN-"--NNN--N-~--N~N--N--~~----~~~---~~~-~-~~~---~-----~-NN~--~~~-~~ 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, Penns Valley and Nittany Valley Regions with the County as a whole.

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

1990 % Percent lcreage LAND USE 1975 1985 1990 of Chanse Zhange CLASS Acres Acres Acres Total 75-85 85-90 1975-90 Residential 499 617 965 6.0% 23.6% 56.4% 466 Commercial 50 68 146 0.9% 36.0%114.7% 96 Industrial 84 99 125 0.8% 17.9% 26.3% 41

Mined Land 364 617 639 4.0% 69.5% 3.6% 275 Transp.,Comm. 437 444 534 3.3% 1.6% 20.3% 97 & Utilities

52 47 0.3% 40.5% -9.6% 10

45 21 0.1% 55.2%-53.3% -8 - DEVELOPED I 1,500 1,942 2 ,477 15.3% 29.5% 27.5% 977 Agricultural 7,192 7,117 6 ,589 40.8% -1.0% -7.4% -603

Forested 6 ,011 5,882 5,426 33.6% -2.1 -7.8% -585 Water 8 10 10 0.1% 25.0% 0.0% 2 Vacant 1, 452 1,212 1,661 10.3% -16.5% 37.0% 209 GRAND TOTAL I16,163 16 ,163 16 ,163 100.0%

NNNNNNN Source: Centre Countv, 1990 Existinq Land Use & Land Use Trends, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1992.

3-8 COMJMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES PLAN

LandUseTrends. The Comprehensive Plan is primarily concerned with the control of future land development in Spring Township. The public interest and implementation of the Plan centers pri- marily upon the Township Board of Supervisors. Thus, 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 understanding. Table 3.4 quantifies land use in Spring Township by category, comparing the years 1975, 1985, and 1990. Table 3.3 compares land use changes in Penns Valley between 1975 and 1990 with changes in Centre County as a whole, the Centre Region, and the Nittany Valley Region. Map 3.1 shows the pattern of land use in Centre County in 1975; and while seventeen years old, the pattern has not changed, but has only been reinforced. Map 3.2 shows the precise pattern and location of existing land use in Spring in 1990; it is an important historical reference, and will also be an important source for the establishment of future zoning dis- tricts. Following is a list of the most significant factors found in these tables and maps.

0 Size. Containing 16,163 acres, or 25.3 square miles, Spring Township is among Centre County's smaller townships, ranking 19th of 25 townships in size. Rush Township adjacent to Philipsburg Borough ranks first with 96,714 acres, and Col- lege Township adjacent to State College Borough, is smallest with 11,148 acres.

0 Residential Growth. Between 1975 and 1990 residential land use in Spring Township nearly doubled, growing from 499 acres to 965 acres -- a 466 acre increase, and a 93% growth! Despite this growth, residential land uses account for only 6.0% of the Township's total land area. As a rural Township with public water and sewer, residential growth has largely been attracted to the areas near Bellefonte Borough and to the Village of Pleasant Gap where these utilities are pro- vided. These new residents look to Spring Township largely for its convenience to work and its reasonably priced homesl. An important consideration of this Plan will be to determine how Spring Township can best accommodate its fair share of regional residential growth with minimal interfer- ence to existing Township's residents. Growth has been the rule in most regions of Centre County, but this growth has generally not been as large as that ex- perienced in Spring Township. Table 3.3 shows that from 1975 to 1990, residential growth was approximately 60% in the Centre and Penns Valley Regions as well as in Centre County as a whole. But in the Nittany Valley residential growth was almost 85% during the same period, and Spring Township was one of the Region's leaders with its 93% growth.

1 See Apendix A, Results of the Marion Township Citizens Questionaire. 3-9 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

In the Centre and Nittany Valley Regions residential growth was largely directed to areas served by sanitary sewer sys- tems. With no sanitary sewer systems, growth in the Penns Valley Region was far more. scattered .

e Aaricultural Land. In 1990 agricultural land usage was Spring Township's largest land use category, occupying 6,589 acres, or 40.8%, of the Township's land area. Significantly, however, this represented a loss of 603 acres between 1975 and 1990 -- a decrease of 8.4%. Similar losses occurred elsewhere in Centre County resulting in an overall County loss of 8,371 acres (-6.2%). While losses in agricultural land in Spring Township are not significant in terms of na- tional agricultural production, these declines do reduce the Township's economic base. When agricultural land is converted to residential or busi- ness use, the loss of this farmland is also a loss of open space to the Township. Paradoxically, the same factors -- a rural setting within short driving distances of work -- which make Spring Township a desirable place to live are those which tend to destroy the same rural atmosphere that new res- idents are seeking. Q Forested Land. In 1990 forested land in Spring occupied 5,426 acres; a drop of 585 acres (7.8%) in the fifteen year period from 1975 to 1990. By comparison during the same pe- riod, forested land dropped by only 3.9% in Benner Township, by 1.0% in Walker Township, by 0.7% in Marion Township, and by 0.7% in Centre County as a whole. The loss of forested land in Spring Township is primarily the combined result of (1) expanded quarry operations on Nittany Mountain, (2) newly cleared and now vacant land, and (3) scattered residential development in wooded areas. An important decision for Spring Township in connection with this Comprehensive Plan will be how to control its loss of forested land.

Mined Land. In sharp contrast, mined land in Spring Township grew by 275 acres, or 76%, whereas mined land in Centre Coun- ty decreased by 22.7%, or 3,672 acres, between 1975 and 1990; a remarkable difference in direction. In Spring Township the increase is a result of expanded quarry operations by the Bellefonte Lime Company and the Centre Lime and Stone Company along Nittany Mountain. Throughout the County, the decrease is a result of the closing of a number of coal mines.

0 Transportation, Communication & Utilitv Land. In 1990, 3.3% 1 of Spring Township's land was used for transportation, commu- J nication and utilities; compared to 2.2% in Centre County as a whole, and 3.4% in the Nittany Valley. In Spring Township 1 this land primarily consisted of several significant utility 1 i 3 - 10 I COlMMIJNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES PLAN

rights-of-way and state and local road rights of way. In contrast Marion Township, with the right-of -way, had 5.9% of its land usage assigned to this category, while Walker Township, with no major highways, and few utili- ty rights-of-way, had but 1.2% so used.

0 Commercial and Industrial Land. Centre County's large in- creases in population and in residential land uses between 1975 and 1990 spurred similar increases in commercial and industrial land uses -- 1,173 acres. Spring Township expe- rienced a proportionately large share of this commercial and industrial growth; -- 137 acres -- this growth representing a very large 102% increase. Industrial growth accounted for 41 of the 137 acres of total growth, and occurred in a some- what random pattern -- including the Penn Eagle Industrial Park, the Logan Branch Valley, and along a number of State and Township roads. While there was some scattered growth, most of the 96 acres of commercial growth occurred in the form of strip development along the Township's major high- ways -- the Benner Pike, East College Avenue, and Zion Road.

Land Use Problems and Opportunities

0 East Collese Avenue Traffic. Regional traffic uses East College Avenue (PA 26) as one portion of the primary travel route between State College and Interstate 80. While plans for a relocated PA 26 (See Chapter 5) have been discussed and speculated for a number of years, meantime the Village of Pleasant Gap has endured the noise, dirt, and danger characteristic of heavy traffic. Long a problem, the situa- tion was made worse for Pleasant Gap properties abutting East College Avenue when PennDOT closed PA 144 to through truck traffic in Centre Hall, requiring this traffic previ- ously using Main Street and Harrison Road in Pleasant Gap to circumvent Nittany Mountain on PA 322 and PA 26. PA 26 is a major regional route carrying heavy commercial traffic. Such heavy traffic is clearly inappropriate for Pleasant Gap's streets and offensive to its residents and local businesses. Regional traffic is slowed and made less efficient. Local vehicular and pedestrian and traffic is placed in danger. And adjacent properties suffer the nox- ious effects of noise, fumes and dirt. It seems clear that I: the relocation of PA 26 away from Pleasant Gap would be con- sistent with both local and regional interests. The only remaining questions are along what alignment? and, when can funding be obtained?

0 Relocated PA 26. In addition to its regional benefits, a relocated PA 26 provides two important benefits to Spring Township :

3 - 11 J THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

(1) It would remove most through traffic, particularly trucks, from East College Avenue, and (2) It would provide improved access between State College and Spring Township. One drawback to a relocated PA 26 would be the use of unde- veloped land, primarily farmland, for the new highway. Typ- ically right-of-way widths of 200-300 feet are required. With the length of required right-of-way in Spring Township estimated between 2 to 2.5 miles, as much as 90 acres of the Township's land could be taken. Although the final decision regarding alignment rests with PennDOT, in this Plan Spring Township must make clear its preferred route. The Town- ship's preferred alignment should use the least land possi- ble, and provide appropriate interchange locations.

0 Sanitary Sewers. Public sanitary sewer systems are 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. Spring Township is a member of the Spring Benner Walker Joint Sewer Authority. Pleasant Gap and areas of the Township ad- jacent to Bellefonte are already served by this system. The

availability of public sanitary sewage is a distinct advan- J tage in protecting the public health. It can also be used in Spring Township as a tool to guide growth, but care must be taken not to encourage more growth than the Township is pre- pared to handle; more is not always better.

0 Quarry Operations. Chapter 2 clearly showed a band of high quality limestone located near the bases of both Nittany and Bald Eagle Mountains. The Nittany Mountain band runs from College Township east through Benner, Spring, and Walker Townships into Clinton County. Similarly, the Bald Eagle Mountain band runs from Patton Township east through Benner, Spring, and Marion Townships also into Clinton County. In Spring Township many sections of these limestone bands have already been heavily mined. Open quarry pits left from early mining operations are located upon property immediately west of Pleasant Gap and northeast of Bellefonte Borough. The Bellefonte Lime Company's processing plant located on Co- leville Road in the northwest corner of Bellefonte Borough impacts adjacent Spring Township properties. The heaviest mining operations in Spring Township, however, are located east of Pleasant Gap. These operations started near Pleasant Gap and have steadily progressed eastward through the Town- ship toward Walker Township. In this Plan, Spring Township must adopt a clear policy regarding the potential for addi- tional mining activity in the Township.

3 - 12 1I I COlMMUNHTY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES PLAN ------c______c_c------~------, The Township needs to place legal and reasonable limits upon future mining activity. Prohibition is not a reasonable pol- icy, but a number of lesser restraints need careful consider- ation. Among the restraints to be considered are measures such as: (1) Limiting future mining to underground opera- tions, (2) Prohibiting the use of additional forest areas, (3) Requiring broader reclamation efforts, and (4) Requiring the use of rail instead of trucks to haul materials. Appli- cation of one or more of these restraints, as appropriate, will achieve Township objectives yet permit continued mining. Strip Frontaqe. Development of frontage along major travel corridors has been a common practice in Centre County. PA 64 in Walker Township, the Benner Pike (PA 150) and East College Avenue (PA 26) in Spring and Benner Townships are good examples. Extensive residential and commercial devel- opment has occurred along all three highways; yet each is an important travel route whose efficiencies have been impaired by this adjacent strip development. In this Plan consider- ation must be given to preventing similar development pat- terns in the future by guiding new development away from travel corridors onto newly constructed access roads. Timberinq. The wooded slopes of Nittany Mountain and Sand Ridge are the Township's hallmark, its "walls", so to speak, insulating and protecting the Township's portion of the Nit- tany Valley. The continued loss of forested land in Spring Township -- 585 acres from 1975 to 1990 -- threatens this valuable resource. In this Plan, the Township needs to es- tablish policies for forest management and conservation. Stream Vallev Usaqe. The Spring Creek, Logan Run and Nittany Creek are important resources to Spring Township and to the region. Their valleys are (1) open space resources, (2) recreational sites for activities such as fishing, hunting and hiking, and (3) attractive settings for homes. The Plan must deal with the continued protection of these valleys. Population Growth. Table 3.5 shows the large population in- crease experienced by Centre County from 1960 to 1990; a 57.5% growth represented by 45,206 persons. The Centre Re- gion received the bulk of this growth, 35,460 persons,

i spurred primarily by growth at the Pennsylvania State Univer- sity. Although within commuting distance of State College, Spring Township received a surprisingly small share of this growth, growing by only 326 persons, or 6.5%, during the 1960 to 1990 period. This slow growth contradicts the very large increase in the amount of the Township's land used for resi- dential purposes, it being previously reported that this figure rose from 499 to 965 acres between 1975 and 1990. Nevertheless, planning for additional residential growth and a much larger population increase will be Spring Township's greatest challenge over the life of this plan.

3 - 13 GEOGRAPHIC AREA POPULATION RATE OF CHANGE 1960 1970 1980 1990 1960-70 1970-80 1980-90

Nittany Vallev Subreuion Bellefonte Borough 6,088 6,828 6,300 6,358 12.1% -7.7% 0.9% Benner Township 2,397 2,479 3,464 5,085 3.4% 39.7% 46.8% p Marion Township 412 447 661 730 8.5% 47.9% 10.4% SPRING TOWNSHIP 5,018 4,929 5,006 5,344 -1.8% 1.6% 6.8% iEt Walker Township 1,344 1,706 2,655 2,801 ' 26.9% 55.6% 5.5% Regional Totals 15,259 16,389 18,086 20,318 7.4% 10.4% 12.3

Centre Reqion State College Borough 22,409 33,778 36,130 38,923 50.7% 7.0% 7.7% College Township 3,957 4,889 6,239 6,709 23.6% 27.6% 7.5% Ferguson Township 3,832 6,531 8,105 9,368 70.5% 24.1% 15.6% Halfmoon Township 478 543 717 1,469 13.6% 32.0% 104.9% Harris Townshir, 2,070 3,504 3,415 4,167 69.3% -2.5% 22.0% Patton Townshi; 2;401 4,394 7,409 9,971 83.0% 68.6% 34.6% Regional Totals 35,147 53,639 62,015 70,607 52.6% 15.6% 13.9

Centre County 78,580 99,267 112,760 123,786 26.3% 13.6% 9.8% Pennsylvania 4.2% 0.6% 0.4%

Sources: 1980 - 1990 Municipal Population, The Pennsylvania State Date Center - Penn State Harrisburg, 1980 and 1990 Census of Population. 4. UTILITIES

Utilities provide the basic facilities, and installations making modern residential, commercial, and industrial development possi- ble. In current jarqon 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 D. Solid Waste Collection E. Electrical Distribution F. Telephone .G. Cable Television

A. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS

CountyOvehew. In 1987 approximately 80,400 residents or 67 per- cent of the population of Centre County were served by seventeen sanitary sewer systems. On an average day, these residents gen- erated 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 treat- ment 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: Reaion Population Served Centre Region 87% Moshannon Valley Region 83% Inter-Valley Region 57% Mountaintop Region 0% 1 Penns Valley Region 0% Upper Bald Eagle Region 0% Sanitary waste collection and treatment facilities are primary 1 among all utilities in its effect upon encouragement / discouragement of land development. Such facilities are very

1 1 The data contained in this section was drawn primarily from Centre County Water & Sewer Study Update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA. Data for local sewer i systems, however, was updated from appropriate local sources. 4-1 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN expensive a cost that no’rmally deters installation in advance of development without a reasonable density of existing population. Additionally, sanitary waste collection systems are normally gravity flow systems requiring large pipe size and heavily depen- dent upon topographical characteristics in any given area.

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 ( MGD ) ( MGD ) Centre Region 6 59,354 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 NNNNNNNNNNNN””-NNN--NNNN-NNNN~NN-NN-N-NN-NNNN--~~N-NNNNNN~NNNN J Source: Centre County Water & 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 for wastewater dis- charge 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 waste- water per day. In addition, because of Spring Creek, Bald Eagle Creek and Sayers Dam must meet high-quality water standards, the treatment faci1itie.s discharging treated wastewater into these streams must have tertiary treatment in order to conform to Penn- sylvania Department of Environmental Resources’ Water Quality Standards.

4-2 UTILITIES

The remainder of Centre County's population is not served by any municipal sanitary sewer system, using instead on-site systems that are permitted by municipal sewage enforcement officers under regulation and supervision of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.

Redona1 Overview. The Inter-Valley Region contains four collec- tiodtreatment facilities: Bellefonte Borough Authority, Mid- Centre County Authority, The State Correctional Institution at Rockview, and and three collection systems: Spring, Benner, Walker, Joint Sewer Authority (sewage treated by the Bellefonte Borough Authority), Liberty Township Sewer Author- ity and the Howard Borough Sewer Authority (sewage for both sys- I tems is treated by.The Bald Eagle State Park Treatment Plant). The five treatment facilities serve 16,617 people or 59 percent of the Regional population. In addition, these facilities treat 2,441,456 gallons of sewage per day (see Table 4.2--Inter-Valley Region Sewer Systems). The streams receiving the treated waste- water are Spring Creek and Bald Eagle Creek. Below is a listing of the treatment facilities and collection systems in the Inter Valley Region. 0 Bellefonte Borouah Authority: The Bellefonte Borough Au- thority's plant is along PA 144 in Spring Township just north of Bellefonte Borough proper; it serves virtually all of Bellefonte Borough (see Map 4.6 and Table 4.4). Sprinq-Benner-Walker Joint Sewer Authority: The Spring- Benner-Walker Joint Sewer Authority is under contract to the Bellefonte Borough Authority for treatment of its san- itary waste. The areas served include Valley View, Cole- ville, Bellefonte, Axemann, Pleasant Gap Areas of Spring Township; Buffalo Run and University Park Airport Areas of Benner Township; and the Zion Area of Walker Township (see Maps 4.2 through 4.5 and Table 4.3). 0 Mid Centre County Authority: The Mid Centre Authority has a treatment plant near the Milesburg Interchange of 1-80; the Authority serves Milesburg Borough, the Milesburg and Wingate Areas,of Boggs Township, and Unionville Borough. State Correctional Institution at Rockview: The State Cor- rectional Institution at Rockview has both a collection system and a treatment plant(see Map 4.7 and Table 4.5). The plant, however, is scheduled to be closed in 1991 with the prison's sanitary waste being transported to the Bel- lefonte treatment plant via Spring-Benner-Walker collec- tion lines. 0 Bald Eaqle State Park: Bald Eagle State Park collects and treats sanitary waste from the State Park itself. Through separate agreements the Park treats waste from the Liberty Township Sewer Authority (Blanchard and Eagleville Areas) I and the Howard Borough Sewer Authority (Howard Borough). 4-3 I P I P UTILITIES

ESTIMATED AVERAGE DESIGN SYSTEM AND TYPE POPULATION DAILY FLOW CAPACITY TREATMENT OF OWNERSHIP SERVED MGD ) IMGD ) TYPE SPRING-BENNER- WALXER JOINT I SEWER AUTHORITY 5,997 0.300 NA MA (Collection only; Municipally Owned) BELLEFONTE BOROUGH AUTHORITY (Collec- 4 ,093 1.660 1.750 Tertiary tion and Treatment; (Note 1) Municipally Owned) MID-CENTRE COUNTY AUTHORITY (Collec- tion and Treatment; 2,648 0.300 0.500 Note 2 Municipally Owned) STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT ROCK- VIE SEWER SYSTEM 2 ,065 0.250 0.230 Note 3 (Collection and Treat- ment, State Owned) LIBERTY TOWNSHIP SEWER AUTHORITY (Collection only; 1,008 0.085 0.450 Secondary Municipally Owned) HOWARD BOROUGH SEWER AUTHORITY (Collection only; 800 0.050 NA NA Municipally Owned) BALD EAGLE STATE PARK (Collection and Treatment, State 6 0.146 0.450 Secondary Owned 1

I! TOTALS 16,617 2.441 3.380 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN-NNN-NNNNNNNN-NNN--NNNNNNNN---NN-NNNNN-N~NNNN Source: Centre County Water & sewer Study Update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1989, augmented by updated information gathered by Stallman & Stahlman, Inc. Notes: MGD = Millions of gallons per day. NA = Not Applicable. 1 1. Capacity upon completion of current upgrade. 2. Rotating biological contactors with mixed median filtration and tertiary treatment. 3. Current system is an Imhoff tank with fixed nozzle biological filters followed by chlorination and sand filtration; to be taken out of service in late 1991 or early 1992 and replace with an interceptor carrying waste to the Bellefonte Borough plant for treatment. 4-5 J .. .

e .. Io Table 4.3 -- Basic Characteristics of the Spring, Benner, Walker Joint Sewer Authority Sewer System, 1990.

Estimated Population Served as of November 1990 ...... 7,0701

Daily Flow: Gallons per Day ...... 476,461

Design Capacity: Gallons per Day ...... NA

Reserve Capacity ...... NA

Type of Treatment...... NA

Rates: ...... Residential: $57.50/quarter Commercial / Industrial: $57.50/EDU2/Qtr

Contact Person: Roger DeLong, Manager Spring-Benner-Walker Joint Sewer Authority 170 Irish Hollow Road Bellefonte, PA 16823 (814) 355-4778

Comments: Collection only, sewerage treated by Bellefonte Borough Authority.

Source: Spring-Benner-Walker Joint Sewer Authority, November 1990.

Notes: 1 2,828 EDU’s x 2.5 persons per EDU. 2 EDU = Equivalent Dwelling Unit. J

4 - 10 i EXIBTINO LINE 2000 4000 SEWERLINE SIZE

LINE SIZE CHANBE 8- . .. CO’NNECTION + Studv Update: 1988, Centre County Planning , Table 4.4 -- Basic Characteristics of the Bellefonte Borough Authority Sewer System, 1987.

Estimated Population Served as of November 30, 1987 ...... 4,093

Daily Flow: Gallons per Day ...... 1,660,000

Design Capacity: Gallons per Day ...... 1,750,000

Reserve Capacity ...... 90,000

Type of Treatment ...... Secondary

Rates:...... Residential: $25.00 per Quarter Commercial / Industrial: 1.5 x Water Bill

Contact Person: Walter Peterson,Borough Manager Bellefonte Borough Municipal Building 1

213 Lamb Street .- Bellefonte, PA 16823 (814) 355-1501

Comments: Collection and treatment.

Source: Centre County Water & Sewer Study Update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1989.

4 -. 12 J I L-

Map 4.7 STATE CBRRECTIQNAL INSTITUTION AT ROCKVIEW .. EXISTINO LINE SEWERLINE SIZE =-I

LINE 8lZE CHANGE 8- CONNECTION + i THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Table 4.5 -- Basic Characteristics of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview Sewer System, 1987.

Estimated Population Served as of November 30, 1987 ...... 2,065

Daily Flow: Gallons per Day ...... 250,000

Design Capacity: Gallons per Day ...... 230,000

Reserve Capacity ...... ( 20,000)

Type of Treatment...... Imhoff Tank

Rates:...... Residential: NA Commercial / Industrial: NA

Contact Person: David Lapinski SCI at Rockview . Box A Bellefonte, PA 16823 (814) 355-4874

Comments: Collection and treatment.

Source: Centre County Water & Sewer Study Update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1989.

4 - 14 i UTILITIES 1 Septage. 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 gen- erated 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 im- portant. 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 man- date will place additional pressure upon many existing sewage treatment plants, already burdened with flows at or near capaci- ty, to provide this service. Solutions include cooperative ef- forts 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 abili- ty 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.

B. WATER SYSTEMS ,

J CountvOverview. In 1987, it was estimated that 100,925 residents or 84 percent of Centre County's population was served by a com- munity water system (see Table 4.6--Centre County Summary of Wa- ter Systems by Region). On an average day, these residents used

I 19,896,152 gallons of water derived from approximately 90 differ- ent sources and distributed by 46 different water service systems i (see Map 4.8 -- Centre County Water Service Areas: 1987). ! The average daily water usage was 197 gallons per person. This I J figure included industrial and commercial use, plus any leakage that may have occurred. The following list shows the percentage 1 1 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 I systems, however, was updated from appropriate local sources. 4 95 I NUMBER ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TREATED UNTREATED OF POPULATION DAILY DEMAND YIELD STORAGE STORAGE REGION SYSTEMS SERVED ( MGD1) (MGDI1 (MG21 (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 b 7 ,298 1.530 3.540 2.469 18.119 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

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. of each Region's population served by a community water system: Population Reqion 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 individu- al 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 Reqion 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. 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 hu- man or animal waste.

RegionalOverview. In 1987, 70 percent of the residents in the Inter Valley Region were serviced by a community water system. The 14 Water Systems in the Region had an average daily yield of 18,252,236 gallons. Of this, 8,232,522 gallons (see Table 4.7 -- Inter-Valley Region Water Systems) or 292 gallons per person per day were used. The high daily consumption figure is due to the

4 - 17 i

industrialized nature of the Region, mainly in and near Belle- fonte. In addition, the Inter Valley Region has the largest single spring source in Bellefonte Borough. It is known as Big Spring, and produces 11 million gallons of water per day for Bellefonte's residents and businesses. As a whole, the 14 water systems located in the Region serve a mixture of urban and rural communities. Below is a list of the individual water systems and the general areas each serves.

0 Bellefonte Borouqh Authority: Bellefonte Borough, and Corning Glass Works (see Map 4.9 and Table 4.8);

0 Sprinq Township Water Authority: The Pleasant Gap Area (see Map 4.10 and Table 4.9);

0 Walker Township Water Authority: Zion, Mingoville, Hu- blersburg, and Snyderstown areas (see Maps 4.11-4.13 and Table 4.10);

0 State Correctional Institution at Rockview: The State Cor- rectional Institution at Rockview and the Peru Area of Benner Township (see Map 4.14 and Table 4.11);

0 Milesburs Borouqh Water Authority: Milesburg Borough, and the Wingate, Runville Areas of Boggs Township;

0 Howard Borouqh Water Company: Howard Borough (see Map 4.16 and Table 4.13;

0 Beech Creek Water Company: The Blanchard and Eagleville Areas of Liberty Township;

0 Nittanv Water Company: The Nittany Area of Walker Township (see map 4.15 and Table 4.12);

0 Orviston Water Association: The Orviston Area of Curtin Township;

0 Monument Water Association: The Monument Area of Liberty Township ;

0 Holters Crossinq Water Svstem: Serves an area approximate- ly two miles east of the Interstate 80 overpass with old Route 220;

0 Mount Eaqle Water System: The Mount Eagle Area of Howard Township;

0 Boaqs Township General Authority: Serves an area one mile east of Milesburg Borough located on Old Route 220; 0 Bald Easle State Park: The Bald Eagle State Park located in Liberty and Howard Townships.

4-18 I I I CENTRE COUNTV \ PENNSVLVANIA ‘. . rJ-) -., N

C

Source: Centre Countv Water & Sewer Studv Update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TREATED UNTREATED SYSTEM AND TYPE POPULATION SOURCE DAILY DEMAND YIELD STORAGE STORAGE TREATMENT OF OWNERSHIP SERVED TYPE (MGD1- (MG2) (MG2L TYPE BELLEFONTE BOROUGH 7 ,742 Spring 6.000 11.500 3.100 0.0 Chlorine / AUTHORITY(Municipa1) Fluoride SPRING TWP WATER 2,500 1 Well 0.230 NA 0.480 0.0 Chlorine AUTHORITY(Municipa1) 2 Springs WALKER TWP WATER 2 ,298 Stream/ 0.498 2.738 0.750 0.123 Sodium AUTHORITY(Municipa1) Well Chloride STATE CORRECTIONAL 2,141 Streams/ 0.500 1.000 1.500 13.500 Sediment/ INSTITUTION AT ROCK- Spring/ Chlorine VIEW SYSTEM (State) Reservoir MILESBURG BOROUGH 2,061 Springs/ 0.276 0.500 0.0 0.0 Chlorine WATER AUTHORITY Stream (Municipal) HOWARD BOROUGH WATER 900 1 Well/ 0.100 0.372 0.0 0.0 Chlorine COMPANY (Municipal) 2 Reservoirs BEECH CREEK WATER 720 Well / 0.130 0.200 0.020 1.500 Chlorine COMPANY (Municipal) Spring NITTANY WATER 650 Stream 0.410 1.500 0.0 0.250 Chlorine COMPANY (Private) ORVISTON WATER 190 Stream NA NA 0.0 0.0 Chlorine COMPANY (Private) MONUMENT WATER 155 Stream 0.015 NA 0.0 0.400 Chlorine ASSOCIATION(Private) HOLTER'S CROSSING 100 Spring 0.010 0.100 0.0 0.001 None WATER,SYSTEM(Private) MOUNT EAGLE WATER 100 Spring 0.010 0.010 0.0 0.005 None SYSTEM (Municipal) BOGGS TOWNSHIP GENER- 24 Wells 0.043 0.043 0.500 0.0 Chlorine AL AUTHORITY(Municipa1) BALD EAGLE STATE NA 2 Wells 0.011 0.290 0.200 0.0 Chlorine PARK (State) .- TOTALS i9.5a1 8.233 18.253 6.550 15.779 --1------1---11-1------1~------~-----~------~1-~--~1------~~~1~111-1~--~~-~~--~ Source: Centre County Water & Sewer Study update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1981, augmented by Stallman 6, Stahlman, Inc. 1 Notes: 1 MGD = Millions of Gallons per day. 2 MG = Millions of Gallons. NA = Not Available.

4 -20 11

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

!

Table 4.8 -- Basic Characteristics of the Bellefonte Borough Authority Water System, 1989.

Estimated Population Served as of November 30, 1987 ...... 7,742

Source Types ...... Big Spring

Average Daily Demand in Gallons ...... 6,000,000

Estimated Daily Source Yield in Gallons ...... 11,500,000

Treated Storage in Gallons ...... 3,100,000

Untreated Storage in Gallons ...... 0

Type of Treatment ...... Chlorine and Fluoride

Rates ...... Residential: $18.53 per Quarter Commercial / Industrial: $13.53 per 1000 Gallons in Borough $16.88 per 1000 Gallons outside Borough

Contact Person: Walter Peterson, Borough Manager Bellefonte Borough Municipal Building 213 Lamb Street .Bellefonte, PA 16823 (814) 355-1501

Comments: Supply dependability is consistent, however pipes are old and leaky. Pumps and reservoirs are being upgraded.

Source: Centre County Water & Sewer Study Update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1989, updated in October 1989 by Bonnie Leathers, Bellefonte Borough Building Inspector.

4-22 , .--.

,.

, ~

,. y' /' Source: Centre Countv WakK & Sewer ,I /.. Studv Update: 1988, Centre County Planning . . : . !: \. ,i.l. \ ,.; Clnmm:r..:r- Ir,-*,, IrA..,.h. DL THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Table 4.9 -- Basic Characteristics of the Spring Township Water Authority System, 1990. I

Estimated Population Served as of November 30, 1990 ...... 5,000

Source Types ...... Springs and Wells

Average Daily Demand in Gallons ...... 240,000

Estimated Daily Source Yield in Gallons ...... NA

Treated Storage in Gallons ...... 980,000

Untreated Storage in Gallons ...... 180,000

Type of Treatment ...... Chlorine Gas J

Rates ...... Residential: $33.00 per Quarter for First 9,000 Gallons $ 2.20 per 1,000 Gallons thereafter / Commercial Industrial: Same as Residential J

Contact Person: Molly Patton, Clerk I Spring Township Water Authority 1309 Blanchard Street Bellefonte, PA 16823 (814) 355-7543

Comments: Most main lines have been upgraded and replaced.

4-24 WALKER TOWNSHIP WATER AUTHORITY WALKER TOWNSHIP WATER AUTHORITY

THE CQMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Table 4.10 -- Basic Characteristics of the Walker Township Water Authority System, 1989......

I Estimated Population Served as of January 1, 1990 ...... 2,298

Source Types ...... Strems and Wells

Average Daily Demand in Gallons ...... 518,432

Estimated Daily Source Yield in Gallons ...... 2,737,500

Treated Storage in Gallons ...... 75 0,000

Untreated Storage in Gallons ...... 122,800

Type of Treatment ...... Sodim Hypochlorite

Rates ...... Residential: $47.20 first 9,000 Gallons Commercial / Industrial: $47.20 first 9,000 Gallons

Contact Person: Guy Shaffer R.D. #2, BOX 286-D Bellefonte, PA 16823 (814) 383-2354

Comments: Currently experiencing giardia.in stream supply, using ._ well water. I

Source: Mr. Robert A. Reese, Walker Township Sewer Authority as taken from the 1989 Walker Township Water Authority Annual Water Supply Report.

4-28 .-1 Map 4.14 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT ROCKVIEW

EXISTINO LINE u --WE DIAMETER =-I

I LINE SIZE CHANQE k* THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Table 4.11 -- Basic Characteristics of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview Water System, 1987.

Estimated Population Served as of November 30, 1987 ...... 2,141

Source Types ...... Streams, Springs and Reservoir

Average Daily Demand in Gallons ...... 500,000

Estimated Daily Source Yield in Gallons ...... 1,000,000

Treated Storage in Gallons ...... 1,500,000

Untreated Storage in Gallons ...... 13,500,000

Type of Treatment ...... Sedimentation and Chlorination

Rates ...... Not Applicable

Contact Person: David Lapinski SCI at Rockview Box A Bellefonte, PA 16823 (814) 383-4874

Comments: Supply dependability of Benner Spring is excellent; McBride's Gap Reservoir is good but can be subject to drought conditions.

J Source: Centre County Water & Sewer Study Update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1989.

I

1 4 -30

uI

Table 4.12 -- Basic Characteristics of the Nittany Water Company System, 1987.

Estimated Population Served as of November 30, 1987...... 650

Source Types ...... st re^

Average Daily Demand in Gallons ...... 410,000

Estimated Daily Source Yield in Gallons ...... 1,500,000

Treated Storage in Gallons...... 0

Untreated Storage in Gallons ...... 250,000

Type of Treatment...... Chlorination

Rates...... Not Available

Contact Person: Harry Barner Box 265 Lamar, PA 16848

Comments: None J

Source: Centre County Water & Sewer Study Update: 1988, Centre County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1989. ..

!

4 -'32 ' .1

Table 4.13 -- Basic Characteristics of the Howard Borough Water System, 1987.

Estimated Population Served as of November 30, 1987 ...... 900

Source Types ...... Wells and Reservoirs

Average Daily .Demand in Gallons ...... 100,000

Estimated Daily Source Yield in Gallons ...... 372,000

Treated Storage in Gallons...... 0

Untreated Storage in Gallons ...... 0

Type of Treatment ...... Liquid Chlorine

Rates ...... Residential: $57.50 Annually Commercial / Industrial: $48.50 to $62.00 Annually

Contact Person: Phil Winchel R.D. #1, Box 20 Howard, PA 16841 (814) 625-2610

Comments: Wells and reservoirs are dependable. 1

Source: Centre County Water & Sewer Study Update: 1988, Centre I County Planning Commission, Centre County, PA, 1989.

4 -. 3,4 J i

C. NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION1

Natural gas is provided to the more densely populated areas of Centre County by Columbia Gas of Pennsvlvania. Map 4.17 below shows the generalized areas of the Nittany Valley with gas ser- vice. 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. Columbia Gas in turn purchases their gas to serve this area from Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Company's Leidy Pipeline Loop that passes through Spring Township. The general alignment of this line is shown on Map 4.17. It is a 36" line with plans for the construction of another 36" line adjacent to the existing line.

1

!

1 ! I

I 1 1 Source: Machelle S. Miller, Marketing Representative, Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, 2550 Carolean Drive, 1 State College, PA 16801. 4 -;35 f THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN !

Map 4.17 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 re- quired 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 exist- ing gas service areas.

D. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL1

Bacbround. 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 withh 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 re- cently 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 pur- pose of this section is to present a summary of the status of solid waste planning in Centre County for future reference. GeoeraDhic Area. The Centre County Waste Management Plan divides I 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 I 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.

The Mountaintop/Milesburg Wasteshed -- seven northern I municipalities. The Eastern Intervalley/Penns Valley Wasteshed -- Eleven eastern municipalities including Marion and Walker Townships.

1 Source: 1990 Adopted Centre County Waste Manaqement Plan, prepared by the Centre County Planning Office for the Centre County Solid Waste Authority, June 1990. 4 -36 * Transfer Station Location . .:

Source: 1990 Adopted Centre Counlv Waste Manaaement Plan.

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 4.14 shows this increase by a variety of waste categories. 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 the dramatic increase in recyclables shown in Table 4.14 -- 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 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.

4-37 I

Table 4.14 -- Amount and Type of Waste Generated in Centre County on an Annual and Daily Basis, 1989 and 2000

1989 2000 Tons Tons Tons Tons Percent Per Per Increase Tvpe of Waste perYear Davl Yearper 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 fa- cility 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 J 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. 4-38 .1 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 4.18). 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- f onte Benner Marion Spring Walker 1990/ 1990/ 1990/ 1990/ 1990/ Type of Waste 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Trash 4,080/ 2,463/ 264/ 3,172/ 1,053/ 4,803 2801 513 3,860 2,050 Recyclables 550/ 28/ 5/ 47/ 22/ 1,451 701 25 1,174 337 Leaves/Yard Waste 300/ O/ O/ O/ O/ 400 100 0 300 0 Medical Waste 1/ O/ O/ O/ O/ 2 0 0 0 0 Sludges O/ O/ O/ loo/ O/ 0 0 0 125 0 Construction and law 284/ 57/ 3961’ 172/ Demolition Waste 503 773 156 1,078 468 Discarded Appliances 29/ 13/ 3/ 23/ 11/ 79 40 9 69 32 Residual Waste 155/ 288/ O/ 1,066/ O/ 226 a74 0 2,000 0 Unregulated 34/ 21/ 2/ 28/ 9/ Hazardous Waste 36 23 -5 39 20 TOTAL TONS 5,334/ 3,097/ 331/ 4,832/ 1,2661 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 -39 &. 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, sew- er, and to some extent, gas. Also, unlike other utilities such as water and sewer in particu- lar, municipalities have no direct responsibility for the provi- sion 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 north- western edge of the County in the Moshannon Valley. West Penn in turn is part of the Allegheny Power System serving a large part of . 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 Constmction Plans. Continued population growth and indus tri- al 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 4.16 lists the tentative West Penn proj- ects planned over the next decade for Centre County. Many of these projects have a direct bearing upon the municipalities in- cluded in this planning study. It must be emphasized, however, that these plans are tentative, and very dependent upon the na- ture, 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

4-40 * i

Table 4.16 -- Tentative Construction Plans, Nittany Division, West Penn Power Company, 1990 to 1999

Year Tentative Project 1990 Port Matilda Reconductor J Reconductor 2.0 miles of 12kV line from Port Matilda northeast along Rte 220. Bellefonte Sewaue Treatment Plant J Extend 3 Phase, 12kV line from Milesburg Substation along Rte 144 to the Bellefonte Sewage Plant. Tannev Junction - Stone Junction Reconductor J Reconductor 2.6 miles of 46kV line along its existing route south to east of Bellefonte Borough. 1991 Corninq/Nittanv S.S. - Hoys 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. e Stormstown Reconductor J Reconductor 1.5 miles of 12kV line from the Port Matilda Substation over Bald Eagle Mountain to Rte 550 near Stormstown. Centre Hall Granue Fair J Provide an additional 3 Phase, 12kV feed into the Grange Fairgrounds (Possibly along Kurtz Street). 1994 a 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 Hecla Substation (Contingent on growth in Howard, Marion, Walker, and Gregg Townships.) J Construct a 46kV substation along Route 64 near Mingoville. J Construct a 46kV line from Hecla to PA 192 near Penns Cave. J Construct a 46kV line from Hecla to the Howard Substation.

Source: West Penn Power Company, Nittany Division, 2800 East College Avenue, State College, PA. 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 ( A1 1tel ) Zion -- 383 (United Telephone Company) The results of the questionnaires for this municipality are in- cluded in Appendix A. Many respondents criticized the telephone system as currently organized -- particularly in Spring and Walker Townships. ?he 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 resi- dents 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 loca- tion 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 mat- ters 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.

G. CABLE TELEVISION

Cable television service is provided to a portion of the study area by TCI of Pennsylvania, located on the Benner Pike in Col- I lege Township. TCI declined to provide information for inclusion I in this report. f 4-42 i

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 lev- els 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 gener- ally been confined to project and priority planning with little emphasis upon comprehensive transportation planning. Most local municipalities are in a dilemma when it comes to high- way planning. On the one hand each municipality is too small a geographic area to have the "big picture" and to do any meaning- ful comprehensive highway planning. On the other hand, however, in growing areas such as the Nittany Valley there is a clear need to create a local highway network to support its growing popula- tion and expanding land uses. As a growing community, Spring Township has no alternative but to plan for this growth as best it can -- including highway plan- ning. Thus the approach taken by this Plan will be to: 1. As a point of beginning, define the current highway system as currently established by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. i 2. Secondly, redefine the highway system in Spring to best serve Township activity points and land uses; but at the same time bearing in mind how Spring relates to the Nittany

I Valley region and providing appropriate connectors. i 3. Finally, roads and highways under the jurisdiction of Spring Township will be classified and prioritized according to I their need for improvements.

1 In Pennsylvania, with the exception of some bridges, Counties I generally have no jurisdiction over roads and highways. I 5Ll Definitions The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), as di- rected by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), has pre- pared 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.

PrinchalArterials. 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: 0 Interstate 80 crosses north central Pennsylvania in its path from San Francisco to New York. It passes approximately one mile through Spring Township and ten and one half miles through the Little Nittany Valley in Marion Township with an interchange on the Spring-Marion Township line.

0 U.S. Route 322 crosses Pennsylvania from its southeast to 1 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. 0 U.S. Route 220 crosses Pennsylvania in a north-south direc- tion 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 1 becoming coterminous with 1-80 at Exit 23 east of Milesburg. 0 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.

0 FA 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 inter- state and intercounty service. These generally include all Fed- eral primary routes and U.S. traffic routes not principal arterials. Four minor arterial roads serve our study area:

5-2 CENTRE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

N 01234 w MILES

w'i"

___MINOR ARTERIAL 1980 FUNCTIONAL HIGHWAY ,.,,,.. MAJOR COLLECTOR CLASS1FICATION SYSTEM tiURBAN AREA

Source: Centre County Planning Commission. 0 PA Route 150 between PA 26 at the through Benner Township, Spring Township, and Bellefonte Borough to Lock Haven. 0 PA Route 64 between PA 26 at Pleasant Gap east through Spring and Walker Townships to Mill Hall. 0 PA Route 45 connecting State College with Lewisburg in Union County and passing through Penns Valley below Centre Hall enroute. 0 U.S. Route 322 from Port Matilda west to Philipsburg is also classified a minor arterial.

Maior Collectors. Major collectors are roads that serve small coun- ty seats and other established communities not adequately served by the arterial systems. They serve consolidated schools, min- ing, shipping and agricultural centers, county parks, etc., and provide service to all developed areas within a reasonable dis- tance of a collector road consistent with population density. Eight major collector highways serve the Nittany Valley region. 0 PA 550 between Tyrone and the village of Zion in Walker Township, passing through Benner Township, Spring Township, and Bellefonte Borough enroute. 0 Fox Hill Road (T-784) and Rock Road (T-969) together func- tion as a service route for the University Park Airport, connecting State College Borough to the south with PA 550 in Benner Township. 0 PA 144 along Logan Run in Spring Township connects PA 26 with Bellefonte Borough. 0 Howard Street (SR 10081 in Bellefonte Borough connects the Borough to Exit 24 of 1-80 in Spring Township. 9 PA 26 between Exit 24 of 1-80 and PA 150 north of Howard Borough passes through Marion Township and provides access to the Borough as well as to Bald Eagle State Park. 0 SR 1010 starts at Hublersburg in Walker Township, runs north to Jacksonville in Marion Township, and then east to PA 64 in Clinton County. 0 PA 445 connects the village of Nittany in eastern Walker Township over Mount Nittany to the village of Madisonburg in Penns Valley. 0 PA 192 connects Centre Hall Borough east to Lewisburg Bor- ough in Union County.

1 LoealRoads. These include all remaining roads both State and Township. They primarily provide access to adjacent land, gener- ally producing the lowest level of mobility and upon which through traffic is deliberately discouraged. Map 5.2 shows the complete road system for our municipality.

5-4 J TRANSPORTATION

US 322 /I-80 Connection An issue that has gained significant current publicity is that of connecting Centre County's two most significant arterial high- ways--US 322 and Interstate 80. More popularly termed either the PA 144 by-pass (around Centre Hall and Potters Mills) or the Ben- ner Pike relocation, the problem is how to best get truck traffic from Potters Mills to Interstate 80 and how to best serve the growing metropolitan area of State College. Because it is an is- sue of great impact upon each of the seven municipalities partic- ipating in this study and because it is an issue with enormous long range land use implications, it has been separately defined and addressed by this report. Backround. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation began the Route 144 Bypass Study in the fall of 1986 to solve the prob- lems associated with trucks crossing over Nittany Mountain along Route 144. The alternatives initially considered in the study bypassed the communities of Potters Mills, Centre Hall and Pleas- ant Gap. In response to concerns raised by the public and concerns of State and Federal agencies, PennDOT expanded the study in July, 1987 to include several alternatives in Route 26 (Benner Pike) Corridor. Addition of the Route 26 Corridor Alternatives to the study resulted in a total of eleven project alternatives to be studied in the Design Location Study/Environmental Impact State- ment. Analysis and design of such a large number of alternatives at the level of detail required for a Design Location Study/Environmental Impact Statement would be inefficient in use of time and resources. Consequently, it was determined among the project study team of PennDOT Bureau of Design, The Federal High- way Administration and PennDOT District 2-0 and its consultant that the best approach to the selection of an alternative would be to perform a prelirninary evaluation of potential project al- ternatives. The project is currently included in the first four year segment of PennDOT's Twelve Year Highway and Bridge Program. TheIssue. Part of the confusion over the issue is that there are two problems and not just one. One problem is that many truckers heading west from eastern and southcentral PA are regularly using US 322 from Clarks Ferry to 1-80 as a short cut instead of pro- ceeding due north along the main branch of the Susquehanna River on US 11/15; much of this "short cut" route has been improved to Interstate standards, but there are also many gaps where the trucks using older two lane roads are conflicting with local traffic. The second problem is that of providing modern four lane access to and from State College and its ever burgeoning growth; US 322 at Potters Mills and Exit 24 of 1-80 are clearly the most important and significant gateways, but both are ham- pered by the two lane roads in the final approaches to State Col- lege, just where four lanes are needed most. It is important that the two problems be looked at together and not be separated from one another. 5-7 ]Discussion. As the crow flies it is approximately twelve miles from the last of US 322's four lanes south of Potters Mills to Interstate 80's Exit 24. It is clearly the shortest route and until truck traffic was recently banned from 144 between Potters Mills and Pleasant Gap it was clearly the preferred trucking route. And while the truckers would likely prefer and improved PA 144 as a solution to their problem there are significant disadvantages to this route: J First, Nittany Mountain must be "hurdled" in any plan to im- prove PA 144 as a direct route. By going up and over the mountain, per mile construction costs would be higher, the environmental impact is likely to be greater, and the safety problems of downgrading trucks must be dealt with. J Secondly, the improvement of PA 144 on any alignment will bring a significant amount of new regional traffic into and through the Penns Valley communities of Potter Township and Centre Hall Borough. Penns Valley is Centre County's stron- gest agricultural area and severe disruption to this role would result. For this reason neither municipality nor Centre County has planned for such a highway. J Thirdly, improvements to PA 144 will divert attention and funds away from State College that is the area most needing improved highway service. The alternative to improvements to PA 144 is to improve the US 322 corridor from Potters Mills to State College and the PA 26 corridor from State College to 1-80. This option would improve the accessibility of State College and simultaneously provide an improved truck route between Potters Mills and Interstate 80. The disadvantages to this alternative are: J An approximately seven mile longer route for trucks. J The introduction of unnecessary truck and regional traffic into the State College Area. Previous analysis by PennDOT and the Centre County Planning Com- mission has focused upon four general alternatives among many possible combinations as the solution to,Centre County's regional highway problem. These alternatives and their many combinations .- are shown on Figures 5.1 and 5.2. All alternatives include the widening of US 322 from 2 to 4 lanes between Potters Mills and State College. 1. Use a Route 144 bypass. 2. Improve existing PA 26. 3. Use the PA 26 corridor but build a new highway on a new alignment (i.e. the Benner Pike relocation or the modified Benner Pike relocation). 4. Improve both the'PA 144 and the PA 26 corridors.

5-8 TRANSPORTATION

f/{ffREs.i -- f/ifffEs.z-- PA 144 Bypass Alternatives PA 26 Improvement Alternatives

RELOCATION

BENNER PIKE

POTTERS YILLS 8YPASS€AST

BYPASS WEST

Source: Routes 144/26 Alternatives Study, Centre County, Pennsylvania; Preliminary Alternatives Analysis, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, 1988.

Decision Needed. While the final decision upon which alternative or alternatives to take rest with PennDOT, local opinion is im- portant, and each affected municipality should 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 pub- lic, 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 pur- chase was funded by the federal Economic Development Administra- tion and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Capital Budget, with

1 The data contained in this section was drawn primarily from SEDA-COG Joint Authority Railroads, SEDA-Council of Govern- ments, 1988. 5-9 the rail dependent industries themselves contributing $400,000. Subsequently, the Authority purchased the Bald Eagle Branch lo- cated 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 aug- ments 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 K-4 Steam Locomotive. 0 The Bellefonte Historical Society operates regularly sched- uled passenger excursions over the Nittany & Bald Eagle Railroad through the summer months.

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

Table 5.3 -- Rail Traffic Analysis, Nittany & Bald Eagle Railroad

Commoditv Rail User In-Bound Out-Bound Agway-Pleasant Gap Agway Products Bellefonte Lime Co. Lime Cerro Metal Products Zinc, Copper Claster ' s Lumber Corning Glass Works Sand, Minerals Lezzer Lumber Lumber Centre Lime & Limestone Lime, Limestone SMS Sutton Machinery Sunoco Petroleum 84 Lumber Lumber

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

5-10 TRANSPORTATION

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

1986 19 8'7 1988 1989 Averaqe January 55 65 79 165 91 February 77 77 121 154 107 March 58 85 12 5 203 118 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.

5-11 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

C. AIR TRANSPORTATION

University Park Airport1 Background. 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 howev- er, 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, , Pitts- burgh, and Washington (Dulles) via Harrisburg, with connections to other locations.

Facilities. Landing facilities include two hard-surfaced runways: Primary Runway 6-24 is a 5000 x 100 foot grooved, asphalt runway with full instrument approach. Crosswind Runway 16-34 is a 2350 x 50 foot asphalt runway limited to visual (WR) landings only. The airport's buildings are listed below: a Two corporate hangers (GPI Aviation and HRB Singer Inc.), 0 A maintenance hanger, a Three 6-bay T-hangers, a Two 2-bay T-hangers, a One unit Hanger, a The administration building, e The temporary general aviation building, a The fire, crash and rescue building, a The electrical service vault building, and a 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 Rimball & Associates, Ebensburg, PA, supplemented by Robert Dannaker of the University Park Airport. 5-l2 ...... 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 lo- cated 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 op- portunity exists for continued expansion of the University Park Airport. Continued population growth in Centre County, future de- velopment of the University's science and technology park, ex- panded business opportunities offered both on and adjacent to the airport site, and affiliation of the University with the Big-10, are all factors that can contribute to the expansion of service at the airport.

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

5 - 13 LEGEND - . - Alrport Dedicated Property ------Penn State Property Map 5.4 Airport Povement 1’ 1’ // /’1 Lard Fvchoscs The University Park Airport Source: Master Plan Report. UntversiIv Park Airport. 71Eosement Rrchoses L. Robert Ktmball B Assoaates. 1990. 1.00 loo0 600 zoo noa 1- ._ I SCALE IN FEET cz 1

I

L I. L ._. . I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

.' . 6. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

I' The Comprehensive Plan is fundamentally concerned with the future physical environment of Spring Township. The purpose of this chapter is to set forth the Plan's objectives to be used as a ba- sis for the major proposals contained in Chapters 7 through 9.

Municipal Roles 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, all ci- ties in the Commonwealth provide good examples of communities providing multiple roles as living places, working places and places of trade. And historically most boroughs, regardless of size, have also performed the same multiple roles of work, residence, and trade. They are throwbacks to a time when transportation modes and op- portunities were limited, making close proximity of all elements of daily life extremely important. But the need for such proxim- ity has been eroding for decades, and today many Boroughs perform strictly a residential role. Townships on the other hand, have historically been places of nat- ural resource utilization and production. These resources primar- ily include agriculture, forestry, and mineral extraction. All activities that support the remainder of the nation's population. But today, rapidly expanding work, living and trade centers have forced many townships to accept roles other than that of resource production. And improved automotive accessibility has further blurred the role playing picture for many more townships than those closest to the expanding population centers. Some townships have freely accepted the new living-working-trading roles placed upon them to the point that they are mere extensions of their ad- jacent city or borough. Other townships have opted to exchange their previous resource production role (most commonly agricul- ture) for a new single role as living places or "bedroom communi- ties". And while many of the remaining communities have not yet been seriously affected, others like Spring Township are in the middle of their role identity crisis: Should their role be agri- culture? living? working? trading? or some combination thereof? In Centre County, thanks to the very substantial growth of the Penn State University, the adjacent Townships of College, Fergu- son, and Patton have experienced extraordinary population growth in recent years - primarily along the major traffic corridors leading to and from State College. Initially this growth was al- most exclusively residential in nature, but industrial and com-

6-1 mercial growth soon followed and the three Townships can today be described as multiple role communities. Spring Township, one "ring" removed from the University and State College Borough, has to a degree been insulated from the heavy pressures experienced by its "inner ring" neighbors. The Township has experienced moderate residential growth over the last twenty years but currently is at a crossroads.

The Ma-ior Ohiective Historically, Spring Township's role in the Centre County region has, like most of its neighbors, been predominantly agriculture. Agricultural production whether for local use or export has been the Townships economic backbone. But unlike many of its neighbor Townships, mineral recovery and processing has been an important secondary role. In recent years some factors have emerged that are challenging if not changing the Township's traditional agricultural role. For some farmers, farming is not as attractive occupation as it once was. Farming as a way of life to be passed from one generation to another has lost its appeal for some. Then the relatively small size of the area's typical farms combined with the rela- tively large financial investment for equipment places other farmers at a competitive disadvantage. And finally, when the pressures for development become financially strong enough anoth- er group of farmers succumb and sell. The Township's role in mineral extraction and processing, on the other hand, remains strong and will remain an important role for the indefinite future. Demand for both lime and its associated stone aggregate is projected to remain strong. The current pressures for development in Centre County as well as over the past generation are primarily the direct and indirect results of the expansion of Penn State University. Table 3.5 compares, by municipality, growth in the Centre Region and the Nittany Valley Subregion with Centre County and Pennsylvania over the past thirty years. The table shows (1) extraordinary growth occurring in all of the Centre Region municipalities abutting the University and State College Borough, (2) moderate growth in the next ring of municipalities including Benner and Spring Town- ships, and (3) comparative slow growth in more outlying Townships such as Walker and Marion. As land becomes less readily available and more expensive in the three "inner ring" Townships, Spring Township becomes more ap- pealing for prospective developers. The closest point of State College Borough to Spring Township is 6.5 miles via PA 26 at Pleasant Gap; an easy commute for those working in the State Col- lege area. And for those employed in Bellefonte, Spring Township 4 is located on their every doorstep. i 6-2 I GOALS AND OBJECTrVES

The construction of a relocated Route 26 from Park avenue to In- terstate 80 will likely locate two interchanges in Spring Town- ship. And the general availability of both public water and public sewer in Spring Township are yet more factors challenging the Township's traditional agricultural lifestyle. But there are also strong factors supporting keeping an agricul- tural lifestyle and a rural atmosphere. First and perhaps foremost among these is that the residents of Spring Township strongly supported the idea of the Township tak- ing an active role in preserving its farmland.1 Although it may be argued that the majority of the residents of Spring Township do not own farms and thus would be benefitting at someone else's expense, on the other hand, the overwhelming majority of affirma- tive responses to this question indicates that perhaps the Town- ship should take appropriate steps to retain a rural lifestyle if not the farms themselves. Secondly, the geography of Spring Township as noted above and in Chapter 2, Natural Features, is one of very significant natural features. Bounded on the north by Bald Eagle Mountain, on the south by Nittany Mountain and the Rockview Prison land, and on the west by Logan Run, these features, together with the Town- ship's agricultural land, create the rural atmosphere important to so many Spring Township residents. Thirdly, and very important, is that farming remains an important and desirable occupation and way of life. Judging by the number of the Township's farmers who have pledged their land to an agri- cultural security district, for some farming remains economically strong in Spring Township. The questions to be resolved by this Plan then are whether these competing roles - agriculture, living, working, and mineral ex- traction and processing - can coexist with one another. And if so, how? But, as it always has, Spring Township's future role or roles will also depend upon external economic factors and upon third parties rather than only a matter of self determination. The following factors will be equally important: 1. The ongoing economic importance of agriculture in Centre County in general to maintain an agricultural role for Spring Township.

1 A questionnaire distributed in November 1989 by the Spring Township Board of Supervisors to the Township's registered voters showed that 95.5 of those responding either agreed or agreed strongly that the "Township should do as much as possible to keep its farms in active use". 6-3 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

2. The continued economic vitality of the entire region as an employment base for current and future Spring Township residents will determine the extent to which Spring Town- ship will be asked to fulfill a role as a living place. 3. The ongoing economic importance of lime as a resource. 4. The support of other governmental bodies to make deci- sions and to provide services that are in the best interests of Spring Township. Spring Township is but one player in Centre County among a large group of players, both public and private. Cooperation among all the Centre County Region's players will be necessary to ensure that Spring Township and its fellow municipalities advance in the best interests of all. These factors do not mean, however, that Spring Township should be pessimistic in regard to the control of the Township's desti- ny, quite to the contrary, there is much that needs to be done and by and large the Township must look to itself to ensure that these matters be identified and resolved. This then is the pur- pose of this Comprehensive Plan.

THE MAJOR GOAL OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN is that Spring Township accept multiple roles as a place for living, for working, and for resource production; but to accomplish the change from its current primary agricultural role and secondary residential role in a manner that, during transition, will create minimal interference upon existing Township activi- ties, and, upon completion will enable each role to function efficiently and independently of the others; and that furthermore Spring Township upon completion of twition be a community that has given msximnm concern to those economic and environmental qualities that will have maintained a rural atmosphere.

Supporting Obiectives While the major goal is the most significant idea expressed by the Comprehensive Plan, the following objectives serve to clarify 1 the Township's roles as stated in that major objective. It shall i likewise be the objectives of Spring Township to: I e Encourage Continued Agricultural Activity. Farming has long been the most important part of community life in Spring Township. To- day, when the economic viability of farming is in question in

6-4

I. many parts of Pennsylvania, the importance of farming as a national industry, as well as a means of maintaining and pro- tecting agricultural land as a national resource and as open space, has never been more important. For these reasons and also because of the obvious economic inefficiencies of provid- ing public services to scattered development, this Plan strong- ly endorses all necessary steps to ensure continuance of agriculture in Spring Township.

0 Protect the Environment. Because an outstanding natural environ- ment is an important key to the quality if life, natural fea- tures and resources will be recognized as the most critical limitation to any future development in Spring Township. In the past, we have often ignored the effects of our individual ac- tions upon the environment.

0 Limit Mineral Extraction. Spring Township recognizes vested rights of property owners to extract minerals from their property and a need by the community at large to use these products, but the Township specifically rejects any notion that operation of any mineral extraction facility need to disrupt community life, to be a financial burden to any level of government, or to leave an extraction site unusable upon completion of operations. It will be the policy of Spring Township in regard to any per- mitted extraction operation to: 1. Place locational and operational restrictions upon any permitted extraction operation to eliminate any disruptive influence upon the Township; 2. Require financial contributions by any such facility in an amount sufficient to cover any public expenditures required in connection therewith; and 3. Require post operational reclamation measures of a level sufficient to render the site again useful.

h 1

0 Concentrate Residential Development. In order to minimize interfer- ence with Township agricultural activity and to help protect the Township's environment, future residential development will be concentrated in specified areas selected on the basis of: J Public road accessibility, J Proximity to existing residential areas, J Proximity to major employment and shopping areas, J Proximity to existing public water and sewer facilities, J Proximity to public schools and recreation, and J Watershed drainage areas.

0 Provide HousinP Choice. Many rural communities such as Spring Township pride themselves in their stable and long term resi- dent population made possible by having and continuing to pro- vide for a variety of housing types. Only by providing multi- family as well as single family homes, and low cost as well as high cost housing, can Spring provide for a individual family's changing needs plus provide housing for all income groups.

0, Concentrate the Location of Indnstrv. Spring Township has existing industrial facilities in several locations within the Township. Most are long established industries and an integral part of the Township's mineral industry. Newer industry has located near PA 26, northeast of Pleasant Gap. Because the Township has these several locations, the Plan proposes no new industri- al areas but instead to strongly encourage the development and redevelopment of its existing sites.

@ Lhit Commercial Activity and Location. Commercial activities are essentially a public service (albeit provided by private enter prise) to provide goods and services to the resident population. Because Spring Township in defining its major goal did not include trade as one of is selected goals, and because the major regional shopping centers of Centre County are already located elsewhere, future commercial activity in the Township will be limited to: 1. Existing commercial areas on the Benner Pike and PA 26, 2. Highway services needed to serve Interstate 80 traffic, and 3. New small convenience centers appropriately sited at new locations in the Township for a growing population. J e Provide Public Services that are efficient in operation and adequate in extent to supply desired amenities as well as required necessities for Township residents and businesses.

6-6 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

1. The Township recognizes and accepts a responsibility to provide park and recreational facilities for educational activities as well as a beneficial use of leisure time. 2. The Township pledges to improve its current adequate water system as circumstances and funding permit. 3. The Township pledges to expand its public sanitary waste collection and treatment system as health conditions dictate and time and money permit. 4. The Township also pledges to establish a road classifica- tion system and road construction standards consistent with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.

0 Use The Comprehensive Plan as a guide for making decisions regarding physical development and 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 Township policy to any concerned organization or individual. 3. View this Plan as having a useful life of approximately ten years at which time it will be updated in light of intervening events and trends.

6-7 1 I ..I 6-8 7. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

THE MAJOR GOAL OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN is that Spring Township accept multiple roles as a place for living, for working, and for resource production; but to accomplish the change from its current primary agricultural role and secondary residential role in a manner that, during transition, will create minimal interference upon existing Township activi- ties, and, upon completion will enable each role to function efficiently and independently of the others; and that furthermore Spring Township upon completion of transition be a community that has given maximum concern to those economic and environmental qualities that will have maintained a rural atmosphere.

For the large majority of the residents of Spring Township, the Township is a place to live, or to work, and many times both. It is a place to make a home, a place to raise a family, a place to grow crops and raise livestock, a place of employment, or a place to retire. These ideas are 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 the Township is the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commis- sion's responsibility to its residents.

A. LAND DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS With the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, Spring Township has opted to take direct action to guide the Township's future. No longer will the Township allow private development or construc- tion to occur without appropriate Township and Centre County ap- provals. Future development in the Township, both residential and non-residential, needs to be directed both as to location and to I design. The timing and nature of possible future public utilities improvements need to be coordinated and directed. Even more im- portant, the potential risks of incompatible land uses locating upon inappropriate sites within the Township need to be elimi- nated. Land use control ordinances are the only means of exerting controls such as these. Although several other ordinances are i proposed later in this Chapter, the following two land use con- trol ordinances are particularly important and critical in guid- ing the Township's future. 1 1 0 Zoninq Ordinance. The Plan proposes substantial revision to the current Spring Township Zoning Ordinance. Thirteen zoning i districts are proposed. I 7-1 J

CONSERVATION DISTRICTS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS J Forest (F) J Agricultural-Rural Res. (R-1) J Stream Valley (S) J Single Family Residential (R-2) J Multi-Family Residential (R-3) J Village Residential (VR) COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS J Residential-Office (RO) J General Industrial (I-1) J Village Commercial (VC) J Light Industrial (I-2) J Planned Commercial (C-I) J office Commercial (C-2) J General Business (C-3) 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.

@ Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. Unlike most Centre County municipalities, Spring Township has its own Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. Recent changes to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (Act 247 as amended) have broadened the definition of land development. In addition to regulations regarding the subdivision of land, with which most residents and property owners 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 Development Plan approved by the Planning Commis- sion and the Board of Supervisors, and ultimately recorded with the Centre County Recorder of Deeds. This is a critical- ly important tool to control land development in the Town- ship. Because the majority of modern developments fall into the category of land development rather than subdivision, thus it is important that the Spring Township change its Sub- division and Land Development Ordinance to meet these recent changes to Act 247, subsequently ensuring that these regula- tions are fully met by all future developments, both private and public.

B. CONSERVATION AREAS Lying in the Nittany Valley between Bald Eagle Mountain to the north and Nittany Mountain to the south, Spring Township is domi- nated by its natural features. The forests and slopes of both Bald Eagle and Nittany Mountains, the broad rolling agricultural plain, and the bottom lands and sharp walls of Spring Creek and Logan Branch along its western edge create the special and unique atmosphere that is Spring Township. Results of the Spring Town- ship questionnaire returned by Township residents in the fall of 1989 clearly showed that protection of these features is essen- tial to maintaining the Township's rural character. Because these features are so important to the Township, the Plan proposes that they be designated conservation areas within which little or no 7-2 development or construction would occur. More specifically, the Comprehensive Plan specifically proposes that three of the pro- posed Zoning Ordinance's districts be designated conservation districts as follows:

0 Forest District. It is proposed that a Forest District be in- cluded in the Spring Township Zoning Ordinance. The bulk of this district would be comprised of the steep slopes and for- ests of Bald Eagle and Nittany Mountains. In the Forest Dis- trict permitted land uses would be limited to forestry, recreation, and large lot residential uses. Any land uses, however, should have additional performance restrictions lim- iting or prohibiting development upon sites of excessive slopes or other significant natural limitations. Minimum lot sizes for residential uses should be at least two acres.

0 Stream Valley District. It is proposed that a Stream Valley District be included in the Spring Township Zoning Ordinance. Such district should include the floodplain and wetlands of Spring Creek and Logan Branch plus adjacent and upstream ar- eas generally unsuitable for development due to steep valley walls, insufficient size, poor accessibility, or other simi- lar limitations. Furthermore, it is recommended that the Township Floodplain Ordinance be amended to prohibit any con- struction 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. In the Buffalo Run valley, Stream Valley Zoning districts as such are not proposed. Instead the Plan proposes the Zoning Ordinance contain provisions to protect a corridor, fifty feet on either side of the main stems of each of these streams, and regardless of what zoning district they are within, as stream valley conservation areas. Vallev Industries. A number of industries are currently lo- cated in the stream valleys of Spring Township. Two in par- ticular -- Cerro in the Logan Branch Valley and Bellefonte Lime in the Buffalo Run Valley -- are major employers. The Plan makes no proposals to change this situation and proposes that these two complexes be zoned General Industrial. On the other hand, the Plan proposes that a long term transition be commenced to move industry out of the stream valleys into the variety of industrial and service districts both within Spring Township and the region at large. Thus Stream Val1e.y zoning is proposed for vacant or low intensity industrial land now within the valleys with the idea of not introducing additional industry here and eventually phasing industry out. i 0 Aqricultural District. The Plan proposes an agricultural dis- i trict in the Spring Township Zoning Ordinance, to be titled "Agricultural-Rural Residential." The district would general- I ly occupy land in the east central portion of the Township, I thus confining future residential and industrial development 7-3 I

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

to the expanding areas of Bellefonte Borough and the Village of Pleasant Gap near existing public services and utilities. In this district future land uses would be limited to agri- cultural and agriculturally related activities, plus a limited number of new residences. Because the intrusion of new residential activity into the agricultural district could severely damage the integrity of the district by using productive farmland and by interfering with farm operations, special provisions to limit the amount of residential activity are proposed. Two alternatives were considered: 1. Permit a small number of homes on the poorer soils of each farm based upon the site size, but roughly one home per twenty acres, and including a maximum lot size of two es.TJis provision is designed to stop large sade- velopment but permit property owners to subdivide either for farm purposes or for their children. 2. Mandate cluster residential development for those property owners wishing to develop. Under this provision sites could be developed at an overall maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre, but development would be limited to the least productive fiftypercent and the remaining one half would be deed restricted, prohibiting any future development on this portion. The Plan recommends alternative number one.

C. LIMESTONE DEPOSITS Chapter 2 discussed in some detail the geologic formations of Centre County in general and Spring Township in particular. Es- sentially the valley between the Bald Eagle and Nittany Mountains lies atop a limestone rock formation. Near the edges of the val- ley the rock is of high quality and commercially marketable. Just as its forests, streams and quality soils, limestone is an impor- tant natural resource of Spring Township. Unfortunately, most op- erational practices to remove and process these deposits are counter to maintaining Spring's role as a living, working and ag- ricultural community. Resolution of these conflicts is a criti- cally important part of this Comprehensive Plan. Except for the Village of Pleasant Gap, Centre Lime & Stone Com- pany and Bellefonte Lime Company currently own, either in fee simple or mineral rights alone, the vast majority of land in Spring Township between East College Avenue and the base of Nit- tany Mountain. The land is in various stages of mineral extrac- tion and processing -- completed extraction, storage of over- burden and tailings, active extraction, crushing and processing, and reserve land. The questions in regard to land use planning policy is what expansions should be permitted or what limitations should be placed upon these holdings. The Plan proposes that this area be zoned General Industrial, permitting mining operations but with the following more specific proposals and limitations:

7-4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

0 Contain Surface Operations. Approximately 1600 acres of land straddling East College Avenue are currently zoned permitting quarrying and processing operations. The Plan proposes to maintain a similar area for quarry operations, adjusting and modifying the area as follows: J North - Except for the portions of the existing Centre and Bellefonte operations and holdings on the north side of East College Avenue, make East College Avenue the northern boundary of this General Industrial District. J East - Keep the eastern boundary of the current industrial district intact. This limitation would not prohibit deep mining further east, but would limit the indefinite spread of surface operations eastward, potentially into Walker Township. Walker Township currently has no plans for quarry operations. J South - Extend the limits of the quarry industrial district south toward Nittany Mountain stopping where the Mountain slope attains a grade of 15%. J West - The Village of Pleasant Gap is already and should continue to be the western extremity of the permitted quarry area.

0 Re-use of Land. While the ongoing operational effect of an open pit mine upon surrounding properties and residences is generally perceived to be detrimental, from a land use stand- point, the more important question is whether any given quar- ry site will be reclaimed in satisfactory condition for reuse. The Plan proposes that approval of any future surface mining application be contingent upon an effective reclama- tion plan that minimally would return the site suitable for reuse and financially guaranteed. Upon sites previously mined but now vacant and unused, reuse is encouraged as may be practical. Two areas where reuse would be immediately appropriate are: College Avenue east of Pleasant Gap - The Centre Lime Com- pany operations on the portion of their holdings in the southeast quadrant of Harrison Road and East College Avenue are complete and filling of this area with excess materials from other sites is underway. As a means of returning this land to the tax roles and eliminating a visual blight, the Plan recommends that this area be re-zoned a general busi- ness area and redeveloped accordingly. J South of Pleasant Gap - Bellefonte Lime Company owns a 370 acre tract along the southern edge of Pleasant Gap between PA 144 and College Avenue. A small portion of this tract was previously quarried, but the site is now too close to residences in Pleasant Gap to consider re-establishing any mining activity whatsoever. The Plan has recommended that the site be zoned as Forest, but a portion of the site adjacent to Pleasant Gap could be reused for residential purposes.

7-5 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

D. RESIDENTIAL AREAS Types 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. Spring Township is no different. The Township 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 Spring Township: single familylmultifamily, stick-built/modular, high incornellow income, and all archi- tectural styles.

Density of New Housing. Two densities of housing are proposed for Spring:

0 Low Density Housinq @ three or fewer dwelling units per acre is proposed in four Spring Township neighborhoods. Although this district is proposed to be titled Single Family Residen- tial in the Zoning Ordinance, both single and attached homes should be included. And finally, the mandatory cluster provi- sions recommended as part of the Agricultural-Rural Residen- tial District should be included here also; though the percentage of each site proposed for development would be re- duced from fifty to twenty percent. The four low density neighborhoods are described below; each has hard and precise- ly defined borders that should be honored for the life of this plan. Blanchard Street. This neighborhood will serve as a low density buffer between the more intensely developed areas of Bellefonte and Pleasant Gap. North-south access through the neighborhood is provided by Blanchard Street, east-west access by Irish Hollow RoadlWeaver Hill Road. Both water and sewer are available, though another reason for main- taining low densities here are limitations in the capacity of the Logan Branch sewer interceptor that serves the en- tire neighborhood. Triangular in shape, it is bound by Lo- gan Run on the west, relocated PA 26 on the south, and on the north and east, by the eastern ridge line of the Logan Branch watershed. Axemann. Along the Logan Branch and centered in the Blan- chard Street neighborhood is the Village of Axemann. It's heritage as perhaps the earliest remaining settlement in Spring Township and its location within and adjacent to the J floodplain and wetlands of Logan Branch creates a unique and special situation. Because of the older buildings, and the smaller and irregular lots here, the Plan recommends I that Axemann be zoned Village Residential; it clearly fits. Additionally, however, because of the Village's history and because the opportunity for new construction is severely limited by its natural features, the Plan recommends that Axemann be designated by separate ordinance as an historic district, and construction regulated accordingly.

7-6 i FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Lyonstown. The Lyonstown neighborhood is bound strongly by Bald Eagle Mountain on the north, the Bellefonte Interchange area to the east, PA 26 (a limited access highway) on the south, and a section of the proposed Bellefonte ring road on the west. Heretofore Lyonstown has been zoned Agricultural- Rural Residential. The plan proposes more intensive develop- ment here for several reasons. J The excellent access offered by Howard Street, the Inter- state 80 interchange, the northern section of the proposed Bellefonte ring road, and a proposed interchange to PA 26. J The beginnings of residential development here and the waning of agriculture. J The need for public water and sewer here, first to correct existing on site septic problems and secondly the need to increase the economic incentive to provide both water and sewer to the Bellefonte interchange area. Zion. This neighborhood is the natural extension of a large amount of existing residential development centered about the Village of Zion in neighboring Walker Township. Spring Town- ship's portion of the neighborhood is bound on the north by a ridge line between two tributaries of Nittany Creek, on the west by the quarry industrial district, on the south by PA 64, and on the east by Walker Township. J Primary access is provided by PA 64 east and west, and PA 550 north. J Water and sewer are in place and available. Sewer is limited in that it must flow east toward a collection point near Zion and not over the ridge north toward Bellefonte. J Commercial services are available in Zion to serve the neighborhood.

0 Medium Density Housinq &' four to twelve dwelling units per acre is proposed in three areas of the Township as shown on the Future Development Plan Map and described below. In all of these neighborhoods the essential requirements for mixed hous- ing types and densities greater than those typical of single family development exist. These are (1) a market, (2) the direct availability of a full range of public utilities and services, (3) excellent accessibility, and (4) proximity to existing medium density developments. The character of the medium density residential areas should be distinctly different from the low density or single family areas. Most important is that pedestrian circulation should be given precedence over vehicular circulation; thus improvements such as sidewalks, street lighting, small front yard require- ments, prohibited parking in front yards, street trees, and other similar requirements are critically important. Secondly, supportive commercial and institutional uses should be encour-

7-7 aged in these neighborhoods rather than being banned as they most often are from the "purer" single family neighborhoods. And here most housing types -- single, double, multiple, con- versions and mobile homes -- would be permitted here. Finally, cluster design would be optional rather than mandatory as in the other residential districts. To accomplish these development characteristics two different zoning districts are can be appropriately applied -- Village Residential and Multi-Family Residential. While each would have similar permitted densities, the Village Residential is designed for older, existing built-up areas, and the Multi- Family Residential for previously undeveloped sites. Pleasant Gap. The existing Village of Pleasant Gap would be permitted to grow to the extent of its natural boundaries -- Relocated PA 26 to the north, the extensive quarry and light industrial areas on the east, Nittany Mountain to the south, and Logan Branch and Rockview to the west. Except for proper- ties along East College Avenue (PA 26) and Main Street (PA 144) the entire Village of Pleasant Gap is proposed for medium den- sity housing -- Village Residential in the older sections and Multi-family Residential in the yet undeveloped areas. Criti- cally important in Pleasant Gap's future development is that the Village be viewed as primarily a large traditional neigh- borhood without the blighting influences of regional vehicular traffic; thus permitted non-residential land uses and land de- velopment design should be that which would be appropriate to serve Pleasant Gap's residents and not through traffic. Bellefonte Borouqh - extended. The area of Spring Township ly- ing adjacent to Bellefonte Borough and within the proposed Borough ring road is also proposed for medium density housing. Little of this area is already developed, thus the Multi-Fad- ly Residential zone is appropriate here. Most important in the future development that occurs here is that the areas be logi- cally and functionally joined to existing development in the Borough through pedestrian systems, a full range of site im- provements, and appropriate new streets as shown on the Future Development Plan Map. West of Bellefonte. A cluster of existing neighborhoods lie in Spring Township just west of Bellefonte, namely Coleville, Halfmoon Terrace, Bush Addition, and the Benner Pike. The small lots and tighter development of Coleville and the Bush Addition make Village Residential zoning appropriate here. But on Halfmoon Terrace large lots and the greater possibility for additional residential development makes Multi-Family Residen- tial zoning more appropriate.

Protection of Existing Homes. I The overwhelmingly predominate land use in J Spring is that of single family homes. This Plan proposes that the Township take all needed and necessary public action to protect its

7-8 I existing homes from negative or blighting influences and to encour- age high standards of maintenance by private property owners. Specific Township actions to achieve these results include: Zoninq. The Township needs to strengthen its zoning ordinance to prohibit in residential areas any activity that does not positively enhance residential values. Non-residential uses should be severely limited in residential zoning districts. Vehicular Traffic. Through traffic should also be discouraged within each neighborhood leaving each neighborhood's collector highway to carry necessary through traffic. Traffic control devices to discourage through traffic and at the same time to promote pedestrian safety should be placed at appropriate lo- cations. Such devices include posted maximum speed limit signs, stop signs, traffic signals, and pedestrian crosswalks. Street Maintenance. If the Township expects its private prop- erty owners to maintain their homes and properties in excel- lent repair, the Township must reciprocate by maintaining its streets in a similar manner. In the long run all existing Township roads should be surfaced with asphalt and have proper storm drainage. Additionally, developers need to curb both sides and provide sidewalks on at least one street side upon all future streets in residential areas. Street Sians. Traffic control 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 Township. Siqns. 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.

HousineOualitv. The quality of existing housing in Spring 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 prob- lems of poor housing quality fall into the following general cat- egories: (1) Overdue maintenance, (2) Less than standard housing additions, or (3) Less than standard original construction. To correct these problems and to ensure that the Township sets high. standards for its potential growth, the Plan recommends enactment of the following ordinances:

0 Buildinq Code. The Township must begin to enforce the manner in which new construction and alterations occur. If the Town- ship takes no action in this regard, today's less than ade-

7-9 quate construction practices can potentially occur even more often in the future. To ensure comprehensiveness, and for ease in administration, a recognized national building code (such as the BOCA or Building Officials Congress of America Code) should be enacted.

8 Public Improvements Standards. Anticipating residential expan- sion following completion of the Township's sanitary sewer system, the Township needs to ensure that the standards for 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.

0 Property Maintenance Code. The Township needs to establish ap- propriate minimum standards for the maintenance of both resi- dential and nonresidential property. Matters such as weed control, unlicensed vehicle control, outdoor storage, basic building repair, and nuisances can be regulated by such an or- dinance.

Conversion Apartments. 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 addi- tional tax revenue. But when such conversions are slipshod and not properly done, only the owner benefits, all other parties suffer. The potential for apartment conversions in Spring Town- ship is high and appropriate measures need to be taken to ensure that such conversions are responsibly undertaken. 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 fol- lows : Transition Areas. Limit conversions to areas that are undergo- ing change or transition; here new life and new investments are needed. Conversely, the premature permission of conver- sions in otherwise stable neighborhoods can bring on a state of transition, and thus should not be permitted. In Spring Township transition areas appropriate for conversions are in most of the older neighborhoods and along the major highways. 0 Minimal Structural Chanqes. 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 be devas- tating in terms of its negative effect upon adjacent proper- ties, particularly if an area is predominantly residential.

7-10 1I

I 0. Avoid Overcrowdinq. Ensure that overcrowded living conditions do not result from a conversion. There is no doubt that many conversions have resulted in far worse conditions than existed 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 overcrowding, per- mitted conversions must: J Not result in any greater density (dwelling units per acre) than permitted in a newly constructed multi-family develop- ment. J Provide off-street parking at required minimum standards. J Enact and enforce a Housing Code. J Prohibit conversion apartments within any building not having direct access to a Township street (alleys are specifically excluded).

E. WORK AND SERVICE AREAS

TheBennerPike. Benner Pike (PA 150) is best known for the signif- icant highway commercial activity located here. As the primary connection between Bellefonte and State College, this is only natural. But significant vacant areas still remain here, both with highway frontage and behind existing commercial activities. Because medium density housing has already been proposed here and to improve highway safety on the Pike, the Plan proposes that this area better organize its commercial and industrial activity areas. Penn-Eaqle Industrial Park. After a number of years in getting started, the Centre County Industrial Development Authority's Penn-Eagle Industrial Park seems to be moving ahead solidly. Spring Township firmly supports additional development here and additionally proposes expansion of the park from Benner Township east into Spring Township and to the north onto adja- cent property not now owned by the Authority. In addition to providing new industrial land, this extension would provide the opportunity for a strongly needed second access road into i the site. Planned Commercial Areas. As the main connector between State i College and Bellefonte, the Benner Pike is a good location for highway commercial uses, and in Benner and College Townships I many such activities exist. The situation is different in Spring Township however because here the Benner Pike makes a ! deep cut through a hillside as it rises from Willow Street in the Spring Creek valley to the plateau in Benner Township. Be-' cause of the high,walls on both sides of the Benner Pike as it passes through this cut, thus limiting direct access, no com- mercial zoning is recommended in Spring Township along the -1 Benner Pike.

..i 7-11 i

0 Willowbank Street. As the Benner Pike completes its cut 1, through Spring Township and enters the older Bush Addition, the street name changes to Willowbank Street. As on the Benner Pike, traffic is heavy and pressures for commercial develop- ment exist. But the circumstances are vastly different and different development controls are necessary. Both sides of Willowbank Street have been subdivided into small lots, occu- pied by old, large and primarily residential buildings. To de- stroy these buildings and insert typical highway commercial development would be inappropriate. Instead the plan recom- . .- mends that Willowbank Street be zoned Village Commercial where a fairly broad variety of office, retail and service activi- ties would be permitted, but only within existing renovated buildings. In this way new values will be place in older structures without depreciating neighbor properties.

East College Avenue. Like the Benner Pike, East College Avenue (PA 26) has strong pressures for non-residential development. Unlike the Benner Pike, however, the continued use of East College Ave- nue as a major regional highway is unclear; for if a relocated Route 26 is constructed much of the current traffic here would be relocated. The Plan proposes to limit the amount of commercial and industrial activity here to local rather than regional activities.

0 Villacre of Pleasant Gap. Along East College Avenue within Pleasant Gap two commercial districts are proposed: JAVillage Commercial District is proposed at the intersec- tion of East College Avenue and Main Street extending north along Main Street to Fish Hatchery Road. The key to the Vil- lage Commercial District is to permit the as broad a variety of commercial uses needed to serve Pleasant Gap's residents, but at the same time to ensure that the design of each indi- vidual cammercial activity is "village" in character -- buildings close to the street, parking to the rear of build- ings, curbs and sidewalks, and traditional architecture. J Residential-Office Districts are proposed along East College Avenue on either side of the Village Commercial District. In these districts residential activities would continue to be emphasized, but at the same time limited office, home occu- pation, and some services would be permitted providing they were located within existing structures.

0 General Business Areas. Along East College Avenue just beyond both ends of the Village of Pleasant Gap are two areas con- taining an existing mix of commercial and industrial activi- ties. Because of the mixed character of these areas General Business zoning is recommended. In this zone, light industrial activities and non-retail commercial activities would be per- mitted. Despite the activity mix emphasis should nevertheless be placed upon strong site design and performance standards as

7-12 F'UTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

regulated by the Centre County Land Development Ordinance. The two areas are: J East of Pleasant Gap between East College Avenue and the CEDA-COG railroad and extending from Harrison to Fiedler Road. J West of Pleasant Gap on the south side of East College Avenue to the Bellefonte Lime property and extending from Pleasant Gap proper west to the Township line.

East Bishoe Street. East Bishop Street (PA 550) is Bellefonte Bor- ough's most heavily travelled street and the daily destination for many Spring Township residents -- primarily to shop or to at- tend school. As on the Benner Pike and East Bishop Street, this heavy traffic has resulted in the location of a number of commer- cial enterprises here. The Plan proposes to recognize these ac- tivities and to encourage similar new activities as follows:

0 Office Commercial Area. Office Commercial zoning is proposed on both sides of East Bishop Street between the Bellefonte Borough line east to PA 26. Much of this area is now residen- tial and more intensive commercial development could be detri- mental. The development of new offices upon the remaining vacant parcels here should not interfere with the existing residences, and at the same time appropriate to Bishop Street's heavy traffic. An alternative zoning district would be Residential-Office with new residential uses in addition to offices being encouraged.

0 Planned Commercial Area. East of PA 26 to Musser Lane, Planned Commercial zoning is proposed. Although this corridor pro- trudes into the Township's agricultural conservation area, there are already several significant commercial activities here and both water and sewer are available. To maintain high- way safety and avoid the aesthetic and environmental defile- ment common to many highway commercial areas, heavy emphasis should be placed upon high quality land development plans for each parcel proposed for future development.

Industrialpark. Industrial zoning in Spring Township contains few use or performance limitations. Generically it could be termed heavy industrial and is appropriate for primary processing indus- tries such as the Township's large existing large quarry opera- tions. Today, most new industrial activities are clean, and involve,either administrative, assembly or secondary processing. The Plan proposes that Spring Township set aside appropriate land for such activities and provide basic public utilities and access. 0 Sprinq>ToWnshipIndustrial Park. A' formalized industri&L park is proposed for the area surrounding the Centre County Vo-Tech

7-13. School and the Supelco plant. The park would be bound on the north by the proposed relocated PA 26, on the south by the CEDA-COG Railroad, on the east by the quarry industrial district, and on the west by medium density residential expan- sion of Pleasant Gap. The area offers several significant op- portunities for new industry and to the Township at large. J Excellent regional highway access via PA 26 to I-80, a situ- ation,,thafcan only improve as time passes and the prospect of a four lane limited access highway between the Bellefonte interchange and State College comes closer to reality: J Excellent local highway access via PA 26, PA 64, and Harri- son Road. To improve this access and to provide for conve- nient interior circulation, a new east-west road is proposed extending from PA 144 on the west, along the short east-west section of Harrison Road, and extending to Garbrick Road to the east. An important part of this proposal is to provide an at grade intersection at the new road’s crossing with ex- isting PA 26, that in the future will likely become an ac- cess road rather than a principal portion of the highway. J Rail access vis the CEDA-COG line. J Water and sewer. J A high standard of development established by the existing Vo-Tech and Supelco complexes for future industries to emu1at e.

Bellefonte Interchange Area. The area surrounding the Bellefonte Inter- change of Interstate 80 offers an excellent location for regional commercial services -- restaurants, motels, service stations, ter- minals, and other commercial and industrial activities. Planned Commercial zoning is proposed here. While this area has been zoned commercially for some years with little commercial activity re- sulting, by no means does this imply that it is time to change the zoning here. Instead it should be viewed as a development area with high potential and one that should be protected until the timing is ripe for development. Two factors will speed the thing: Water and Sewer. Water and sewer is not now available at the interchange area. The Plan proposes that the Township take necessary steps to provide both water and sewer here. Prefera- bly water would be extended from the Bellefonte Borough system and sewer discharge be to the Mid-Centre plant east of Milesburg (See Chapter 8 - Future Utility Plan for details). Hiahway ImprovemBnts. At such time PA 26 between the Belle- fonte Interchange and State College is undertaken, substantial modifications will be required to the interchange area itself. Because local traffic will need to segregated from regional traffic the entire traffic pattern will need to be reworked. The Future Development Plan Map shows a basic pattern of new interchanges and local access roads that will make future com- mercial development here more attractive.

7-14 I

F. 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 Spring Township and to carry out the land use propos- als previously set forth in this chapter, the Township must take an active role in changing and improving the existing transporta- tion system. The background for the Transportation Plan was es- tablished in Chapter 5, Transportation, and should be reviewed simultaneously with this section.

TransDortation Obiectives As a guide for the Transportation Plan's proposals to follow, Spring Township's Transportation objectives are listed below. They amplify the goals contained in Chapter 6. J Establish a street classification system and street construction standards consistent with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. J Correct existing intersection and traffic flow problems. d Create a street network by planning for specific new street connections and extensions. J Encourage and support the proposed PA Route 26 relocation to by-pass Pleasant Gap. J Do not encourage or support the proposed PA Route 144 relocation to by-pass Centre Hall and Pleasant Gap. J Support all efforts to maintain and/or expand the existing freight rail service to Spring Township industrial areas.. J Support any efforts to broaden public transportation service to Spring Township -- particularly Pleasant Gap.

i Highwav and Street Svstem Hiphwav Classification System. -- The Pennsylvania Department of Trans- portation is responsible for maintaining a highway classification system for the Commonwealth. The system is entitled The Function- al Highway Classification System. Chapter 5 defines each level in the system and lists the Centre County highways included in the system. The purpose I of the system is twofold: 0 To organize the Commonwealth's highways in a hierarchy pri- marily based upon usage, a hierarchy that in turn is used i i to determine improvement priorities. 1 Nodes as used here are terminals and stations for mass transportation, and interchanges and intersections for .! vehicular traffic. I 7-15 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

a For each level of highway, to establish design standards appropriate to its traffic load and general usage.

0 Spring Township concurs with Pennsylvania's Functional Clas- sification System and recommends that the State highways serving Spring Township keep their present classifications.

Route 26 Relocation. -- The proposed relocation of Pennsylvania Route 26 from State College at the Park Avenue Interchange of the Nittany Expressway to Spring Township at the Bellefonte Inter- change of Interstate 80 would solve a number of regional and local problems. J Regionally it would provide the large and expanding Penn- sylvania State University campus with a direct limited access highway connection, and J It would provide another link in the Pennsylvania Depart- ment of Transportation's long range plan to complete the Appalachian Thruway from West Virginia to New York. J Locally it would remove existing heavy regional traffic from College Avenue Extended through Pleasant Gap, and J It would provide four lane limited access to Spring Town- ship's primary industrial area along existing PA 26. The Spring Township Comprehensive Plan makes the following specific proposals regarding the design of this highway: Aliqnment. The Plan proposes that the relocated PA 26 be lo- cated generally in the southern part of the Township, pass- ing just north of the Logan Branch Fish Hatchery, the Centre County Vo-Tech School, and Supelco before connecting to the existing two lane limited access portion of PA 26. The approximate alignment is shown on Map 7.1. Interchanqe Locations. The Plan proposes no additional in- terchanges be located in Spring Township other than those already located here -- those at I-80, PA 550, and PA 64. Bellefonte Interchanqe Desiqn. The Bellefonte Interchange presents a special problem for presently the initial one- half mile south on PA 26 to Musser Lane is open access before becoming limited access in the two lane link south to College Avenue Extended. The Plan proposes that concurrent with the construction of a relocated PA 26, this present open access be redesigned and constructed as a limited ac- cess facility only. Figure 8.1 shows a concept of how this important interchange could be redesigned meeting both regional and local traffic patterns.

7-16 1-80

Scale 1” = 1000’ Bellefonte Rina Road. The Spring Township Comprehensive Plan of 1969 and the Bellefonte Borough Comprehensive Plan of 1970 both pro- I posed a loop road around the Borough. The purpose of the proposed I road was to reduce through traffic clogging Bellefonte‘s Central , Business District and to provide access to the Borough’s then developing fringe areas. The needs for this road remain. 1 0 Bellefonte LOOP Road. The Plan proposes that over the long term future , Bellefonte Borough and Spring Township cooper- ated in the planning and construction of a two lane loop i road around Bellefonte, as generally aligned on Map 7.1. 1 I While the needs for the loop road remain, the proposed alignment 1 and techniques for construction need to be altered substantially. Much development has.occurred in the eastern end of Bellefonte where a portion of the proposed road was to be located. Thus the alignment of the proposed loop road as shown on Map 7.1 is far- 1 ther out, but almost entirely within Spring Township, and its path exclusively across vacant, developable ground. Chapter 9 1 discusses the process and timing of construction. &I 7- 17 Primam Street Network. -- Within and beneath the Commonwealth's Highway Classification system, Spring Township needs to establish its own network of streets. Currently the Township has no orga- nized system to supplement the Commonwealth system. As now de- fined under the Commonwealth's system all streets located within the Township's geographic limits, other than State highways, are massed together as local streets. A defined Township street net- work would accomplish two purposes: (1) first it would indicate those streets to receive priority for maintenance and for emer- gency routing, and (2) secondly it would indicate important fu- ture street connections to be made to complete a total street network for the Township. 0 Primary Streets. The following Township streets supplement the Commonwealth's highway system by providing important intra-Township connections. Because of their important role, the Plan proposes that they be called "Primary Access Streets. They are shown on Map 7.1, Future Land Use Plan. J Coleville Road J Rishel Hill Road J Slaughterhouse Road J Weaver Hill Road J Halfmoon Hill J Lutz Road J Molasses Hill Road J Musser Lane J Blanchard Street J Airport /Garbrick Roads J Irish Hollow Road J Harrison Road hture Street Connections. -- However, the above system of existing primary streets is by no means a complete system. Too many recent subdivisions have not provided interconnecting streets, and large areas of the Township have yet to be developed. The result is that a number of additional primary street connections will be needed. 1 The alignment of these proposed primary streets would use what is 1 currently vacant land. Thus construction of these streets should generally occur at the time of development of these vacant par- cels, with funding by the owner of each parcel. It may not seem fair for individual developers to bear the burden of construction of the Township's streets, but on the other hand these are streets that would be needed for development in any case and the Township is merely directing the starting and ending points of each new street connection. The Township recognizes however that in some exceptional cases it may be necessary to for the Township to participate either through land condemnation or financing to complete a given street section. 0 New Primary Streets. The Plan proposes that as a minimum, the following listed street connections be made to complete Spring's Township's primary street system. The location of each primary street extension is shown on Map 7.1. Although specific locations are shown on Map 7.1 these locations are intended to be conceptual in nature and not describe a spe- cific alignment that might vary due to topographic or other specific site conditions.

7-18 J The Bellefonte Loop Road as discussed and proposed above would become part of the primary street system. J Parkview Drive in Bellefonte Borough would be extended north, across Howard Street, through Spring Township, to the proposed Loop Road. J Extend Mulbarqer Lane from the Loop Road on the west, across Blanchard Street, and east through the Beaver Tract to Airport Road. J Connect Bishop Street and the Loop Road South from a point near the Bellefonte High School, through the Bea- ver Tract, and past Governor's Park to the Loop Road. J Extend Blanchard Street east from the right angle turn south of the Vo-Tech School, across Witherite Road, PA 26, Fiedler Road, and Airport Road terminating at Garbrick Road. J Connect PA 144 east to Blanchard Street from the Logan Branch Fish Hatchery east to the right angle turn one- half mile north of the College Avenue and Harrison Street intersection. J Extend Halfmoon Hill west into Benner Township. Constitution Avenue. J Extend Alleqheny Avenue south from Crawford Street in Bellefonte Borough to Forbes Road. J Extend Weaver Hill Road east from Airport Road to Musser Lane at or near PA 550.

Public Transportation Spring Township does not now have any bus transportation systems nor are any routes planned. One bus line does, however, run between State College and Bellefonte. Spring Township is too remotely located and has too small a population base to establish a local system. Users of public transportation generally fall into one of two groups : e Individuals without means or unable to operate a motor vehicle -- the elderly, the handicapped, children, students, etc. Individuals wishing to avoid the time and expense of commuting to work. The Plan makes no specific proposal for public transporta- tion to serve Spring Township. The Township does, however, pledge appropriate cooperation and assistance to any such system for public transportation when the need and demand so warrants for the entire Township.

7 - 19 Railroads Previous chapters have very clearly pointed out that while the railroad was a critical ingredient in the early development and expansion of the Bellefonte region, today its importance is lim- ited. There has not been any passenger service for many years and the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad currently handles an average of approximately forty freight cars per week. On the positive side, the freight activity is up from only fifteen cars per week as recent as 1986 (See Table 5.4) and excursion trains operate during summer months from Bellefonte. While the Township does not believe that the railroad can again regain its early prominence, it nevertheless is an economically important part of Spring Township. 0 Maintain Freiqht Service. The freight spur of SEDA-COG'S Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad that runs from Bellefonte south along the Logan Branch to Pleasant Gap and then east to Airport Road at PA 64 must be maintained. While current freight usage activity is low, the railroad bisects the ap- proximately 1100 acre Spring Township Industrial Park. Its potential for future use is too valuable to entertain any notion of abandonment. 0 Encouraqe Excursion Passenger Use. Spring Township endorses the excursion passenger trains operated by the Bellefonte Historical Society from the Bellefonte passenger terminal and encourages examining the feasibility of operating this .' service to Pleasant Gap on occasion.

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 Spring Township relative to air service.

7-20

I / 8. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES PLAN

Spring Township's schools, recreational facilities, utilities, and governmental services are as important to the Township's vi- tality as the Township's homes, businesses and industry. By and large these services are public with the Township 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 Township. Thus, the quality of facilities exerts consider- able influence upon the style and quality of life in Spring Town- ship. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide guidelines for the improvement and expansion of each service as the Township contin- ues a period of strong population growth.

Obiectives As a guide for the Plan proposals that follow, Spring Township's Community Facility and Utility Objectives (as established in Chapter 6) are repeated below: d The Township 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 Township pledges to improve its current adequate water system as circumstances and funding permit. J The Township pledges to expand its public sanitary waste collection and treatment system as health conditions dictate and time and money permit.

A. PUBLIC SCHOOLS Considerations. -- Although the Township Supervisors have no direct responsibility in the planning for the location of the Bellefonte Area School District's educational facilities, the Supervisors, nevertheless, are vitally concerned because of the effect schools have upon surrounding land uses and because of the importance that good schools have in attracting families to the region. Therefore the Plan will make several recommendations regarding the future physical development of public schools serving Spring Township. Appendix A shows that in the 1989 Spring Township Citizens Ques- tionnaire, 84.1% of those evaluating the Bellefonte Area School District rated the District's schools as at least adequate; 9.3% rating them as outstanding. Standards. -- In general schools should be located near the center of the population served, be away from business and industrial 8-1 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

areas, be within convenient walking distance of a maximum number of children, have convenient and easy accessibility by automo- bile, and be readily accessible to essential public utilities. For suburban area schools, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Instruction recommends the following standards with respect to usable acreage : Elementary Schools 18-20 acres Middle Schools 25-30 acres High Schools 40-45 acres Table 8.1 shows that only the Pleasant Gap Elementary School meets these standards. Except for the Bellefonte Elementary site, the remaining sites reasonably approach the standards. Moreover most of the sites met the then current standards at the time of construction and have only fallen back as the standards in- creased. ---______------_------______-__------__------Table 8.1 -- School Building and Land Inventory, Bellefonte Area ...... School District, 1990. Site Year Additions/ Size Enrollment Grades Buildinq Built Renovations (Acres) fFeb.1990) Housed Bellefonte Elementary 1942 1964 3.1 519 K-5 Benner Elementary 1962 12.0 267 K-5 Marion Walker Elem. 1962 12.3 228 K-5 Pleasant Gap Elem. 1975 25.7 278 K-5 Middle School 1964 20.7 584 6-8 Senior High School 1956 1970 27.0 826 9-12

Source: Mr. Samuel E. Markle, Bellefonte Area School District.

Recommendations. -- The Bellefonte Area continues to grow and with this growth comes a potential need for additional classroom space. Should such additional space be required the Plan recom- mends that the School Board adopt the following policy: 0 School Expansion Policv. The Spring Township Supervisors believe that each of the Bellefonte Area School District buildings is located upon a superior site. In general the facilities are: (1) surrounded by the District's most heavily populated areas , (2) have public utilities, and (3) are topographically suitable for further expansion. This Plan thus recommends that any required future school expansion be accomplished upon one or more of the Districts existing sites.

8-2 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES PLAN

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 Township. These areas are defined and further described below: Play 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 in- clude both paved and turf surfaces, play equipment, fencing, landscaping, and benches. 0 Plavsround. 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 op- portunities for all age groups. Activities commonly included activities that require more space than a playground can provide, such as baseball and football. Playfields also in- clude 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 recre- ation; places where families can picnic, older residents gather, and children play informally. They are often pro- vided in conjunction with a playground or playfield. Since the value of parks depends to a large degree upon its natu- ral amenities, a large part of any park should be in wood- land, open lawn, or meadowland. The size should be I' sufficient to neutralize adjacent land uses. 1-

Playf ield 1.5 15 10 2 Miles Park 2.0 10 5 1.5 Miles

Source: Planning Design Criteria, DeChiara and Koppelman, 19.69.

a-3 J THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Table 8.2 shows as a rough guide that Spring Township should have approximately five acres (Playlots were not counted) of recre- ational land for each of her 1,000 residents -- or a total of 25 acres for her 1990 total population of approximately 5,000 per- sons. Spring Township has no recreation space other than the small playground adjacent to the Township Building. The only way I the Township can meet the standards suggested in Table 8.2 is by counting the Bellefonte School District sites and the several. private sites located within the Township. Considerations. -- The Township will not remain static, however, and private facilities cannot be guaranteed to remain so. Fur- thermore the Township has the potential to grow to double or even triple its population. Responses to the 1989 Spring Township Citizens Questionnaire con- tained in Appendix A show that 45.5% of those evaluating the ar- ea‘s recreation facilities rated the facilities as needing improvement. And in a related evaluation regarding support for improved recreational facilities, 74.3% thought that as a minimum such improvements should be investigated and 39.9% felt strongly enough to state that improved recreational facilities were defi- nitely needed. Recreation ranked highest among all public ser- vices in the citizens’ sense of priorities for both improvement of existing facilities and expansion of new services. Can the Township afford to a broad range of recreational services? And if so how to begin? Recommendations. -- To meet recommended levels of recreational land for Spring Township’s growing population, to provide recre- ational sites throughout the Township, and to respond to the cit- izens‘ desires for expanded recreational facilities the following proposals are made: 0 A Park and Recreation Board. The Plan recommends that a Park and Recreation Board be created to determine the Township’s specific recreation needs, and ultimately to manage all of Spring Township recreation facilities. J 0 A Park and Recreation Plan. The first step of the Spring Township Park and Recreation Board needs to be the develop- ment of a Township wide Park and Recreation Plan.

C. WATER SUPPLY

Considerations. -- Chapter 4 identified the basic characteristics of the region’s several water purveyors: 1 J Bellefonte Borough Authority Water System J Spring Township Water Authority System J Walker Township Water Authority System J State Correctional Institution at Rockview Water System J Nittany Water Company System (Walker Township) i 1 8-4 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES PLAN

According to the survey conducted in November of 19891, satisfac- tion with the area's water supply systems (all but Rockview) ranged from a high of 96.3 % in Bellefonte Borough to a low of 23.2% in Walker Township. Spring Township at 68.2%, Benner Town- ship at 64.1%, and Marion Township at 62.9% ranged in between. Benner and Marion Townships, however, have no public water sys- tems. In Bellefonte Borough a remarkable 56.4% rated their water system as outstanding -- by far the highest response to any pub- lic service in any of the five municipalities queried. The same questionnaire also asked whether water service was a service requiring establishment or expansion as appropriate. Again the results varied with the following percentage of respon- dents answering in the affirmative: J Bellefonte Borough -- 44.5% J Benner Township -- 58.9% J Marion Township -- 41.7% d Spring Township -- 67.8% J Walker Township -- 88.0% In yet another section of the questionnaire area residents were asked how the felt about the following statement: "The only way the water supply problem will be solved is through inter-munici- pal cooperation." Throughout the five municipalities 24.6% said they didn't know. The remainder responded- as follows: Aclree Disasree J Bellefonte Borough- -- 44.0% 35.7% J Benner Township -- 42.3% 28.4% J Marion Township -- 33.7% 40.0% J Spring Township -- 47.2% 24.8% J Walker Township -- 49.9% 28.5% The complete results of the Citizens Questionnaire for Spring Township are contained in Appendix A. Chapter 4 identified a number of problems common to all except the Bellefonte Borough system -- low supply due to drought, low pressure areas, leakage, giardia cyst, and insufficient supply for emergency situations. The root cause of these problems are (1) dependency upon mountain surface water sources -- primarily springs, and (2) below standard water distribution lines. In con- trast, Bellefonte's "Big Spring" is a boundless source of high , quality water.

Recommendations. -- The responses to the citizen questionnaires and the prevalent problems experienced by the smaller systems in- dicates that broad cooperative actions are needed. The Plan makes the following recommendations: -1I 1 Citizens Questionnaire conducted in November 1989 for Benner, Marion, Spring and Walker Townships, and Bellefonte Borough as :1 part of this Comprehensive Plan update. 8-5 I THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

0 Reqionalization The Plan recommends that three water compa- nies -- Bellefonte, Springland Walker -- take necessary le- gal steps to create a water cooperative to look at means of solving joint water problems. @ Interconnection The Plan recommends that as an initial step the proposed cooperative take all steps necessary to inter- connect their three systems. Initially this interconnection would not be for purposes of regularly sharing water, indeed Bellefonte Borough may not ever find the right circumstances for using either Spring or Walker Township water. On the other hand there are a number of circumstances in which Spring and Walker may need Bellefonte's water as an alterna- tive supply. J For low flow augmentation during droughts, J For temporary emergency augmentation during major emergencies such as fire, and J For back-up purposes in cases of giardia cyst infestation. Expansion of the Bellefonte System. Beyond the sharing of water on an emergency basis, there are two areas outside Bellefonte that would best be served by Borough sources on a regular basis. They are: J The East Howard Street/Jacksonville Road area of Spring Township between the Borough and Interstate 80, and J The planned residential district of Benner Township along PA 550 west of Bellefonte. 0 Nittany Water Company. The Nittany Water Company is too far removed from the Bellefonte area to be included in a coop- erative venture with the Bellefonte system. The Plan thus recommends that the Nittany system remain independent unless and until cooperation with the Lamar community in adjacent Clinton County becomes advantageous. Marion Township. Marion Township Has no water company and the results of her Citizens Questionnaire indicted no strong interest in forming one. The only feasible area of Marion Township with an existing or potentially large enough customer base is the area in and around the Village of Jacksonville. The P1an recommends that Marion Township conduct a study to determine its economic feasibility. Two options should be explored: J An independent system using existing groundwater supplies in the Jacksonville area, and J A connection with the Howard Borough water system on the north side of Bald Eagle Mountain.

8-6 ! COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES PLAN

!

3 ! D. SANITARY SEWERS Considerations. -- Chapter 4 identified the basic characteristics of the region's three sewer systems: J Bellefonte Borough Authority Sewer System J Spring Benner Walker Joint Sewer Authority System(SBWJA) J State Correctional Institution at Rockview Sewer System According to the survey conducted in November of 19891, satisfac- tion with the area's sewage disposal systems (except Rockview) ranged from a high of 90.3% in Bellefonte Borough to a low of 46.6% in Marion Township. Spring Township at 80.7%, Benner Town- ship at 67.4%, and Walker Township at 57.6% ranged in between. As with water, Marion Township has no public sanitary sewer system. The same questionnaire also asked whether water service was a service requiring establishment or expansion as appropriate. Again the results varied with the following percentage of respon- dents answering in the affirmative: J Bellefonte Borough -- 63.0% J Benner Township -- 52.4% J Marion Township -- 39.1% J Spring Township -- 61.1% J Walker Township -- 52.4% These responses are somewhat contradictory in that there is ap- parent satisfaction with the existing sanitary waste systems, but also general agreement -- except in Marion Township -- to improve these existing systems. In yet another section of the questionnaire area residents were asked how the felt about the following statement: "It is impor- tant for our municipality to build sewer systems to correct health problems." Throughout the five municipalities 17.4% said they didn't know. The remainder responded as follows: Aqree DisaQree J Bellefonte Borough -- 68.6% 12.3% J Benner Township -- 52.2% 27.9% J Marion Township -- 23.3% 63.4% J Spring Township -- 61.3% 21.4% J Walker Township -- 45.1% 39.6% , And to the follo,wing questionnaire statement -- "New Sewer sys- 1 tems here would be a good thing because they would bring new

development" -- the responses~ were: I Aqree Disaqree J Bellefonte Borough- -- 29.4% 42.5% I J Benner Township -- 25.5% 53.7% i J Marion Township -- 10.6% 76.1% J Spring Township -- ,26.5% 52.1% 1 J Walker Township -- 23.3% 59.3% 1 1 Citizens Questionnaire conducted in November 1989 for Benner, Marion, Spring and Walker Townships, and Bellefonte Borough as i part of this Comprehensive Plan update. I 8-9 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The complete results of the Citizens Questionnaire for Spring Township are contained in Appendix A. The primary sanitary waste problem facing the Bellefonte area at large, and identified in Chapter 4, is the lack of capacity at the Bellefonte Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). Although the Borough is just completing an expansion to a daily capacity of 2.4 million gallons per day (MGD) the excess capacity could be expended in a few short years. Several factors led to this situa- tion. First, the Federal Grant program that financed much of the expansion generally limits expansion to resolve existing problems and is not allocated for future growth. Secondly, the effluent treatment requirements from the Rockview Prison are now consider- ably larger than when the WWTP upgrade/enlargement was designed. And finally, spurred by massive growth in the State College area, the Bellefonte area continues to grow as a residential community. This problem is aggravated by the fact that the current Belle- fonte WWTP site is very limited for additional expansion. In fact the recent expansion required the occupancy of wetlands that were required by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Re- sources (DER) to be moved and re-established on an another site east of the Borough. Currently all of the sewered areas of the five Nittany Valley communities listed above have their waste treated at the Belle- fonte WWTP. Means to reduce the pressure upon Bellefonte's plant must be found.

Recommendations. -- The Plan makes the following recommendations: 0 Areas to be Sewered. The Plan proposes that all development areas -- residential, commercial, and industrial -- in all five Nittany Valley communities be served by public sanitary sewers. Such is largely the case today, but as new develop- ment occurs in new areas proposed by this Plan, these must be sewered as well. 0 Build a Satellite Plant on the Buffalo Run in Benner Town- ship near the Spring Township line. This currently a single point of collection for all of Benner Township's sanitary waste. By interrupting and processing the existing effluent flow at this point a substantial load would be removed from the Bellefonte WWTP. 0 Build Packaqe Treatment Plants. Package treatment plants are appropriate for small and isolated population bases. They are often used to treat sanitary waste in mobile home parks. The scattered villages found in the eastern part of the Nit- tany Valley -- Mingoville, Hublersburg and Nittany in Walker 1 Township, and Jacksonville in Marion Township -- are similar in scale and should be served -- when the time comes -- by 1 package WWTP's rather than being added to the already large Bel 1 ef on t e system.

8 - 10 I I! COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES PLAN

e Divert Sanitary Waste to the Mid-Centre Authority WWTP. A very substantial portion of the northeast corner of Spring Township plus the western end of Marion Township has been proposed for development. It is the area flanking the Jack- sonville Road in both Townships and has the Bellefonte In- terchange of Interstate 80 as its focus. This area drains to a single point in the Curtin Gap approximately two miles from the Mid-Centre Authority Plant east of Milesburg. The Plan recommends that this area be served by the Mid-Centre Authority as one more technique of removing pressure from the Bellefonte WWTP. 0 Cooperation with University Area Joint Authority (UAJAl. The UAJA has needl to provide the Buffalo Run Valley above Ben- ner Township with a sanitary waste collection and treatment system. Because of its upstream location sewers could have a direct impact upon Benner, Spring and Bellefonte downstream. And because Benner Township also has needs for expanded sew- er service, the Plan recommends a cooperative effort between the Spring, Benner, Walker Joint Authority and UAJA to de- termine their mutual interests. Two possible results are: J UAJA joining with SBWJA to construct the aforementioned satellite plant in Benner Township, and J UAJA assuming responsibility for potential future sewer service to the portion of Benner Township south of the. University Park Airport

E. TOWNSHIP BUILDING Considerations. -- There are three basic considerations for the suitable location of public buildings: 1. A location convenient to the clientele to be served. 2. A location where desirable influence can be exerted upon secondary or supporting land uses. 3. A location meeting predetermined size and utility requirements. The existing Spring Township Building is well located and easily meets the above criteria. The Building is very near the exact I center of the Township. Its site at the corner of Blanchard Street and Irish Hollow Road makes it readily accessible by automobile. ; Furthermore the site is of adequate size for future expansion. I 1 The primary drawbacks are the limitations of the building itself. 1 The main garage is at capacity for existing vehicular equipment, and is further limited by having only two vehicular doors. The 1 four administrative spaces -- including the meeting room and the police department -- are also near capacity and not efficiently 1 1 arranged. 1 Centre Region Act 537 Sewaqe Facilities Plan Update, Centre Region Council of Governments, May 1989. ..J 8 - 11 I Recommendation. -- Over the course of this Plan -- about ten years -- Spring Township will need a new or renovated building. The op- tions are to: J Renovate the existing building. J Raze the existing building and rebuild on site. J Move to another site; either partially or wholly. 0 A New Township Buildinq. The Plan recommends that at such time it is financially feasible to do so, the existing Spring Township Building be reconstructed on site. The site is excellent but the building has serious drawbacks for the long haul.

8-12 j

The Comprehensive Plan has in previous chapters primarily dealt with questions of what, why and where. WHAT kinds of land uses are appropriate for Spring Township? 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 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 Township Ordinances? Will they be voluntary? Or will they be keyed to other initia- tives? WHO should be responsible for implementing each proposal? Should it be a private or public effort, and if public should it be a Township, County or State responsibility? And WHEN should each proposal be accomplished? Immediately, or as circumstances warrant? Chapter 9, The Implementation Plan, will provide guide- lines for answering these questions.

TOWNSHIP ORDINANCES Considerations. -- Major changes and revisions are proposed the Township’s two primary land use control ordinances. These are: J The Spring Township Zoning Ordinance. J The Spring Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. Both ordinances are critical in guiding future land development in the Township. Furthermore, the rapid pace of development makes early passage the highest priority of all proposals con- tained in this Plan. Their revision will need to deal with two primary issues: 1. How to direct new land uses and new economic activity into areas of the Township where public services either already exist or are planned? and 2. How to ensure that these new uses and activities are com- patible with those already here?

Three other ordinances are proposed in Chapter 7 for modification or enactment. J The Spring Township Floodplain Management Ordinance. (Modify) J A Spring Township Building Code. (Enact) J A Spring Township Property Maintenance Code. (Enact) Work on these proposed ordinances should not occur before work has been completed on the updating of both the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance.

9-1 J Recommendations. -- The following recommendations are made with regard to the enactment of each of the five Ordinances listed above :

0 ZoningOrdinance. The Plan proposes a complete overhaul of the current Spring Township Zoning Ordinance. Not only do the existing zoning districts need to be substantially realigned to reflect the proposals contained in Chapter 7, the supporting regulations -- definitions, use regulations, off-street parking, signs, and procedures -- need to be overhauled to reflect updated standards and to be kept in conformity with recent changes to the Municipalities Planning Code.1 Thirteen zoning districts are proposed. CONSERVATION DISTRICTS J Forest District (F) J Stream Valley District (S) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS J Agricultural-Rural Residential District (R-1) J Sinale Family Residential District (R-2) J MulZi-Familf Residential District (R-3) J Village Residential District (VR) COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS J.~ Residential-Office District (RO) J Village Commercial District iVC) J Planned Commercial District (C-1) J Office Commercial District (C-2) J General Business District (C-3) INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS J General Industrial District (I-1) J Light Industrial District (I-2) 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 Plan. Updating and revising the Township's Zoning Ordinance must be given the highest priority, for without a Zoning Ordi- nance, the effort and time to prepare the land use proposals contained in this Plan will have been be wasted. Reference: The specific powers granted to Spring Township relative to Zoning can be found in Article VI of the Munici- palities Planning Code.1

1 Pennsylvania Municipalities Planninq Code, Act of 1968, P.L. 805 No. 247; Reenacted and amended December 21, 1988.

9-2 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

0 Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. The Spring Township Sub- division and Land Development Ordinance must also be given high priority for updating. As with the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance is the appro- priate location for provisions to help carry-out this Plan's many proposals. Provisions for public improvements -- streets, sidewalks, utilities, etc. -- are appropriately placed in the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance and must be reviewed and revised as soon as possible so that the .- Township is adequately prepared for new development plans. Also, recent changes to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code have broadened the definition of land develop- ment. In addition to regulations regarding the subdivision of land, with which most people are familiar, the new defi- nition provides that all new non-residential uses and any residential use involving two or more dwelling units, have a I' Land Development Plan, approved by both the Planning Commis- sion and the Township Supervisors, and ultimately recorded with the Centre County Recorder of Deeds. This is a criti- cally important tool to control existing and future land de- velopment in Spring Township. Because the majority of modern developments now fall into the category of land development 1 rather than subdivision, it is important that the Township change its Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance to meet these recent changes to Act 247, subsequently ensuring that these regulations are fully met by all future develop- ments, both private and public. Reference: The specific powers granted to Spring Township relative to Subdivision and Land Development can be found in Article V of the Municipalities Planning Code.

0 Floodplain Management Ordinance. Spring Township has a comprehen- sive Floodplain Management Ordinance in effect. The primary purposes of this Ordinance are: 1: 1. To qualify each property owner in Spring Township for Federally backed flood insurance; and 2. To regulate construction in, and use of, the Township's f1 oodpl ain areas. This existing Ordinance is essentially intact, requiring only minimal change. Those changes considered necessary are I provisions to strengthen the Ordinance's regulation of ac- tivities that threaten to limit or constrict the floodway, potentially causing accumulated stormwater to back upon ad- .jacent upstream properties. The Plan recommends that the following changes be made to the Spring Township Floodplain I Management Ordinance : 1. Use of Fill. Prohibit the use of fill in floodplain areas for any purpose except agricultural. I

9-3 J 2. Elevation of Non-Residential Structures. Require that the elevation of the lowest floor, including basements, of any new or substantially improved non-residential structure be the same as that required for any residen- tial structure -- one and one-half feet or more above the 100 year flood elevation. These modifications are very important, yet relatively sim- ple and should be accomplished concurrent with immediate ef- forts to update the Township Zoning Ordinance. Reference: The specific powers granted to Spring Township relative to Floodplain Management can be found in the Flood- plain Management Act (Act 166) and in Section 604(1) of the Municipalities Planning Code, entitled Zoning Purposes.

0 Building Code. The Plan proposes that Spring Township enact a Building Code to ensure that future construction in the Township meets recognized building practices and standards. The purpose of a building code is two-fold: 1. To eliminate future incidents of sub-standard construc- tion that have occasionally occurred in the Township in the past; and 2. To help ensure that future buildings, particularly those proposed for the Township's large areas proposed for new commercial and industrial usage, are built at the highest possible standards of safety and appearance. There are two recognized model Building Codes; The Uniform Building Code' and the BOCA Basic Building Code2. Each con- tains similar categories of regulations: d Occupancy Requirements J Light and Ventilation J Means of Egress J Design Loads and Stresses J Fire Protection and Firestopping J Material Specifications J Walls and Wall Thickness J Chimneys, Flues, and Vent Pipes J Heating and Air Conditioning Equipment J Electrical Installations J Elevators and Similar Conveyance Equipment J Signs and Outdoor Display Structures J Plumbing, Drainage and Gaspiping J Construction Safeguards

1 The Uniform Buildins Code is published by the International Conference of Building Officials. 2 The BOCA Basic Buildins Code is issued by.the Building Officials Conference of America, Inc. (BOCA). 9-4 In Centre County six municipalities1 have enacted building codes. In each instance the BOCA Basic Building Code has been selected. Because the BOCA Code is more familiar to local builders it is recommended that Spring Township also enact the BOCA code.

Not all of the regulatory categories listed above may be ap- propriate for Spring Township. To a limited extent the BOCA Code can, and should, be customized to meet the Township's needs. One area for special consideration is to ensure that a proposed Building Code does not unreasonably restrict the construction of farm structures and thereby conflict with the Township's policy of promoting agriculture (Also see Ag- ricultural Security Areas discussed below) . Reference: The Pennsylvania Second Class Township Code pro- vides for the enactment of building codes as follows:

J 'I. . . to specify the mode'of construction of . . . different classes of buildings and housing; and

J "to require that before any use or occupancy be changed from any classification to a different classification . . . municipal approval of the plans and specifications therefor be secured."2

J "To provide for the inspection of the construction and repair of buildings and housing. . . . '1 3

0 Property Maintenance Code. The Plan proposes one final land use control ordinance for Spring Township -- a Property Mainte- nance Code.

The purpose of such i? Code is to ensure that each property owner manage his or her property in manners that will im- prove the Township 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 Spring is in general a community whose residents tend to keep their

I properties in extremely good condition, the Township must be prepared for any maverick who may degrade neighboring I, properties by not keeping to these same high standards. In

1 These six municipalities are Bellefonte Borough, Philipsburg Borough, and four municipalities in the Centre Region -- State College Borough and the Townships of College, Ferguson, Harris, and Patton. I. 2 The Second Class Township Code, Article VI1 - General Powers, Section 702L - Building and Housing Regulations. 3 The Second Class Township Code, Article VI1 - General Powers, Section 702LII - Building Inspectors and Housing Inspectors. 9-5 J order not to conflict with the Township's interest in main- taining strong agricultural areas, any nuisance ordinance should exempt normal agricultural activities from its regu- lations (Also see Agricultural Security Areas discussed below).

Reference: While this Code should be customized to meet the potential problems and needs of Spring Township, the Town- ship Code includes the f ol 1owing specific powers applicable to property maintenance:

J "To prohibit nuisances, including but not limited to accumulations of garbage and rubbish, and the storage of abandoned or junked automobiles, on private and public property, and the carrying on of any offensive manufacture or business, and

J "To remove any nuisance or dangerous structure on public or private grounds . . . . 11 1

J "To regulate or prohibit the dumping or otherwise de- positing of ashes, garbage, rubbish and other refuse materials within the township.

J "To prohibit accumulations of ashes, garbage, rubbish and other refuse materials upon private property.. . . ''2 J "To make such regulations, by ordinance, not inconsis- tent with State laws and regulations, as may be neces- sary for the promotion of the health, cleanliness, comfort and safety of the citizens of the township."3

PPPPVATE FACILITIES DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE Considerations. - - The installation of public improvements in most municipalities is primarily the responsibility of private developers rather than public agencies. Private developers ini- tially build the streets, install the utilities, construct the storm water management facilities, and sometimes provide land for recreation or open space use. In a few circumstances off- site facilities have been installed by private developers to mitigate the off-site impacts of their developments; primarily vehicular traffic. Only later do public agencies become in- volved following developers' dedication of these facilities to

1 The Second Class Township Code, Article VI1 - General Powers, Section 702x11 - Nuisances. 2 The Second Class Township Code, Article VI1 - General Powers, Section 702VIII - Ashes, Garbage, Rubbish and Other Refuse Materials. 3 The Second Class Township Code, Article VI1 - General Powers, Section 702XXIX - Health. 9-6 J IMPLEMENTATION PLAN public ownership and use. Public responsibilities include the subsequent upkeep and maintenance of these privately built fa- cilities, as well as the construction and subsequent maintenance of larger facilities that serve the entire community rather than a single development or neighborhood. Appropriately, public facilities provided by private developers are built concurrent with the development of their individual projects. The Township has no power to require such facilities in advance; the timing is concurrent with development. However, the Township must give clear direction to the kinds of facilities to be provided and the standards to which these facilities are con- structed.

Recommendations. - - Spring Township is a rapidly growing munici- pality with many public facilities and services already provided. Because Township growth is expected to continue for the foresee- able future, it is to the Township's advantage to evaluate and modify existing standards for public improvements as may be nec- essary. Requiredhprovements. Following is a list of standards recom- mended by this Plan as appropriate for public improvements to be constructed by private developers in future subdivi- sions and land developments in Spring Township. They should be included within the Township's proposed Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. J The provision of an adequate Water SuPDly is mandatory for all new homes and businesses in Spring Township. Current- ly, such water supply may be accomplished either by on- site wells, or by connecting to an existing water supply system. Because public water systems generally have the ability to better control the quantity and quality of water supplied, service by public systems is strongly pre- ferred to individual wells. The Spring Township Subdivi- sion and Land Development Ordinance must follow through upon this recommendation by making it a requirement for all future development in all residential, commercial, or industrial zoning districts in Spring Township to either: 1. Connect to either the Spring Township Water Authority or the Bellefonte Borough Authority water systems as appropriate; or 2. Prepare a feasibility study to evaluate all reasonable alternatives for the provision of water. Consideration should be given not only to individual wells or connec- tions to existing water systems, but also to indepen- dent systems that may in the long run be connected to one of the public systems. Additionally, water supply requirements contained in the Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance should: 9-7 1. Ensure that the diameter of all water mains is suffi- cient to provide for future Township needs in the area involved, to provide for adequate fire flow, and to be compatible with the Township systems as a whole. 2. Ensure system reliability by requiring high standards for water supply equipment and materials. 3. Provide for the looping of water mains by providing multiple connections to the existing system or stubs to adjacent properties for future connection. 4. Provide limitations that no proposed future development in any way diminish existing systemic water pressures and capacities, including requirements for any such develop- ment with the potential for doing so augment that system through additional supply, storage, or pumping facilities as may be appropriate. J Sanitary Sewer. Primary among all utilities in their effect upon encouragement/discouragement of land development are sanitary sewer systems. Such systems are expensive, normal- ly preventing installation in advance of development or even without a reasonable density of existing population. In Spring Township collection facilities are already pro- vided to the western portion of the Township, primarily in the Spring Creek and Logan Branch Valleys from Bellefonte south to and including Pleasant Gap, but also including ser- vice to Coleville west of Bellefonte, and an interceptor east of Bellefonte along PA 550. These interceptors and collection lines are part of the Spring Benner Walker Joint Authority system that in turn is served by the Bellefonte Borough Authority Treatment Plant. Without Bellefonte's treatment Plant, it is doubtful if Spring Township could alone have afforded its current system. See Chapter 4 for graphic description of both the Bellefonte and the Spring Benner Walker systems. Since sanitary sewer systems are a proven magnet to develop- ment, and since this Comprehensive Plan does not promote growth in all parts of Spring Township, it must be a clear policy of the Township not to finance nor to encourage new sanitary sewers except under clearly established guidelines. It shall be Township policy to: 1. Strongly encourage the continued installation of sanitary sewers by all developers in the western, or Spring Creek and Logan Branch valleys of the Township. This area is proposed to be zoned primarily for either R-2 or R-3 res- idential development, but it also includes VR, VC, C-3, I-1 and I-2 zoning districts. Adherence to this policy should be strict, even including situations where a sin- gle lot or use cannot immediatelymake a connection to the existing system, all approved on-lot system must be designed and located with consideration given to a future connection. fI 9-8 .I 2. Support the installation of sanitary sewers to two other areas of the Township where development is proposed but where sanitary sewers are not nowprovided; to wit: The Jacksonville Road / Interstate 80 corridor be- tween Bellefonte Borough and Marion Township. Here the Plan proposes eventual connection to the Mid- Centre Authority WWTP, but this connection cannot yet be financially justified. The East College Avenue corridor east of Pleasant Gap to the Walker Township line. Here substantial com- mercial and industrial development is proposed, but to date development is scattered except for the min- ing operations of Bellefonte Lime and Centre Lime & Stone Companies. Again sanitary sewerage is not yet financially feasible. In the interim, it should be Township policy in both areas to require as part of any subdivision or land development plan approval that any new sanitary system proposed here be totally compatible with an eventual area wide wastewater collection system. 3. The one remaining area of the Township is the central ag- ricultural area, proposed for Agricultural/Rural Residen- tial Zoning. Here sanitary sewers should generally be discouraged and encouraged only when groundwater supplies are threatened, or in R-1 districts as part of a cluster development. 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 Township's preparation of its Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, the Plan recommends a close analy- sis be made of different widths appropriate for these dif- ferent street functions: 1. Primary Streets, 2. Local Streets in Commercial, Industrial and Multi- Family Residential Districts, and 3. Local Streets in Other Residential Districts. Nationally, standards for street widths are calling for narrower cartways as a means of reducing maintenance ex- pense and reducing peak storm water run-off. Spring Town- ship should attempt to reduce its requirements while remaining compatible with standards set by PennDOT. J Street Connections. Another important requirement for new developments in Spring Township will be to provide, when applicable, the primary street connections as recommended

9-9 in the Transportation Plan contained in Chapter 7 and as displayed on Map 7-1. These connections cannot be an op- tional matter; they are absolutely necessary to provide for adequate future traffic circulation and if not pro- vided upon initial development of a given tract the oppor- tunity will be lost forever. J Curbs should be provided at the edge of all street cart- ways in all residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts. By channeling stormwater, curbing helps reduce street maintenance costs by reducing erosion and prevent- ing the breaking-away of asphalt at the edge of the cart- way. Slant-faced concrete curbing is preferred to either square faced concrete, or rolled asphalt curbing. J Sidewalks should be provided on at least one side of all new streets in residential districts and on both sides in commercial and industrial districts. Sidewalks may be constructed of either concrete or asphalt. J Pedestrian Paths located away from street rights-of-way could be substituted for, or provided in addition to, sidewalks. Such paths would be particularly appropriate in a development where connection to off-site locations such as any park, the Township building, the Pleasant Gap Ele- mentary School, the Village of Pleasant Gap, or Bellefonte Borough can be achieved. /Bicycle Paths. Bellefonte Borough has a planned bicycle system; as does nearby College Township. Benner Township plans to investigate the feasibility of connecting to these systems as part of its Subdivision and Land Develop- ment approval process. Spring Township needs to do like- wise, particularly with regard to potential Bellefonte Borough bicycle paths. J Storm Drainaae Systems are being provided in Spring's cur- rent residential developments -- generally in the form of surface drainage and piping to a storm water detention ba- sin for timed return to the natural drainage system. The Plan proposes that all development plans -- regardless of site size -- make provisions for storm drainage with em- phasis upon underground rather than surface systems and thus in turn increasing groundwater recharge rather than surface run-off. J Recreation Contributions. Residential developments have an obligation to provide for an appropriate share of public recreational facilities. Normally developers are given the option of providing land for recreational usage or a fee, on a per lot basis, in lieu of land contribution as part of their developments. The Plan recommends that this policy be included in the revised Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. 9 - 10 J Plavlots are generally considered substitutes for backyard play sites in higher density residential neighborhoods. The Plan proposes that developers of higher density sites in the Township's Multi-Family and Village Residential zoning districts provide playlots, but that such playlots remain privately owned and maintained.

Impact Fees / Off-Site Improvements. Many states currently authorize charging developers "impact fees" for anticipated public ex- penditures, primarily schools, utilities, and transportation. Pennsylvania is not one of these states and at the present time does not authorize the charging of impact fees. Howev- er, case law in the Commonwealth has permitted limited off- site improvements where there is an off-site impact clearly the result of a particular development. The installation, by the developer, of a signal light at the entrance to a land development project having expectations of extremely high volumes of traffic is a good example of an appropriate off- site improvement. In the court's terminology there is a "nexus" or direct connection between the development and the cause of a particular problem. A good example of an impact fee not now permitted is the previously very common practice of charging a "tapping fee" for connection to a community's water or sewer system; the proceeds of such fee to be used for future improvements to the system. The Plan proposes that until authorized by the State Legisla- ture, Spring Township not impose impact fees for any general public purpose. At the same time the Township must be alert to circumstances when off-site improvements are warranted and can in turn be deemed to be the responsibility of an individ- ual developer . J Off-Site Traffic Improvements. Because of expected con- tinued growth, Spring is a community with potential for off-site traffic improvements. Those areas most likely to require attention will be the several State routes passing through the Township; the Benner Pike (PA 150), East Col- lege Avenue (PA 26 and 64), Water Street (PA 550), Zion Road (PA 550), and PA 144. Examples of appropriate cir- cumstances for off-site traffic improvements include: 1. Improvements to problem intersections heavily impacted by a particular development; or 2. Improvements the Township's existing primary streets heavily impacted by a particular development. J Off-Site Water and Sewer Improvements. Developers must also be made responsible for off-site water and sewer im- provements when one of the following circumstances exists: 1. New off-site water mains must be installed to provide adequate service to a proposed development;

9 - 11 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

2. New off-site sanitary sewer interceptors must be installed to provide adequate service to a proposed development; 3. Existing off-site water mains or sewer interceptors are of insufficient capacity and either must be re- placed or supplemented with a parallel line in order to provide adequate service to a proposed development: 4. Construction of new water supply storage tanks, sewer pumping stations, or any similar facility in order to provide adequate service to a proposed development.

PUBLIC PROJECTS

Considerations. -- Private developers can not and should not bear the entire responsibility for providing future public improve- ments in Spring Township. There are some projects and tasks upon which the Township must take the lead.

Recommendations. -- Following are recommendations to carry out several major projects proposed in previous chapters of this Plan including revenue sources. 0 Construction of a New Townshit, Building. The P1 an proposes in Chap- ter 8 to replace the existing Township Building with a new on-site structure. The financial responsibility for this project lies clearly with the Township. Funding assistance for such projects is generally not available, thus the Town- ship must be prepared to take full financial responsibility. 0 BellefonteRinrr Road. Chapter 7 (See page 7-17) proposes that a two lane ring road be constructed in Spring Township around Bellefohte Borough. This road is proposed to be con- structed in sections by landowners whose properties lie along its proposed alignment as shown on Map 7.1. Each sec- tion would be built at the time each landowner chooses to develop his land. There are circumstances, however, when Township involvement may be required to complete this pro- posed road, and the Township will need to carefully consid- er what circumstances are appropriate. Some possibilities:

(1) Service. As result of some unusual condition, the Town- 1 ship may find it desirable to construct a given sec- tion of road in a cooperative venture with a developer. (2) Leqal. Circumstances may arise where the Township may be required to exercise its right of eminent domain in order that a particularly necessary rights-of-way be made available for construction. (3) Financial. Dependency upon the indefinite plans of in- dividual land owners to complete this long section of road carries no certainty of completion. It thus may be 9 - 12 J necessary in the long run for the Township to build one or more "missing links" in order that the road become useful as a through connection.

I, 0 OtherPrimaw Streets. Chapter 7 also proposes the construction of eight other new primary streets in Spring Township. (See page 7-18) These roads too are proposed to be constructed I' by landowners whose properties lie along their proposed alignment (See page 9-9), but are not as ambitious as the proposed Bellefonte Ring Road. In most instances only one or two property owners are involved in a single project, making the prospect of completion much easier. But again there could be circumstances when Township involvement may be required to complete a particular road as proposed, and the Township will need to carefully consider its responsi- bil i ties.

LOANS. GRANTS AND OTHER PROGRAMS There are several public financing programs sponsored and admin- istrated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that have particular relevance for Spring Township. Five of these programs are brief- ly described below. 0 Agricultural Securitv Area Law. One important goal of this Compre- hensive Plan is the promotion of agriculture in all four Town- ships of the Nittany-Valley, including Spring. (See Chapter VI, page 6-4; and Chapter VII, page 7-3.) Without doubt the decision whether to farm or not to farm is the choice of each owner, but the Township has a role to make the continuance of agriculture as easy a decision as possible for farmers in Spring Township. One way is the support of the Pennsylvania Agricultural Security Area Law (Act 43 of 1981). Although enacted in 1981, Act 43 was not funded until approved by voter referendum in November 1987. Centre County is imple- menting the provisions of the Act, and one of a number of Centre County Agricultural Security Areas is located in Spring Township. Participating farmers do so on a voluntary basis. After an Agricultural Security Area has been created, partici- pating landowners are entitled to special consideration from local and state government agencies. Modifications should be made to such things as: 1. Nuisance Laws. "Any municipal . . . ordinance defining or prohibiting a public nuisance shall exclude from the defi- nition of such nuisance any agricultural activity or opera- tion conducted using normal fanning operations within an i agricultural [security] area . . . if such agricultural ac- i tivity or operation does not bear a direct relationship to the public health and safety."l

1 Aaricultural Area Security Law, Section ll(b). 9 - 13 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

2. State Aqency Administrative Rules. "It shall be the policy of all Commonwealth agencies to encourage the maintenance of viable farming in agricultural areas and their adminis- trative regulations and procedures shall be modified to this end . . . 1' 1 3. Eminent Domain Procedures. Before farmland can be condemned and taken by a state or local government agency for a pub- lic project, the State Agricultural Lands Condemnation Ap- proval Board must determine that there are no reasonable or prudent alternatives to the taking of farmland. If any taking is proposed by any agency other than a state agency approval must also be obtained from the Agricultural Area Advisory Committee, the Township Supervisors, and the Centre County Commissioners.2 The simplified procedures for establishing an Agricultural Area are as follows: 1. A proposal is initiated by the owners of at least 500 acres of agricultural land. While Spring Township already has one Agricultural Area, additional areas are possible. The land area need not be contiguous. 2. The proposal is publicly advertised. 3. The proposal is reviewed by the Township Planning Commis- sion and the Township Agricultural Area Advisory Committee. 4. A public hearing is held on the proposal by the Township Supervisors. 5. Considering the reviews and the public hearing, the Super- visors either adopt the proposal, reject the proposal, or adopt the proposal with modifications. If adopted, a de- scription of the proposed area must be filed with the Centre County Recorder of Deeds and the Township Planning Commission. 6. Once adopted, the Area is effective for seven years. At the end of seven years it must undergo review and land may be added or deleted as may be appropriate. The Agricultural Security Area Law provides another important provision: the purchase of development rights upon farm prop- erties included within any agricultural area. Under this sec- tion of Act 43 a farm owner may sell his development rights, providing two conditions are met: 1. The land is part of an existing Agricultural Area; and 2. Both Township and County approval are received. Under current state guidelines for the purchase of development rights, the farm owner would receive ten percent of the dif-

1 Aqricultural Area Security Law, Section 12. 2 Aqricultural Area Security Law, Section 13. 9 - 14 J IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

ferential value of his property for development versus agri- culture if the sale is limited to twenty-five years; but sev- enty percent of the same differential, if the sale is permanent. When development rights are purchased, usually by a government or nonprofit agency, owners are paid for the de- velopment rights, but retain ownership to the land and contin- ue to farm. The sale of development rights has tremendous potential use in the Nittany Valley because of its long term protection of farmland. In Spring Township the development rights of sever- al farms have already been acquired under this program.

0 ConservationEasements. Chapter I1 of this Plan describes in great detail the extensive natural features found in Spring Township. The most significant of these features were the slopes and forests of Bald Eagle and Nittany Mountains; the stream valleys of Spring Creek, Logan Branch, and Nittany Creek; and the rich soils and underlying limestone deposits located in a broad band across the.Nittany Valley. Chapter VI1 proposed that these defining features be preserved and maintained to the greatest degree possible. One method of maintaining land with environmentally sensitive or otherwise significant features is through conservation easements. An easement is a legal device in which a landowner conveys to another party certain rights to a specified portion of his property. Most easements involve vehicular or utility rights-of-way. A conservation easement is simply an easement that focuses upon a goal of perpetually maintaining a site in its natural state. Conservation easements are most often included as a covenant to a property deed. 1. Conservation easements can be sold or gifted to a second party. 2. Conservation easements always contain covenants defining the limitations upon the property. 3. These covenants must declare the party responsible for the property's maintenance; whether the owner's estate or a designated third party, such as a homeowners association or a conservancy.1

1 A conservancy is a non-profit organization whose primary func- tion is to maintain conservation areas. The Western Pennsyl- vania Conservancy (WPC) headquartered in Pittsburgh is a good example of a prominant conservancy. The WPC focuses upon issues and lands having state or national significance, owning and maintaining approximately 7,000 acres of environmentally sensitive land throughout the Commonwealth, including Falling- water, Architect Frank Lloyd Wright's renown work located in Fayette County. The WPC completed a natural areas inventory of Centre County in early 1992. 9-15 4. The best conservation easements will: (1) Place property management responsibility with a respon- sible party such as a conservancy; (2) Always contain explicit covenants defining the limita- tions upon the property; and (3) Ensure responsible long-term management that includes a careful inventory of existing conditions, periodic mon- itoring and regular upkeep. There are incentives for a property owner to voluntarily place conservation easements upon some or even all of his land. These are2 1. A potential lowering of property taxes; 2. A tax deduction resulting from the donation; 3. A re.lease from maintenance responsibility; 4. The reward of knowing that a revered parcel will be forever protected; and 5. For a developer it represents a vehicle for responsibly disposing of land following the completion of development. Spring Township can provide some incentive in its zoning Ordi- nance by either encouraging or requiring future residential de- velopments to cluster their buildings thus leaving substantial amounts of open space. This open space could be dedicated to a property owners association, to the Township or County, or to a conservancy for management or maintenance. In Centre County, the Clearwater Conservancy1 is prepared to fill this role. The Clearwater Conservancy (CWC)is a private, volunteer, non- profit organization whose geographic focus is Centre County. The Conservancy's primary goal2 is: "To promote the conservation of natural resources of Centre County with particular emphasis upon: 1. Biological diversity and ecological integrity, 2. Quality and quantity of surface and subsurface water resources; and 3. Landscape integrity, including natural areas, ecologically sensitive areas, farmlands and forest lands. The CWC, in cooperation with the Department of Landscape Ar- chitecture of The Pennsylvania State University, is currently preparing an inventory entitled: "Natural, Historic, & Scenic Resources of the Spring Creek Corridor: Opportunities for Con- servation, Enhancement and Education."

1 The Clearwater Conservancy; P.O. Box 163, State College, PA; Donald W. Hamer, President. 2 The two remaining goals of the Clearwater Conservancy are the "Preservation of cultural and historic resources" and the "Promotion of awareness and education." 9 - 16 .I IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

0 PennDOT Hinhwav Transfer Propram. The primary objective of Penn- DOT'S Highway Transfer Program is to reduce the more than 8,000 miles included within the State Highway System that are classified by function as local roads. This objective is achieved by transferring maintenance responsibility from the State to the local municipality in which they are located. The program is voluntary. More than 3,700 miles of state highways have already been transferred under this program. Chapter 95 of the Vehicle Code, titled "Taxes for Highway Maintenance and Construction" of Act 1983-32, provides for the annual deposit of three mills of taxes (estimated current rev- enue $16 million) into the State Highway Transfer Restoration Restricted Account (SHTRRA). These monies and the balance of funds from the prior Fiscal Year are to be expended on func- tionally local highways transferred from the State Highway System to local municipalities for rehabilitation projects and for an Annual Maintenance Allocation (AMA) of $2500 per mile. The first obligation of the revenues deposited each year into the SHTRR Account is payment of the AMA to local municipali- ties for highways already transferred. The balance is distrib- uted for use in improving of the group of functionally local highways not yet transferred. In Centre County 41 miles of road have been turned back since the beginning of the transfer program. Included in this 41 miles are Fox Hill and Rock Roads in Benner Township, Hecla Mountain Road in Walker Township, and Jacksonville Road in Spring Township. In Spring Township the following additional State roads are considered appropriate for transfer to Spring Township's jurisdiction: SR2002 Airport Road SR3006 Coleville Road

0 Utilitv Grants and Loans. Grants through the Pennsylvania Depart- ment of Environmental Resources (DER) for water and sewer projects currently emphasize the correction of existing health problems, and do not include funding for system expansion. State low interest loan programs offer greater possibilities for assistance in the funding of public utilities. Two Penn- sylvania programs that may have some potential for utility ex- pansion Centre County are PENNVEST and BID.

1 The Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PEN- "EST) is an initiative to fund drinking and wastewater im-

I provements throughout the Commonwealth. PENNVEST offers I 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 i projects including filtration, treatment, source, storage and f 9 - 17 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

distribution. Wastewater projects including treatment, infil- tration, rehabilitation, new collector sewers, new interceptor sewers and combined sewer overflows are also funded under PEN- NVEST. The Business Infrastructure Development Program (BID) is a program offered by the Department of Commerce, providing as- sistance for infrastructure improvements to complement indus- trial investment by private companies. BID assistance is administered in the form of grants and no or low-interest loans. 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. Currently, low-interest loans made on behalf of projects in Centre County are at interest rates of seven and three (in enterprise zones) percent. Eligible applicants for BID funds include local governments, industrial development authorities or corporations and munici- pal authorities. Private companies that are eligible to re- ceive assistance include agricultural, industrial, manufacturing and R & D Enterprises. Eligible BID projects encompass drainage systems, energy facility, fire and safety facilities, sewer systems, transportation facilities, waste 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 jobs must be created within three years, and further, one job must be created for every $15,000 of BID funds .

0 RecreationGrants. The preparation of recreation plans, or the purchase of new recreation sites in the Township can be par- tially funded by the "Recreational Improvement and Rehabilita- tion Act Program (RIRA)" administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Recreation and Con- servation.1 There are four types of projects that can be funded under the RIRA program:

1 The Recreational Improvement and Rehabilitiation Act (Act 106 of 1984) empowered the Department of Community Affairs to I implement a three-year program of financial assistance to municipalities for various types of projects. Act 55 of 1987 and Act 66 of 1990 extended the RIRA program. Funding is provided through annual budget appropriations. 9 - 18 1. Technical Assistance Grant Projects include grants for com- prehensive studies of recreation, park and open space re- sources and needs, feasibility studies, natural areas inventories, and master site plans. Under this project grouping, Spring Township could begin a park and recreation program by applying for a grant to assist in the prepara- tion of a Township-wide Park and Recreation Plan as pro- posed on page 8-4. 2. Acquisition Proiects include the purchase of land for pub- lic park, recreation, and open space areas. Projects may include acquisition of land for new areas; inholdings or buffer areas at existing sites; preservation of critical wildlife habitats, including wetlands; and protection of historic or scenic open space areas. This could be an im- portant funding resource for Spring Township to purchase properties previously identified as appropriate recreation and open space sites under paragraph 1 above. 3. Park Rehabilitation & Development Projects include the re- habilitation of existing parks and facilities, as well as the construction of new facilities on public recreation lands. This project grouping could help fund the future development of Spring Township recreation facilities. 4. Small Communities/Small Proiects are a special component of RIRA for communities with a population less than 4,000. Spring Township does not qualify. Following are the terms of RIM grants: 1. Eligible Applicants: Municipal governing body or authority. 2. Public Participation: Prior to submission of a grant appli- cation, the applicant must provide the general public an opportunity to comment on the proposed project. 3. Required Certifications: (1) Nondiscrimination. (2) Environmental. I: (3) Handicapped Access. 4. Floodplain Management: The Township must be in compliance I- with the Pennsylvania Floodplain Management Act (Act 166). 5. Matching Funds: Grants can not exceed 50% of the eligible costs. 6. Thing of Funding: (1) The Commonwealth provides approximately 50% of the approved grant amount upon execution. (2) The Applicant must temporarily fund the remainder of the project through completion. (3) The Commonwealth will make final payment of the balance of the grant upon successful completion of the project and payment of all project costs.

9 - 19 J 1 j

9-20