Mercer County Comprehensive Plan
October 1995 I I Pw&A&&- .. Mercer County Comprehensive Plan I I I I I t 1 t I I I I 1 I
I The preparation of this report was financed in part by a SPAG grant from the Department of Community Affairs under the provisions of Act 6A approved June 16, 1994, as administered by 4 the Bureau of Community Planning, Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. /I .I Table of Contents
I Acknowledgments Historic resources ...... 49 Cultural resources ...... 50
I 9- Prospects for Growth ...... 52 Future growth potential ...... 52 Introduction ...... 1 Population projections ...... 53 I Why a comprehensive plan? ...... 1 Legal status of a comprehensive plan ...... 1 Two phases ...... 2 P& %e4z4+s I Livable communities theme ...... 2 Policy Plan process ...... 3 Regional Public Meetings ...... 55 Planning regions ...... 4 Major issues ...... 55 1 Livable communities ...... 55 Lakeview regional public meeting ...... 56 74& 3U44u Shenango Valley regional public meeting .... 58
I Existing Land Use .... Public Opinion Survey ...... 60 Land use analysis .... Major issues ...... 60 Subdivision activity . . Livable communities ...... 62 I Agricultural activity . . Regional perspectives ...... 63 Representativeness of the survey ...... 63 Demographics ...... 13 I Population characteristics ...... 13 Households ...... 19 I 23 Purpose of the Policy Plan ...... 65 23 How developed ...... 65 1 Mercer County Housing Commission findings 24 Purpose and use ...... 65 Economic Characteristics ...... 31 Vision Statement ...... 67 Employment trends ...... 3 1 Ingredients for livable communities ..67 Unemployment ...... 33 Industrial growth ...... 35 Policy Objectives . ..68 Availability Of industrial sites ...... 35 General policy objective on gro Retail trade ...... 36 1 Income & poverty ...... 37 Findings of the Mercer County C.E.R.P study 40
1 Community Faciliti Water facilities ... Sanitary sewer systems Agriculture ...... 71 I Miscellaneous ...... 71 Natural, Historic 8 Cultural Resources . . 46 Planning & land use controls ...... 72 Physical Features ...... 46 Natural resources ...... Appendix 1 1 List of Maps 1 Map Following Page
I Planning Regions , . . . . , ...... , , , , ...... , . , ...... , ...... 4 L Mercer County Generalized Land Use , , ...... , . , ...... , . , . . . . . 6 Shenango Valley Generalized Land Use , ...... 6
I Land Use Transition Areas...... , , ...... 6
I Water Systems Service Areas...... , ...... , . , ...... 44
Sanitary Sewer Systems Service Areas, , ...... , , ...... , . . . . . 44
I TopographicFeatures ...... 46 I Soils ...... 46 I Agricultural Security Areas ...... , . , , ...... , . , , ...... 50 1 I I I I I I I I Acknowledgments I Mercer County set out early to make the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan a publicly-owned and publicly-driven project. The Policy Plan involved literally hundreds of public officials, agency 1 representatives, private business people and interested citizens. This progressive group, leaders all, gave much of their precious time and effort towards a goal of planning for livable communities c and for a better Mercer County future. Mercer County Board of Commissioners who stand committed to planning and I achieving a high quality of life for Mercer County citizens: Ohia M. Lazor, Chairperson William M. Reznor 1 Joseph F. Fragle John G.Johnson 8 Mercer County Regional Planning Commission which embodies regional planning I and cooperation and provided valuable input at various stages of the Policy Plan: Albert W. Law - New Vernon, Mary A. Ziegler - New Lebanon Chairman Edward Bowman - Sandy Lake I James L. Hogan - Jefferson, Robert W. Kaltenbaugh - Sandy Lake Vice Chairman John P. Alfred0 - Sharpsville I Burroughs Price, Jr. - Greenville, Rocco DelFratte - Sharpsville Secretary Brian Reiser - Stoneboro Richard A. Mackell - Grove City, Samuel A. Scott - Stoneboro 1 Treasurer Linda Bollinger - West Middlesex William Morocco - Farrell David G.George, Jr. - West Middlesex Jerry Miller - Farrell Mary Jane Cusick - Wheatland 1 Gary Nitch - Hermitage Ray Foster - Wheatland James A. Rollinson - Hermitage John B. Courtney - Findley James "Pat" White - Hermitage Earl E. Sealand - Findley I Leo A. Hanky - Sharon Russell L. Dawes - Hempfield Fred Hoffman - Sharon Mary Gealy - Jackson Patricia Miller - Sharon W. Jerry Vernam - Jackson I Emma Jane Cubbison - Clark Joanne Brown - Jefferson Harold R. Zook - Clark Frank Cochran - New Vernon Dorothy Hillman - Fredonia Richard Straub - Otter Creek e Dennis C. Cascio - Greenville Paulette Young - Otter Creek Clifford McCandless - Grove City Richard Marshall - Perry I Walter Klingensmith - Jamestown Fred Brenner - Pine Darryl Pinney - Jamestown Thomas B. Miller - Pine Brian Hope - Mercer George J. Fiedler, Jr. - Pymatuning I Howard T. Lippold - Mercer George W. Lescisin - Pymatuning Janice Good - New Lebanon Scott Campbell - Shenango I
Mike Sabo - Shenango Dean Alexander - Mercer County 1 James Fitzpatrick - South Pymatuning Ronald Banjak - Mercer County Michael Nashtock - South Pymatuning Freida Eakman - Mercer County Richard Dillaman - Springfield Ethel Friede - Mercer County 1 Harold M. IfR - Springfield Herbert E. King - Mercer County Jeff Hoy - Wilmington Gail G. Moon - Mercer County Carol Kaufman - Wilmington Marta Nagel - Mercer County I Jim Dickson - Wolf Creek Olivia M. Lazor - Mercer County Jim Doersch - Wolf Creek I 0 Mercer County Regional Planning Commission Staff which worked hard developing this plan, mixing its expertise with the visions and opinions of many stakeholders: I Dennis G. Puko, Executive Director Carmen L. Reichard, Grants Admin. Richard R. Darko, Assistant Director Margaret B. Heldorfer, Draftsperson I Julie M. Slater, Senior Planner Marilyn Ciprich, Admin. Secretary Daniel M. Gracenin, Planner Evelyn Wike, Secretary Steven L. Tingley, Planner 1
Visioning Committee, largely responsible for drafting the vision and policy objectives and for instilling "common sense" in this work. (A list of names and affiliations of the 52-member 1 committee is included in the Appendix.) I 0 Municipal Mapping Services, Inc., the consultant who performed computer-based land use mapping, land use trend analysis and other mapping included in this report - John G. Dulski, project manager. I
0 Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs which provided funding, direction, advice and continued support: 1 Dallas A. Dollase, Director Anthony J. Mottle, Planning Analyst Bureau of Community Planning Erie Regional Ofice 1
0 And last but no least, the regional public meeting participants, citizens who responded to the public opinion survey and the many agency/govemment/private-sector representatives, all of 1 whom provided input critical to the future vision contained in this plan. 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I Mercer County Comprehensive Plan 1 1 1 I t 1 I I I 1 11 II Introduction I I Introduction
I Mercer County Regional Planning Commission undertook the development of the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan in order to help shape the kind of future that Mercer County residents desire. The plan serves as a guide for public and private decision-making that will shape hture growth, 1 development, land use and community character. This plan recognizes that most decisions regarding the use of land are private concerns of 1 individuals, This plan also recognizes that decisions affecting public facilities, public costs and the overall quality of life involve more than one individual. They must take into account the concerns of the community at-large and the interests of future citizens who will inherit the lands, resources t and problems we leave behind. 1 Why a comprehensive plan? The impetus to develop a new countywide comprehensive plan originated with the 1991 Mercer 1 County Strategic Plan. Two objectives in the Strategic Plan called for preparation of a county land use plan and coordinated, regional land use policies and controls. The overriding goal, said the 1SO+ community leaders who wrote the Strategic Plan, is "to improve the standardof riving 1 and quality of Ive for Mercer County citizens",
The Mercer County Regional Planning Commission, in its MCRZ'C 2000 self-evaluation and 1 organization plan, stated that the Commission should be doing more and better planning to enhance the county's future. It noted that it is a tragedy to maintain the status quo and fail to set 1 and pursue new goals for the betterment of communities. Lastly, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (Act 247 of 1968 as amended by Act 170 of 1988 and hrther amendments) requires that all counties "shall ... prepare andadopta I conipreherrsiveplan". While Mercer County does have a comprehensive plan (prepared in seven volumes and a summary from 1973 to 1975), it is outdated and was never adopted by the Mercer t County Board of Commissioners. I Legal status of a comprehensive plan Under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, a comprehensive plan is only an advisory document. It is not itself a development ordinance or zoning map and does not contain any rules I or regulations.
The state planning code does, however, encourage consistency between a county comprehensive 1 plan and municipal plans and actions as follows: Introduction 2
Municipal comprehensive plans shall be generally consistent with the county plan
Certain municipal actions involving streets, watercourses, watedsewer facilities and public buildings and grounds must be submitted to the county planning agency for review.
0 Adoption, amendment or repeal of any comprehensive plan, official map, subdivision ordinance or zoning ordinance must be submitted to the county planning agency for review
Certain school district actions involving school buildings and land must be submitted to the county planning agency for review.
In addition to these planning code requirements, some government grants or permits require a determination that the associated activity is generally in conformance with a county comprehensive plan. Two phases
The Mercer County Comprehensive Plan is divided into two phases: ,i
0 Policy Plan phase (this document) which identifies the major issues affecting land use, growth and development, sets forth a vision of Mercer County's future and lists broad policy objectives designed to realize that vision, all based on a consensus of the public and community leaders. The policy objectives stand as policy "positions" on critical issues.
0 Actions 8 Strategies Plan phase (to follow this work) which will recommend short- range and long-range strategies to achieve the vision and implement policy objectives of the Policy Plan. Focal points will be a land use plan and map, suggestions for improvements to local zoning and subdivisiodand development ordinances, plus suggestions for publiclprivate investments to improve waterhewer facilities, transportation, housing, etc. Livable communities theme
The theme of both phases of the Comprehensive Plan is 'Planningfor Livable Communities". The highest priority is placed on defining what will make Mercer County communities better places to live, work and play.
A "visioning" process was used to define livability The Mercer County Regional Planning Commission brought together representatives of diverse interests and the general public to create a vision. Participants were asked to envision what characteristics of their community make it a good place to live and what changes are desired to make it a better place to live. The result was a public consensus on aspirations and values set forth as a guiding beacon to drive the remainder of the planning process. I I
I Introduction 3 I Policy Plan process The accompanying graph gives a quick view of the process utilized in development of the Policy I Plan. It included: I 0 Trends 8 Issues - The Mercer County Regional Planning Commission staff collected data on trends in existing land use, demographics, housing, economic characteristics, community facilities I and natural, historical and cultural resources. A consultant, Municipal Mapping Services, Inc., was utilized to map existing land use from 1993 aerial photographs and field checks. MMS digitized the 1993 land use, digitized the 1973 land use taken From the 1973-75 I Mercer County Comprehensive Plan then analyzed trends between the old and new data. The end product was a summary of major issues affecting land use, growth and I development. - The MCRPC staff contacted government officials, agency representatives and other community leaders for their input on major issues affecting land use, growth and 1 development. These persons were also invited to serve on the visioning committee.
- The full Mercer County Regional Planning Commission and invited public and officials 1 reviewed the work to date at the Commission's annual dinner meeting in December 1994.
1 0 Public Forum - The MCRPC staff staged regional public meetings at four different locations in the county I in late-January and early-February. All meetings were advertised via the local media and direct mailings to potentially interested persons and organizations. Meeting participants were asked their opinion about major issues affecting land use, growth and development I and ingredients that make for livable communities. Visioning committee members were recruited at the public meetings. I - MCRF'C conducted a public opinion survey sent to a random and representative sample of Mercer County households. The survey asked for opinions on major issues as identified at the public meetings and via MCRPC research. The survey also asked how important I certain factors, such as jobs, recreation, sound housing or open space, are to more livable communities. Visioning committee members were consulted to suggest questions to be 1 included in the survey. The survey form invited citizens to join the visioning committee. - Findings from the regional meetings and public opinion survey were reviewed at a regular 1 meeting of the full Mercer County Regional Planning Commission. 11 ~I I
Introduction 4 1 Policy Plan i The first visioning committee meeting was held in May 1995. The committee reviewed background material from MCRPC research, the public meetings and the public opinion survey. With aid from the MCRPC staff, the committee prepared an acceptable vision 1 statement and about three dozen draft policy objectives. AAerward, the draft objectives were mailed to all committee members for review and priority ranking. I The second visioning committee was held in June 1995. The committee flirther debated the policy objectives including new ones injected by the MCRPC staff. The objectives were fine-tuned and accepted as they appear in this Policy Plan. I
The full Mercer County Regional Planning Commission reviewed and endorsed the Policy Plan at a special meeting in June 1995. I MCRPC submitted the Policy Plan for review to all of the county's 48 municipalities and 9 I countywide organizations involved in community development. Endorsements came back from 37 of the 48 municipalities and 8 of the 9 organizations. I The Mercer County Board of Commissioners culminated the review process by endorsing the Policy Plan at its October 26, 1995 meeting. I Planning regions
For purposes of this plan and analysis of trends and issues, the county was divided into five I planning regions (see accompanying map). Each region includes one of the county's five urbadeconomic centers plus surrounding area. The five regions are: I Southeast region - Grove City center and surrounding area. Southwest region - Shenango Valley center and surrounding area. I Northwest region - Greenville center and surrounding area. Northeast region - Sandy LakdStoneboro center and surrounding area. Central region - Mercer center and surrounding area. 1 I I I I I
Policy Plan Development Process
Mercer County Comprehensive Plan
Trends 8 Issues Public Forum Policy Plan 7Sept. to Dec. 1994.- Jan. to Apr. 19951May to Oct. 1995-1
MCRPC Contacts Regional Staff wlth public Public collects - omciais. meetings at - opinion data a agencles, 4 different survey Information etc. Ioca t io ns
Visionlng Visioning survey Visioning questions committee committee mall survey, members Input trom members vlsloning objectives' recruited committee nprlorities I I 1 I I I I I I Mercer County Comprehensive Plan I C I I I I I I I I Existing Land Use 5 '0 Existing Land Use
I Land use analysis
The Mercer County Land Use Maps of 1973 and 1993 were created from aerial photography. I Aerial photography from 1993 and 1968 was digitized and field investigated to produce the maps. The maps represent eight (8) different major land use categories. The area represented by these categories was then analyzed to assess the changes which took place in Mercer County land use I over the past twenty years, calculations were performed using area data for each category of use, and the results analyzed in terms ofthe trends they suggest. The area data used included 1973 I and 1993 total area figures and area figures for each category of use. From this data, the following calculations were made: I % Total area - This figure represents the percent of the total county land area occupied by each category of use. Since the total area is a constant, this allows for comparisons of I categories between time periods to be made. % Change - This figure represents the change in area of each category of use from 1973 to I 1993. It compares the rate ofgrowth for each use relative to itself. The following maps and table reveal several observations about land use trends:
I All higher intensity, urban development type land uses (residential, commercial, industrial, public & semi-public) increased in land area.
I Residential land grew by 46%. As noted in the Housing chapter, this occurred despite a loss of population. The number ofhousing units grew by 21% from 1970-90. Plus, this new growth, being mostly lower density suburban and rural, consumed more land per house than past residential development. I Commercial land grew by 33%. New growth occurred in suburban shopping developments, particularly in Hermitage. (Note: Vacated commercial buildings were counted as commercial land use. Thus, the loss of retail establishments from 1972-1992 as noted in the Economic Characteristics chapter and vacancy of some downtown businesses is not reflected in the land I' use figures.) Industrial land grew by 24%. This is reflective of the more recent growth of industry as noted in the Economic Characteristics chapter. (Note: Vacated industrial facilities such as Westinghouse and parts of the former Sharon Steel were counted as industrial land use and are not reflected in the land use growth figures.) I I
Existing Land Use 6 I Significant growth ofwoodlands occurred between 1973 and 1993. Growth amounted to over 70,000 acres. Woodlands in 1993 occupied over half the county land area. 0
0 Other land uses decreased by 35%. A major component of other land use is agricultural land which, as noted later in this chapter, has experienced declines in recent years. 1
0 The Land Use Transition Areas map shows areas in which land uses have changed between 1973 and 1993. I I Mercer County Land Use 1973 and 1993 Comparison I I 1 I I I I 1 152,36430 35.35% -34.81% I I I 430,999.57 100.00% 0.00% I I I 1 (Other includes land not classified as any of the separately identified land uses. A major portion of other land use is active agricultural land. Such was not mapped as a separate classification because of questionable identification of non-crop agricultural use from aerial photographs.) I Source: Municipal Mapping Services, Inc. & Mercer County Regional Planning Commission I I'
I ExIs/iiig Land Use 7 I Mercer County Land Use 1973 esidenlial (4.76%) ommercial (0 34%) I P r",,.,,,,,m 57%) meerealion 6 Public Own Space 13.09%) I I OIher (54.22%) --Woodland (35.91 I
I ineral Exfraction (0.66%)
I Source: MCRPC
I Mercer County Land Use 1993 Residenlial (6.96%) r ,-Commercial 10.45%) I blic 6 Semi-Public (0.48%] Resrealioo h Public Open ce (3.53%)
I Other (35 I I Mi! Extraction I Woodland (52.36%) I Source: MCRPC I'
Existing Land Use 8 I Subdivision activity 1 0 In most cases in Mercer County, the subdivision of a lot or lots corresponds with future development activity. Subdivision activity is regulated by the Mercer County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance in thirty-eight (38) municipalities of the county. Ten (10) I municipalities have their own local subdivision and land development ordinance and one (1) has adopted the county ordinance by reference. Twenty-six (26) municipalities have local zoning ordinances which also regulate land use and land development. I'
0 Mercer County experienced a large drop in the number of new lots during the 1980's but the 1 subdivision activity again increased in the late 1980's and early 1990's.
0 Mercer County subdivision activity peaked in the late 1970's The increase in the new lots in I the county corresponds with the increase in the percent of total county area occupied by residential uses. - I Lots Subdivided in Mercer County 800 750 I 700 ~650 ~600 I 4 550 s500 2450 I E400 J,350 2300 I 2250 E200 =150 I1 100 4 50 0 1 I 19h 19i7 19b 1&9 1& 1&1 1&2 l&3 1& 1&5 1& 1&7 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1593 Year -TOTAL I Source: MCRPClMunicipal Records 1 I 1 I I
I &istirig Larid Use 9
0 The southwest region, consisting of the cities of Hermitage, Farrell, Sharon and the boroughs I of Sharpsville, Wheatland, and West Middlesex, along with the townships of Wilmington and Shenango led the county in the number of new lots being created in Mercer County. Hermitage developed from a rural township to a city with dense residential, service and I industrial centers. I Subdivided Lots - Per Region 1976 to 1993 I 2400 2200 I $000 Ez 71 800 SouthEast Region E1 600 I $1 400 u) ~1200-I SI 000 I NorthEast Region 2 800 w z5 600 Central Region I 400 200 I 0 Regions
I Source: MCRPClMunicipal Records I I li I i 1 I 1
Existing Land Use IO 1 The majority of the new lots created in Mercer County since 1976 have been in the townships of Shenango, Hempfield, Pine, West Salem, Delaware and Pymatuning surrounding the urban a centers of Sharon-Hermitage, Greenville and Grove City. I 1 a Lots Subdivided in Mercer County 1976 to 1993 1 Number of Lots Subdlvlda m 435 -1 132 I m 290 - 434 1 227 - 289 I 154 - 228 I a 75 - 153 U 0 - 74 I I I Source: MCRPC/MunicipaI Records I 1 t I 1 Existing Land Use I I Agricultural activity
The increase in subdivision activity led to an awareness of shrinking available agricultural land. Eighteen (1 8) townships responded to increased development activity by creating Agricultural Security Areas.
Land in farms in Mercer County dropped drastically until the mid-1970's when it began to level out and remain consistent. Mercer County has always had a strong history of agriculture and a significant percentage of the total land area devoted to agriculture. The amount of farmland in Mercer County has stabilized around 180,000 acres.
Mercer County Land in Farms 1964 to 1993
Land in Farms Source: U.S. Bureau of Census Existing Land Use I2
The number of farms in Mercer County has dropped dramatically although the land in farms has remained consistent. The definition of a farm changed in the 1980's from ten (10) or more acres in agriculture to a property which profits $2000.00 or more in a calendar year from the sale of agricultural products grown on the same property. Since the late 1970's, less farmers have farmed approximately the same amount of farmland that earlier took many more traditional small farms.
m Number of Farms - 1976 to 1993 1900
1800 2 LL 1600 c L0 1500 01 =5 14w = 1300 1200
1100
IMX)
Number of Farms Source: US. Bureau of Census 1
I I
I Demographics 13 I
I The following chapter deals with the current demographic characteristics of Mercer County as presented in the 1990 U.S. Census. This information will provided the reader with background on the make-up of the population. For the purpose of this plan several of the demographics I characteristics have been broken down into distinct regions. The statistics that are presented deal with populations trends past and present, age, education and household make-up.
I Population characteristics
I 0 According to the 1992 Census Bureau estimates Mercer County has seen an increase of 1,089 residents since 1990, bringing the county total to 122,092. I Mercer County Population 1800 - 1992 est. 1 1OOOOO I
::::::::::::::::: I 1800 1840 1880 1920 1960 1992 Est. 1 Source: U.S.Bureau of Census I
0 This growth has not been centered in any one region, but has been spread throughout the I county 1970 1980 1990 1992est I County 127,225 128,299 121,003 122,092 Southeast 15,997 16,631 17,107 17,278 1 Southwest 67,281 63,607 57,683 57,978 Northwest 23,265 24,149 22,099 22,346 Northeast 7,669 8,837 8,652 8,673 I Central 13,013 15,075 15,462 15,817 Source: US. Bureau of Census m 1
Demographics I4 I
0 This increase in population is a very positive note considering that between 1980 and 1990 Mercer County lost 7,296 residents. Eighty-one percent of these people coming from the I southwest region, in which the Shenango Valley communities are represented.
0 Most of this loss can be attributed to the hard economic times faced by the heavy industrial E manufacturers, Le., National Castings and Westinghouse.
0 Two regions of the county, 1 the southeast and central, 1 Mercer County Population by Region have shown continual growth, even through the 70000 I 1980s. These regions did 60000 not depend on the heavy 50000 1 industrial base of the 40000 southwest and northwest 30000 regions, and therefore were 20000 not as susceptible to E 10000 economic decline as the remaining portions of the 0 I county. 1990 0 1992 est. i Source: U.S. Bureau of Census 8
0 Since 1960 Mercer County’is sixty-five+ population has I grown by 63%, following the national trend of an aging population. I
I t t 1 16000 1 ...... ,/ / u I 1960 1970 1980 1990 I - 65+ I Source: U.S. Bureau of Census 1 I Demographics I5 I Population Trends - by Region POPULATION TRENDS % CHNG. MUNICIPALITY GOVT 1970 1980 1990 1992est. 198&90 FEMALE 7MINORITIES 3 ~ ~~~~ ~ Wolf Creek Township 610 71... 1 653 635 -8.2% 322 2 0.3% Worth Township 767 893 rn 988 1.5% 460 6 0.7% Springfield Township 1.878 1.904 1.892 1,820 0.6% 941 22 1.2% I Pine Township 3,514 3.762 4,193 3.965 11.5% 1.967 240 5.7% Liberly Township 916 1.199 1,223 1.153 2.0% 521 1 0.1% Grove City Borough 6,312 6,162 8.240 8.717 1.0% 4.389 192 2.3% I Southeast 15.997 16,631 17,107 17.278 2.66% 8.700 463 2.7% Clark Borough 467 667 610 €04 -8.5% JM) 1 0.2% Farrell city 11.ooo 8.645 6.841 6.791 -20.9% 3,652 2,915 42.6% Henkage City 15,421 16,365 15:300 15;599 4.5% 8,150 472 3.1% I Lackawamk Township 1,974 2,814 2,677 2,652 4.9Y 1.318 21 0.8% Sharon City 22.653 19,057 17,493 17,397 -8.2% 9,332 1.668 9.5% Sharpsville Borough 6,126 5.375 4,729 4,774 -12.0% 2,549 155 3.3% Shenanga Township 3,141 4,399 4.339 4,359 -1.4U 2,171 136 3.1% South Pymatuning Township 2.973 3.016 2,775 2,856 -8.0% 1,391 21 0.8OA I West Middlesex Borough 1.293 1.064 982 1.M -7.746 545 22 2.2% Wheatiand 1.421 1.132 760 731 -32.9% 416 94 12.4% Wilmington Townshipearoush 812 1,073 1.177 1,215 9.7% 597 18 1.5% 1 Southwest 67,281 63,607 57.663 57.978 -9.3% 30,429 5,523 96% Greene Township 1.099 1,292 1,247 1,258 -3.5% 637 17 1.4% Salem Township 679 695 e78 697 -2.4% 321 0 0.0% Sugar Grove Township 1,029 1.153 987 1.048 -14.4% 492 3 0.3OA 1 West Salem Township 3,551 3.662 3,547 3,623 -8.2% 1,811 20 0.6% Hempfield Township 3,628 4.078 3,826 3.842 4.2% 2.027 48 1.3% mer Creek Township 585 605 583 588 -3.6% 295 13 2.256 Fymatuning Township 3.073 3.880 3.736 3,841 -3.7% 1.966 71 1.9% I Greenvilie Borough 8,704 7.730 6.734 6,689 -12.9% 3.594 162 2.4% Jamestown Borough 937 854 761 760 -10,9% 395 2 0.3% I Northwest 23,265 24,149 22,099 22.346 -8.5OA 11.5% 336 1.5OA Deer Creek Township 398 496 513 561 3.4% 251 0 0.0% French Creek Township 601 765 789 773 3.1% 411 1 0.1% Perry Township 1,368 1.597 1.458 1.470 -8.1% 717 19 1.3% New Lebanon Borough 211 197 209 213 6 1% 97 I n5%.. I New Vernon Township 402 476 493 472 3.6% 243 2 0.4% Mill Creek Township 466 587 M)4 616 2.9% 289 12 2.01 Lake Township 544 598 e51 621 8.9% 328 2 0.3% Sandy Lake Borough 772 779 722 729 -7.3% 393 3 0.4% I Sandy Lake Township 884 1,163 1,161 1,154 0.2% 582 6 05%~~ Stoneboro Borough 1,129 1,177 1.091 1.097 -73%... 577 13 1.2% Sandy Creek Township 753 e47 806 820 -4.8% 411 1 0.1% Sheaklepille Borough 141 155 145 147 4.546 73 0 0.0% I Northeast 7.669 8.837 8,652 8.673 -2.1% 4.372 60 0.7%
Delaware Township 1,663 2,205 2.064 2.185 -6.4% 983 6 0.3% East Lackawannock Township 1,314 1.709 1,W 1,597 -6.0% 814 34 2.1% FaiNiew Township 889 965 910 944 -5.7% 449 0 O.O'A Jackson Township 691 1.245 1,089 1,135 4.2% 534 15 1.4% Jefferson Township 1.623 2.007 1.998 2,001 -0.4OA 1.007 12 0.6OA Codwing Township 1.518 1.984 2,140 2.1M) 7.9% 1,091 35 1.6% I Jackson Center Borough 274 265 244 246 -7.9% 124 2 OPA Mercer B Borough 2.773 2,532 2,444 2.598 -3.5% 1.251 71 2.9% Fredonia Borough 731 712 683 688 -4.1% 347 1 0.1% Findley Township 1,337 1,651 2,204 2.263 38.3% 706 359 15.7% Central 13.013 15.075 15.462 15.817 2.6% 7.306 535 3.5% I
Demographics I6 1 Population Age - by Region I MEDIAN MUNICIPALITY Q4 5-14 1524 1 25-34 I 35-44 I 4554 I 55-64 I 65+ I AGE ] I I I Wolf Creek Township 43 8.Q.. 9s.. rni 102 119._ 53 72 35.0 Worth Township 49 155 113 142 139 87 98 123 34.7 Springfleld Township 130 310 278 281 303 189 179 222 33.4 Pine Township 244 595 702 587 555 416 442 652 34.5 4 Liberty Tovmship 70 164 154 156 201 153 140 155 37.2 Grove city Borough 369 775 2,720 898 748 576 615 1,539 28.0 Southeast 905 2.107 4,062 2,165 2.048 1.530 1,527 2,763 31.8 I Clark Borough 38 97 71 75 121 77 57 74 36.7 Farrell cw 435 871 799 866 882 578 825 1.585 39.8 Hermitage city 845 1.780 1.643 2.002 2.100 1.671 1.997 3,262 41.5 Lackawannock Township 247 407 408 456 387 310 213 249 30.9 1 Sharon City 1,244 2,210 2,320 2,638 2,265 1,643 1.764 3,429 36.4 Sharpsville Borough 306 593 521 711 630 461 Mo 1,007 38.4 Shenango Township 281 581 538 706 665 525 513 530 35.9 South Fymatuni Township 148 343 327 361 442 326 365 463 39.6 West Middiesex Borough 62 124 123 164 117 88 117 187 36.4 I Wheatland Borough 38 64 64 100 7R.- 73.. 136 207 49.9 Wilmington Township 114 239 159 147 175 io9 100 124 29.8 Southwest 3.758 7,309 6,953 8,226 7.862 5.861 6.587 11,127 38.3 1 Greene Township W 191 162 181 198 155~. 136 164 36.4 Salem Township 51 89 92 110 97 82 R7_. 7n._ 34.8 Sugar Grove Township 51 111 131 141 146 136 146 125 38.3 I West Salem Township 176 486 421 448 508 406 387 715 39.9 Hempfield Township 207 508 264 426 583 398 512 828 42.0 merCreek Township 46 64 60 114 61 67 64 67 34.2 hatuning Township 311 576 556 579 542 388 383 401 32.5 Greenville Borough 396 837 1,403 923 853 MKI 622 1,092 33.0 8 Jamestown Borough 49 103 107 100 111 94 58 139 37.3 Northwest 1,347 2.985 3.296 3.022 3,119 2,334 2,395 3.W1 36.3 I Deer Creek Township 53 74 72 91 58 W 49 56 31.9 French Creek Township 61 111 102 121 109 92 74 119 35.0 Perry Township 90 219 2iI 217 230 175 147 179 34.9 New Lebanon Borough 18 32 29 31 33 28 16 22 33.4 New Vernon Township 30 85 46 79 76 52 64 61 35.8 1 Mill Creek Township 43 90 82 80 98 73 63 75 35.7 Lake Township 61 121 86 91 66 66 66 74 31.6 Sandy Lake Borough 43 110 94 87 115 Ed 79 130 37.. . 6 . Sandy Lake Township 55 185 157 147 157 36.5 I Stonetaro Borough 64 155 129 153 219 38.4 Sandy Creek Township 40 118 120 109 109 36.4 Sheakleyville Borough 7 18 15 22 35 41.0 Northeast 585 1.318 1.143 1.228 1,311 976 885 1.236 35.5 I
Delaware Township 131 293 243 307 356 251 230 253 36.5 East Lackawannock Township 95 219 182 226 266 205 161 259 38.2 FaiNiew Township 72 159 122 133 129 118 93 04 32.9 I Jackson Township 93 182 129 181 172 121 91 120 33.0
Jefferson Township 128 269~ ~266 ~~282 ~..293 -~272 __ 221 _.2l37 367.. Codspring Township 120 275 237 297 295 288 237 393 40 1 Jackson Center Borough 18 44 27 31 40 27 16 41 35 5 I Mercer B Borough 144 348 340 383 354 255 241 379 35 2 Fredmia Borough 66 114 98 105 82 89 64 78 42 0 Findley Township 88 213 434 560 429 183 181 196 32 2 Central 955 2,116 2.078 2.505 2,416 1.807 1,535 2.070 35.3 1 I I
1 Demographics 17
Between 1980 and 1990 all but two (2) age cohorts (35-44,65+) lost population. The most 1 significant loss occurring in the 15-24 age cohort, representing the post-high school/college s individuals. During the 80's nearly 6,600 individuals in the age cohort out migrated. Mercer County - Age Cohorts I 1960 - 1990
25wo I 22500 2m 17500 I 15wo 12500 low0 7m 1 5ow 2500 I 0 1960 1970
1 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census t Mercer County Age Cohort Trends Duringthe 1980s I 75000 Mercer County's 1 70000 3 5+ !population c 0 .-c surpassed I 3 65000 the 0-34 Q. 0 age a. grouping. I 60000 1 55000 -
I -C 0-34 * 35+ Source: U.S. Bureau of Census
I. I
Demographics I8 k 1 1990 Population by AgelSex 2 1 0 -4 1 1 5-14 1 15-24 1
%0 25-34 & 1 5 35-44 1
45-54 t 1 55-64 1 65+ 1 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 1 Population 1 1 f 1 1
1 Demographics 19
Mercer County's median age is 36.4 years, as compared to the state median of 35.4. The 1 southeast region has the youngest median at 31.8, and the oldest region the southwest at 38.3.
I Median Age
I 40 1 30 $ '0 >- I 10 3 1
1 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census 8 1 Households Mercer County Households 1990 In 1990 Mercer 1 by Region County had a total of 45,591 households. 1 50.4% of these
NORTHEAST (3.215 ) households can be found in the t southwest region. t NORTHWEST (8.383 OUTHWEST (22.966) I 1 7 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census Deniogruphics 20
Average Household Size 1970 - 1990
%Change 1970 -1980 -1990 1970-1990
Mercer County 2.77 2.54 -20.6% Pennsylvania 2.74 2.57 -17.1% United States 2.76 2.63 -16.2% Source: U.S. Bureau of Census-
Although the total number of households grew in Mercer County between 1980 (44,657)and 1990 (45,591) the average household size declined. This trend is a result ofthe population growing older. - Households by Type I FAMILIES 1 PERS.HH
I
I NON-FAM. HH
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census I
I Demographics 21 I TOTAL NO. % NO. % NO. % 1 MUNICIPALITY GOVT HH'S FAMILIES 1 PERS. HH NON-FAM. HH Wolf Creek Township 236 192 81.4% 42 17.8% 2 0.8% Worth Township 319 256 80.3% 55 17.2% 8 2.5% Springfield Township 661 522 79.0% 123 18.6% 18 2.4% Pine Township 1.427 1.083 75.9% 311 21.8% 33 2.3% I Libzrty Township 465 358 77.0% 101 21.7% 6 1.3% Grove Cih, Borough 2,634 1.565 63.2% 891 33.8% 78 3.0% I Southeast 5,742 4.076 71.0% 1.523 26.5% 143 2.5% Clark Borough 204 177 86.8% 24 11.8% 3 1.5% Famll City 2,749 1.91 1 69.5% 767 27.9% 71 2.63( Hermitage City 6.158 4,512 73.3% 1.537 25.0% 109 1.8% Lackawanncck Township 906 754 83.2% 138 15.2% 14 1.5% 1 Sharon City 7 .~186 4,713 65.6% 2,249 31.3% 224 3.1% Sharpsville Borough 1,953 1.401 71.6% 529 27.0% 28 1.4% Shenango Township 1,630 1,313 80.6% 284 17.4% 33 2.0% South Pymatunii Township 1,051 868 82.6% 166 15.8% 17 1.6% 1 West Middlesex Borough 392 270 68.9% 109 27.6% 13 3.3% Wheatland Borough 381 228 63.2% 129 35.7% 4 1.1% Wilmington Township 371 306 82.5% 80 16.2% 5 1.3% I Southwest 22,966 16,453 71.6% 5,992 26.1% 521 2.3% Greene Township 449 367 81.7% 74 16.5% 8 1.8% Salem Township 248 1 93 77.8% 46 18.5% 9 3.6% Sugar Grove Township 379 313 82.6% 80 15.8% 6 1.6%
1: West Salem Township 1,265 962~~ 77.6% 257 20.3% 26 2.1% Hempfield Township 1,461 1,117 76.5% 317 21.7% 27 1.6% Otter Creek Township 218 174 79.8% 35 16.1% 9 4.1% Pymatuning Township 1.429 1,121 78.4% 279 19.5% 29 2.0% I Greenville Borough 2.628 1,657 63.1% 885 33.7% 86 3.3% Jamestown Borough 306 205 67.0% 92 30.1% 9 2.9% Northwest 8.383 6,129 73.1% 2,045 24.4% 209 2.5%
I Deer Creek Township 164 144 87.8% 18 11.0% , 2 1.2% French Creek Township 279 225 80.6% 48 17.2% 6 2.2% Perry Township 536 429 80.0% 88 16.4% I9 3.5% New Lebanon Borough 78 55 70 5% 20~. -.256% 3 3.8% 1 New Vernon Township 179 148 82 7% 27 151% 4 2.2% Mill Creek Township 213 179 84 0% 31 146% 3 1.4% Lake Township 209 172 82 3% 35 167% 2 1.0% Sandy Lake Borough 301 210 69.8% 83 27.6% 8 2.7% Sandy Lake Township 431 346 80.3% 70 16.246 15 3.5% I 621% 165 350% Stoneboro Borough 472 293 ~- ~. .. 14 3.0% Sandy Creek Township 295 233 79.0% 52 17.6% 10 3.4% SheakleyYille Borough 58 45 77.6% 13 22.4% 0 0.0% I Northeast 3.215 2,479 77.1% 6% 20.2% 86 2.7% Delaware Township 746 614 62.3% 112 15.0% 20 2.7% East Lackawanncck Township ss2 459 81.7% 90 16.0% 13 2.3% I Fairview Township 3w 255 65.0% 41 13.7% 4 1.3% Jackson Township 382 298 78.0% 67 17.5% 17 4.5% Jefferson Township 733 596 81.3% 116 15.8% 21 2.9% CmlSping Township 725 533 80.4% 125 17.2% 17 2.3% Jackson Center Borough 93 66 71.0% 25 26.9% 2 2.2% 1 Mercer I3 Emrough 968 658 68.0% 283 29.2% 27 2.6% Fredonia Borough 245 194 79.2% 47 19.2% 4 1.6% Findley Township 531 415 76.2% 105 19.6% 11 2.1% Central 5.285 4,138 78.3% 1,011 19.1% 136 2.6% I 1
AVG. PERS.iN % OF SINGLE SINGLE HOUSEHOLDS WITH n MUNICIPALITY GOVT PERS./HH GROUP TOTAL ALL HHS PARENT PARENT 1+ PERS. 6% % HHS QTR.'S NO. % NO. HHS
Woll Creek Township 2.77 I 0 89 37.7% 14 15.7% 49 20.8% Wotth Township 2.84 0 116 36.4% 17 14.7% 93 28.2% Springli eI d Township 2.86 0 282 42.7% 42 14.9% 167 25.3% Pine Township 2.61 475 486 34.1% 56 11.5% 397 27.8% LiW Township 2.63 0 173 37.2% 21 12.1% 112 24.1% I Grove City Borough 2.30 2,170 724 27.536 171 23.6% 1.m 38.0% Southeast 2,645 1.870 321 1.815 1 Clark Borough 2.99 0 90 44.1% 4 4.44) 50 24.5?b Farreli City 2.49 0 826 30.0% 403 48.8% 1.194 43.4% Hermitage City 2.43 310 1,771 28.8% 385 21.7% 2.146 34.8?6 Lackawannock Twinship 2.95 8 394 43.5% 50 12.7% 182 20.156 Sharon City 2.41 197 2.231 31.0% 726 32.5% 2,517 35.096 I Sharpsville Borough 2.42 0 603 30.8% 146 24.2% 743 37.9% Shenango Township 2.66 0 580 35.6% 91 15.756 386 23.74. South Fymatuni Township 2.64 0 343 32.6% 40 11.7% 326 31.0% West Middlesex Borough 2.49 7 119 30.4% 26 21.8% 136 34.7% I Wheatland Borough 2.11 0 74 20.5% 21 28.4X 157 43.5% Wilmington Township 3.17 0 169 45.6% 10 5.9% 93 25.1% Southwest 522 7.200 1,902 7,930 1 Greene Township 2.78 0 171 38.1% 25 14.6% 121 26.9% Salem Township 2.73 0 10 40.3% 12 12.0% 56 22.6% Sugar Grove Township 2.m 0 118 31.1% 12 10.2% 95 25.1% West Salem Township 2.64 213 440 34.8% 65 14.8% 368 29.1% I Hempfield Township 2.52 141 450 30.8% 62 13.8% 488 33.4% Oner Creek Township 2.67 0 79 36.2% 4 5.1X 49 22.5% Fymatuning Township 2.61 0 bo8 42.5% 209 34.4% 307 21.5% Greenviile Borough 2.32 637 784 29.8% 239 30.5% 849 32.3% 1 Jamestown Borough 2.49 0 106 34.6% 26 24.5U 104 34.0% Northwest 991 2,856 654 2,437
Deer Creek Township 3.13 0 73 44.5% 10 13.7% 39 23.8Y 1 French Creek Township 2.72 29 106 38.0% 16 15.1% 67 24.0% Perv Township 2.74 0 207 38.6% 29 14.0% 124 23.1Y New Lebanon Borough 2.68 0 31 39.7% 7 22.6% 14 17.9% New Vernon Township 2.75 0 €6 36.9% 9 13.6X 44 24.6% I Mill Creek Township 2.84 0 84 39.4% 12 14.3% 55 25.8% Lake Township 3.11 0 92 44.0% 13 14.loA 57 27.3% Sandy Lake Borough 2.40 0 97 32.2% 22 22.7% 91 30.2% Sandy Lake Township 2.69 0 157 364% 25 15.9% 111 25.8% Stonetaro Borough 2.31 0 145 30.7% 37 25.5% 177 37.5% I Sandy Creek Township 2.73 0 116 39.3% 11 9.5% 78 26.4% Sheakleyille Borough 2.50 0 19 32.8% 3 15.8% 26 44.8% Northeast 29 1.193 194 883 I Delaware Township 2.75 16 270 36.2% 29 10.7% 175 23.5% East Lackawannock Township 2.75 62 209 37.2% 22 10.5% 134 23.8% Faiwiew Township 3.03 0 129 43.0% 13 10.1% 63 21.0% Jackson Township 2.85 0 158 41.4% 15 9.5% 92 24.1% 1 Jefferson Township 2.73 0 260 35.556 39 15.0% 189 25.8% Cwlspring Township 2.70 179 254 35.0% 35 13.8% 173 23.9% Jackson Center Borough 2.62 0 35 37.646 13 37.1% 31 33.3% Mercer B Borough 2.44 78 311 32.1% 89 28.6% 285 29.4% I Fredonia Borough 2.79 0 105 42.9% 29 27.6% 50 20.4% Findley Township 2.69 856 193 36.3% 27 14.0°A 150 28.2% Central 1.191 1.924 31 1 1.342 x I Housing 23 Housing
Following are three pages of tables which present a general profile of Mercer County's housing, different characteristics and trends in recent decades. Data comes from the decennial national censuses of the U. S. Bureau of the Census. Highlights of the data
The housing supply grew at Trends in Housing Types a time while the population I was stable to declining. Housing growth 1960-90: 24.6%0, population growth: -5.1%. Housing growth Single-Family 1980-90: 2.2%, population I growth: -5.7%. Why? The Multi-Family average number of people m per household dropped Mobilehome from 3.43 in 1960 to 2.54 in 1990 due to a lower birth rate, aging of the population, greater incidence ofdivorce & I I separation and changing lifestyles.
Mobile homes are by far the fastest growing housing Trends in Housing Occupancy type. The ratio of mobile 5000, 1 homes has grown from 1 out of 60 housing units in 1960 to 1 out of 10 housing units in 1990. It represents Owner-Occupied a demand for an affordable I Renter-Occupied single-family housing alternative. Vacant
Growth in rental housing has generally outpaced growth in owned housing in recent decades. I 1' Housing 24 8 e Housing values have lagged behind state and national values due mostly to $80,000 - I slower-paced local markets - for housing resale and new $70,000.. / construction and a lagging $60,000.- ,/ ~ // I local economy. $50,000.. / */ $40,000 .. e One of the most interesting - I statistics is age of housing $30,000 .- owners. Fifty percent of all $20,000 .. - owner-occuoied housine- is $10,000 -. I controlled by elderly (age 65+) or near-elderly (age 1 -Mercer County - - Pennsybania -United States I 55-64) persons. It is 11 important that this large amount of housing be affordable and in sound 1 condition for turnover to Owned Housing by Age of Homeowner a younger generation of homeowners in the -15-24 (1%) 1 coming 10-20 years. I t I I
Mercer County Housing Commission findings 1 The Mercer County Housing Commission in 1994 and 1995 prepared a demand-based needs 1 assessment for Mercer County housing. The final report, in process as of this writing, will identifi unmet demand for subsidized rental housing, home ownership, housing rehab, housing support services and special needs housing. The significant findings as available to date are I presented here.
The Housing Commission is comprised of representatives of agencies involved in housing 1 programs and services. It hnctions via those representatives working under the chairmanship of the Mercer County Community Action Agency. I Housing 25 f Subsidized rental housing
Affordable rental housing is available to low-moderate income households via public and private I government-subsidized housing. About 2,500 such housing units exist in Mercer County. A I 1993 analysis of unmet need indicated: 0 Private subsidized housing, which amounts to 1,180 units countywide, had waiting lists I totaling 1,040 households containing 2,532 people. 0 Public subsidized housing provided through the Mercer County Housing Authority also has I waiting lists (exact amount not available as ofthis writing). Homeownership I Homeownership is most commonly made possible via mortgage financing through local lending institutions (including FHA, VA and FmHA loans). In 1993, there were 971 mortgage loan I applications approved (source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act reports). The data also noted: 0 195 or 15% of all loan applications were denied. The denial rate for minority applicants was I slightly higher at 22%. 0 The most common reason by far for loan denial was credit history followed fkrther behind by 1 debthncome ratio, employment history and collateral. The U. S. Rural Economic and Community Development Service (formerly Farmers Home Administration) offers direct mortgages to qualifying applicants. In 1994, there were 34 5 applicants and 8 denials. There are currently 10 applicants on a waiting list. I There are two public programs offering homeownership aid:
0 Mercer County Community Action Agency's Homeownership Program provides counseling to I interested home buyers. The agency in 1994 had $210,000 committed to the program but needs an additional $300,000 to serve waiting list demand.
I 0 Shenango Valley Urban League administers the Homeowners Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (HEMAP) which assists mortgage payments of homeowners threatened I by bank foreclosure due to financial hardship. The program had 99 applicants in 1994. Home improvement financing
I Private lending institutions provide the vast majority of financing for home improvements. In 1993, there were 443 private loans averaging $14,226 (source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act reports). The data also noted:
0 There appears to be sufficient private hnds to support home improvement financing demands. - I 11 li' Housing 26 1' 0 However, nearly 1 in 5 loan applicants were denied financing for reasons lending institutions believe to be legitimate, Le., unsatisfactory assurance of repayment ability. Black and other minority applicants had a greater percentage of loan denials than whites. 1 Government-supported programs provide another source of financing for home improvements. I Housing rehabilitation programs are operated by the county's largest communities (Sharon, Hermitage, Farrell, Greenville and Sharpsville) and the U. S. Rural Economic & Community Development Service (formerly Farmers Home Administration). In 1994 these programs I completed 77 housing unit rehabs at an average cost of $1 1,462. The data also noted:
0 Much additional hnding is needed to serve unmet demand. Program waiting lists contain 145 a likely fundable households which need an estimated $1.6 million to rehab their homes.
0 There are 43 other communities in Mercer County in which rehab programs to date have not 1 been available. (Grove City Borough will offer a rehab program beginning mid-late 1995.) It is probable that there is substantial need for rehab assistance in those communities as well. 1 0 The Mercer County Community Action Agency Weatherization Program serves the entire county and has a substantial waiting list (actual number unavailable as of this writing). 1 For more details on the findings of the Mercer County Housing Commission, contact the Mercltr County Community Action Agency (412-342-6222) to receive the most current report. I t I 1 I I I I I I
1 Housing 27 Mercer County Housing Characteristics 8, Trends
1 1960 1970 1980 1990 %CHANGE %CHANGE MERCER MUNN NO. % NO. % NO. % NO. % 1-90 is90
Total Housing Unilr 39.078 103.0% 40.287 tW.O% 47.660 100.0% 48.889 100.096 24.6% 2.2% I Year-Round Units 38.149 97.6% 40,030 99.4% 47.238 99.1% 47,997 98.6% 25.8% 1.6% Seasonal Units 929 2.4% 257 0.6% 422 0.9% 692 1.4% -25.5% 64.0%
Occupancy Owner*cupied 28.115 73.7% 29.662 74.1% 34.290 72.6% 34.184 71.2% 21.6% 0.3% I RenteraCupied 8,286 21.7% 8.749 21.9% 10.387 21.9% 11.407 23.8% 37.7% 10.0% V?.M"t 1.748 4.6% 1.619 4.0% 2.581 5.5% 2.406 5.0% 37.6% 6.8%
Type of Housing: 1 Single-Famib 33.054 64.6% 32.066 80.1% 38.291 76.7% 35.835 73.6% 8.4% -1.3% Multi-Family 5.347 13.7% 6.388 16.0% 7.512 15.9% 7.729 15.9% 44.5% 2.9% Mobile Hme 647 1.7% 1.576 3.9% 3.492 7.4% 4.648 9.5% 618.4% 33.1% Mher NA NA NA 477 1.O% NA NA I Water Service: Public Water Service NA 25.629 54.0% 29.150 61.6% 29.289 60.2% 14.3% 0.5% Individual Water Service NA 14.396 36.0% 18.145 38.4% 19.400 39.8% 34.8% 6.9% 1 sannaly sewer Service: Public Sewer Service NA 25.307 63.2% 28.979 61.3% 30.637 62.9% 21.1% 5.7% Individual Sewer SeNice NA 14.718 38.8% 18.316 38.7% 18,052 37.1% 22.7% -1.4%
Median Value for Single-Family. $10.703 513.W 532.900 $41.900 291.6% 27.4% t OwnerOccupied Housing
Median Year Built 4929 4939 1947 1954 I Overcrowded Units 2,936 8.1% 2.229 5.8% 587 2.2% Bog 1.3% -79.3% -38.3% (1.01+ perr.lroom)
Units Lacking NA 1.621 4.0% 1.090 2.3% 780 1.6% -53.1 % -30.3% t Complete Plumbing
Note Adding nJmDen 01 housing LnitS under each different charaCler,sllc may not yield matcning totals because -Some charactenst CI are Daw0 on total units some on year-round bn 16. some on ~ccup~eaunits. etc I -Some data sources are 100% counts. some BIB sample Cants 1 I 1 I 1 I ~I Housing 28
Municipal Hc Busing Characteristics - Trends (L I990 Values
MEDW MEDW MEDW TOTAL HOUSING UNITS CHANGE CHANGE WSE CONTR. MAR MUNICIPALITY GOVT 1970 1980 1990 1980-90 197Mil VALUE RENT BUILT
Grove Cm, Borough 2.528 2,721 2.762 1.5% 9.3% 1269 1941 Libedy Township 294 417... 486 16.5% 65.3% 1215 1966 Pine Township 654 1,251 1.xm 20.6% 58.2% 11% 1966 Spn'"glif2d Township 575 691 725 4.9% 26.1% 1188 1957
WOW Creek Township 182 ~247 2w 5 3% 42.9% $195 1972 Worth Township 242 333 551 5.4% 45.0% 11% 1957
Swlheasl Region Total 4.775 5.660 6.093 7.7% 27sm t47.i~
Clan Borough 133 2w 207 1.5% 55.6% W.7W 1200 1965 Fanell CiW 3.647 3.418 3.030 -11.4% -16.9% U3.W 1159 1942 Hermitage cily 4.676 6.094 6.359 4.3% 36.0% 156.m 1311 1961 Lachnnak Township 551 913 937 2.6% 70.1% Y9.1W $221 1972 Sham Cily 7.632 7.745 7.670 -1.0% 0.5% $26.700 1207 1942 Shsrpsville Borough 1.969 2.088 2.041 -2.3% 3.7% u8.4w $212 1949 Shenango Township 901 1.522 1.709 12.3% 89.7% 555.100 $351 1969 Swlh Pvmaluning Township 856 1.054 1;076 2.1% 25.7% 151,100 1259 1959 West Middl-x Borough 443 440 41 0 -6.6% -7.4% $39.200 1241 1950 Whealland Borough 455 458 373 -18.6% -18.0% $25.800 $146 1949 Wilminglon Township 226 323 382 18.3% 69.0% $62.1W $263 1965
SwtklRegion Tola1 21.489 24.259 24.194 4.3% 12.6% 139.059
Or-"* Township 340 479 486 1.5% 42.9% $45.700 12w 1963 Greenviile Bornugh 2.899 2.973 2.859 -3.8% -1.0% w.4w 1212 1939 Hempfield Tavnrhip 1.132 1.465 1.503 1.2% 32.8% $55.400 $299 1958 Jameslown Borough 302 352 340 -3.4% 12.6% 131.700 $211 1939 Oner Creek Township 180 224 232 3.6% 28.9% $42.100 1222 1963 Fymluning Township 898 1.w 1.496 6.6% 66.6% $42,800 $115 1965 Salem Township 198 241 270 12.0% 36.4% w3.m 1170 1966 Sugar Grove Township 312 419 598 -5.0% 27.6% W.600 1209 1958 Weal Salem Township 1.050 1.262 1.330 5.4% 26.7% $43.900 1213 1955
No!lhwesl Region Total 7.301 8.839 6.914 0.8% 22.1% $41,993
DeerCreek Township 116 167 202 8.0% 74.1% $43.500 $169 1967 French Creek Township 214 346 378 9.2% 76.6% $38.400 $192 1957 Lab Township 178 212 272 28.3% 52.6% $39,100 $269 1967 Mill Creek Tavnrhip 171 257 276 7.4% 61.4% $43.800 1175 1956 New Lebanon Borough 84 84 101 20.2% 57.8% s35.m 1167 1965 New Vernon Township 118 169 209 10.6% 77.1% $48.900 $225 1969 Peml Township 413 548 593 8.2% 43.6% $41,600 1211 1958 Sandy Creek Township 251 310 323 4.2% 28.7% $yI,4W 1177 1962 Sandy Lake Borough 281 339 244 1.5% 22.4% $40,800 1216 1939 Sandy Lake Township 308 446 480 7.1% 55.8% $46533 $171 1968 Sheaklsyvills Borough 54 65 61 -7.6% 13.0% 132.100 1167 1S54 SlonebDrO Borough 423 489 528 8.0% 24.8% W,3W 1184 1939
Northead Region Total 2.083 2.730 2.915 6.8% 39.9% $39,882
Cmlspring Township 838 22.2% 88.3% $61,1w 1205 1970 DBIBwp,* Township 797 4.5% 46.2% s.50.800 1222 19BI Easl Laclrawannock Tmhip E81 1.8% 49.0% Iy.700 $206 1968 Fairview Township 324 9.5% 36.7% $42.m $175 1961 Findley Township 565 5.6% 37.1% $42.800 1189 1960 Fredonia Borough 239 259 269 3.9% 12.6% $31.2W 1193 1944 Jackson Township 306 454 439 -3.3% 43.5% 151.900 1235 1970 Jackwon Center Borough 92 107 102 4.7% 10.9% $29.390 11% 1941 JdfWSO" Township 515 743 763 2.7% 48.2% y18.800 ,1222 1966 Mercer Borough 963 1,013 1.043 3.0% 8.3% $45.600 1203 1941
Central Region Tohi 4.144 5,427 5.721 5.4% 58.1% $49.268
MERCER COUNTY 4o.m 47.660 48.689 2.2% 20.8% $41,900 1221 1954 PENNSYLVANIA STATE 7.4% 25.7% $69.700 $322 1954 I
1 Housing 29 I Municipal Housing Characteristics 1990 - Types SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY MOBILEHOME OTIHER MUNiClPALiM GOVT NO. % NO. % NO. % NO. %
Grove Cily Borough 1.837 66.5% 802 29.0% W 2.2% 63 2.3% I Lib* Township 367 75.5% 8 1.6% 107 22.0% 4 0.8% Pine Township 1.057 70.0% 87 5.8% 318 21.1% 47 3.1% SPri"gIi*ld Township 538 73.9% 15 2.1% 160 22.1% 14 1.9% WoKCreek Township 194 74.6% 0 0.0% 63 24.2% 3 1.2% I Worth Township 258 . 73.5% 2 0.6% 85 24.2% 6 1.7% Southeahl Region Total 4.249 69.7% 914 15.0% 793 13.0% 137 2.2%
I Clak Borough 198 95.7% 5 2.4% 1 0.5% 3 1.4% Fanell Cily 2.423 80.0% 476 15.7% 1 0.0% 124 4.3% Hermitage Cily 4,710 74.1% 1.283 20.2% 273 4.3% 93 1.5% Lackaawannock Township 553 59.0% 23 2.5% 343 36.6% 18 1.9% Sharon Cily 5,395 70.3% 2.w2 27.3% 7 0.1% 176 2.3% I Sharpsvilie Borough 1.533 75.1% 466 22.8% 3 0.1% 39 1.9% Shsnango Township 1,218 71.3% 172 10.1% 310 18.1% 9 0.5% South Pymatuning Township 972 90.3% 48 4.5% 42 3.9% 14 1.3% West Middiesex Borough 288 70.2% 83 20.2% 34 8.3% 5 1.2% Whealland Borough 312 83.6% 54 14.5% 0 0.0% 7 1.9% 1 Wilmington Township 311 81.4% 26 6.8% 35 9.2% 10 2.6% Souihwest Region Told 17.913 74.0% 4.728 19.5% 1,049 4.3% 504 2.1%
I Green* Tmship 354 72.8% 8 1.6% 121 24.9% 3 0.6% Greenville Borough 1.822 63.7% 914 32.0% 5 0.2% 118 4.1% Hemphld Township 1.270 84.5% 120 8.0% 97 6.5% 16 1.1% Jameslown Borough 236 69.4% 51 15.0% 51 15.0% 2 0.6% I Onor Creek Township 166 71.6% 0 0.0% 64 27.6% 2 0.9% Pymaluning Township 850 56.8% 224 15.0% 393 26.3% 29 1.9% Salem Township 206 76.3% 0 0.0% 62 23.0% 2 0.7% Sugar Grow Township 310 77.9% 8 2.0% 76 19.1% 1 1.0% 1 west Salem Township 1.037 78.0% Jo 2.3% 218 16.4% 45 3.4% Northwest Region Total 6.251 70.1% 1.355 15.2% 1.087 12.2% 221 2.5%
Deer Creek Township 139 68.8% 0 0.0% W 29.7% 3 1.5% I FrenchCreek Township 257 68.0% 0 0.0% 115 24.4% 6 1.6% Lake Township 181 58.5% 12 4.4% 57 21.0% 22 8.1% Mill Creek Township 205 74.3% 0 0.0% 69 25.0% 2 0 7%.. New Lebanon Bomugh 56 55.4% 4 4.0% 36 37.6% 3 3.0% New Vernon Township 147 70.3% 3 1.4% 57 27.3% 2 1.0% I Perry Township 408 68.8% 11 1.9% 162 27.3% 12 2.0% Sandy Creek Township 224 69.3% 3 0.9% 91 28.2% 5 1.5% Sandy Lake Borough 226 65.7% 101 29.4% 10 2.9% 7 2.0% Sandy Lake Township 347 72.3% 9 1.9% 119 24.8% 5 1 .O% Shaakleyville Borough 46 75.4% 2 3.3% 12 19.7% 1 1.6% I StO"&OrO Bornugh 69.1% 88 16.7% 66 12.9% 7 1.3% 365 I Northeast Region Total 2.024 69.4% 221 7.6% 626 21.5% 44 1.5% Cmlrpring Township 637 78.0% ti t.a% 176 21.096 14 1.7% DBISWN* Township €62 83.1% 25 3.1% 102 12.8% 8 1 .O% Ea81 Lackawannock Township 474 81.6% 14 2.4% 63 14.3% 10 1.7% Fairview Township 257 79.3% 2 0.6% 54 16.7% 11 3.4% t Findw Twihip 420 74.3% 7 1.2% 127 22.5% 11 1.9% Fredonis Borough 191 71.0% 52 19.3% 18 6.7% 8 3.0% JaCh Tmship 269 84.1% 8 1.8% 58 13.2% 4 0.9% JsohCenler Borough 85 83.3% 6 5.$% 11 10.8% 0 0.0% JEflSrUJil Township 5M1 73.4% 12 1.6% 179 23.5% 12 1.6% 1 Mercer Borough 504 57.9% 359 34.4% 53 5.1% 27 2.6% Central Region Told 4.259 74.4% 4% 8.7% 861 15.0% 105 1.8% t MERCER COUNN 35.273 72.4% 7.729 15.9% 4.648 9.5% 1.039 2.1% PENNSYLVANW STATE 53.4% 21.7% 5.2% 19.7% I Housing 30 Municipal Housing Characteristics 1990 - Occupancy 1 OWNER-OCC. RENTER-CCC. SEASONAL VACANT MUNICIPALITY GOVT NO. % NO. % NO. % NO. %
Grove Cily Barnugh 1.664 80.2% 970 35.1% 17 0.6% 111 4.0% Liberty Township 405 83.3% 80 12.3% 8 1.6% 13 2.7% Pine Township 1.144 75.8% 263 18.8% 1s 1.3% 63 4.2% Springfield Township 556 76.7% 105 14.5% 23 3.2% 41 5.7% Wolf Creek Township 205 78.8% 31 11.9% 10 3.8% 14 5.4% Worlh Township 281 80.1% 38 10.8% 16 4.6% 16 4.6% 1 Southeast Region Total 4,255 69.8% 1,487 24.4% 93 1.5% 258 4.2%
Clark Borough 189 91.3% 15 7.2% 0 0.0% 3 1.4% Fsrrell Cily 1.974 65.1% 775 25.6% 2 0.1% 279 9.2% Hemitage Cily 4,591 72.2% 1,567 24.6% 13 0.2% 188 3.0% Laclwnnnock Township 786 85.9% 120 12.8% 0 0.0% 31 3.3% Sharon Cily 4.524 59.1% 2.656 34.6% 9 0.1% 475 6.2% Sharprvills Barnugh 1,372 67.2% 586 28.7% 4 0.2% 79 3.9% I shenango T-ship 1,374 80.4% 256 15.0% 8 0.5% 71 4.2% South Pymatuning lawnship 938 87.2% 113 10.5% 3 0.3% 22 2.0% Wesl Middlesex Borough 293 71.5% 99 24.1% 3 0.7% 15 3.7% Wheatland Borough 270 72.4% 91 24.4% 0 0.0% 12 3.2% Wilmington Township 294 77.0% 77 20.2% 1 0.3% 10 2.6% I Southwest Region Total 16.611 68.7% 6.355 26.3% 43 0.2% 1.185 4.9% I GreeW Township 379 78.0% 70 14.4% 15 3.1% 22 4.5% Greenville Borough 1.M9 52.8% 1.119 39.1% 9 0.3% 222 7.8% Hempfield Township 1,232 82.0% 229 15.2% 5 0.3% 37 2.5% Jamestown Borough 220 64.7% 86 25.3% 15 4.4% 19 5.6% mer Creek Township 191 82.3% 27 11.6% 4 1.7% 10 4.3% 1 Pymatuning Township 1.067 71.3% 362 24.2% 12 0.8% 55 3.7% Salem Township 212 78.5% 36 13.3% 6 2.2% 16 5.9% Sugar Grwe Township 32 1 80.7% 58 14.6% 1 0.3% 18 4.5% west Salem Township 1.106 83.2% 159 12.0% 7 0.5% 58 4.4% I Northwest Region Tolal 6,237 70.0% 2,146 24.1% 74 0.8% 457 5.1%
Deer Creek Township 149 73.8% 15 7.4% 34 16.8% 4 2.0% French Creek Township 239 63.2% 40 10.6% 81 21.4% 18 4.8% 1 Lake Township 176 64.7% 33 12.1% 55 20.2% 8 2.9% Mill Creek Township 191 69.2% 22 8.0% 3 13.8% 25 9.1% New Lebanon Borough 70 69.3% 8 7.9% 6 5.9% 17 16.8% New Vernon Township 159 76.1% 20 9.6% 20 9.6% 10 4.8% 1 Perry Township 480 80.9% 56 9.4% 21 3.5% 36 6.1% Sandy Creek Township 259 80.2% 36 11.1% 8 2.5% 20 6.2% Sandy Lake Borough 195 56.7% 106 24.8% 8 2.3% 35 10.2% Sandy Lake Township 391 81.5% 40 8.3% 27 5.6% 22 4.6% Sheakleyville Borough 49 60.3% 9 14.8% 0 0.0% 3 4.9% I stonebno Borough 361 68.4% 111 21.0% 19 3.6% 37 7.0% Northeast Region Total 2.155 73.9% 408 14.0% 147 5.0% 205 7.0% 1 cm1spring Township 622 74.2% 103 12.3% 75 8.9% 3a 4.5% Delaware Township 666 83.6% 80 10.0% 15 1.9% 36 4.5% East Lackawannock Township 503 86.6% 59 10.2% 6 1.0% 13 2.2% Fairview Twnship 263 81.2% 37 11.4% 8 2.5% 16 4.9% Findley Township 465 82.3% 66 11.7% 9 1.6% 25 4.4% 1 Fiedonia Borough 173 64.3% 72 26.8% 2 0.7% 22 8.2% J*CkSO" Township 336 76.5% 46 10.5% 43 9.8% 14 3.2% Jackson Center Borough 76 74.5% 17 16.7% 2 2.0% 7 6.9% Jefferson Township 669 87.7% 64 8.4% 2 0.3% 28 3.7% Mercer Borough 589 56.5% 379 36.3% 3 0.3% 72 6.9% 1
Central Region Total 4.362 76.2% 923 16.1% 165 2.9% 271 4.7%
1.4% 4.9% I MERCER COUNTY 34,184 70.2% 11.407 23.4% 692 2.406 PENNSYLVANIA STATE 64.3% 26.7% 2.9% 6.0% I Ecotioniic Choracterisfics 31 II Economic Characteristics
I The purpose of this section is to analyze the current conditions and trends related to economic development in Mercer County. An understanding of these conditions and trends is critical in planning for hture growth. In assessing employment trends, the rate of growth and the amount 1 of available space for development, effective goals and objectives can be established that will I serve to guide sound economic growth and development within Mercer County. Employment trends I I Non-Agricultu ral Em ployment Trends
1 35 1 30 4 25 c :20 I 1 a 2+ 15 I s 10 5 II 0 I
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
The closing of Sharon Steel greatly offset substantial employment growth occurring in the late t 1980's. Data suggests that if Sharon Steel had remained open, Mercer County would have experienced a net gain in employment in 1993. I
Economic Characteristics 32 1 Occupations Of Employed Persons 16 Years & Over 1 1980 1990 OCCUPATION #OF %OF #OF %OF YO PERSONS TOTAL PERSONS TOTAL CHANGE 1
Executive, Administrative, Managerial 3,204 6% 4,107 8% 28% Professional Specialty 5,625 11% 6,125 12% 9% 1
Technicians 8 Related Support 1,277 3% 1,401 3% 10% Sales 4,187 8% 5,567 11% 33% I Administrative Support + Clerical Services 7,059 14% 6,845 14% -3%
Pinrate Household Services 267 1% 157 0% -41% Protective Services 71 1 1% 784 2% 10% I Other Services 6,224 12% 7,023 14% 13% Farming, Forestry 8 Fishing 1,065 2% 1,178 2% 11% I Precision Production, Craft 8 Repair 6,974 14% 5,908 12% -1 5%
Machine Operators, Assembler 8 Inspectors 7,156 14% 5,125 10% -28% 1 Transportation 8 Material Moving 3,487 7% 3,294 7% -6% Handlers, Equipment Cleaners, Helpers 8 Laborers 3,370 7% 2,513 5% -25% I Source: USBureau of Labor Statistics
Employed Persons 16 Years & Over By Industry I
, 1980 1990 #OF %OF #OF %OF % 1 INDUSTRY PERSONS TOTAL PERSONS TOTAL CHANGE Agriculture, Forestry. Fisheries 8 Mining 1,303 3% 1,523 3% 17% 1 Construction 1,792 4% 1,993 4% 11% Non-Durable Goods Manufacturing 1,285 3% 1,804 4% 40% Durable Goods Manufacturing 15,760 31% 10,152 20% -36% Transportation 3,072 6% 2,682 5% -1 3% 1 Public Utilities 8 Communication 923 2% 735 1% -20% Wholesale Trade 1,380 3% 1,801 4% 31% Retail Trade 8,090 16% 9,749 19% 21% 1 Finance, Insurance 8 Real Estate 1,775 4% 1,852 4% 4% Business 8 Repair Services 1,185 2% 1,624 3% 37% Personal, Entertainment 8 Recreation Services 1,727 3% 1,829 4% 6% Health Services 4,300 8% 5,617 11% 31% 1 Educational Services 4,883 10% 4,804 10% -2% Other Professional 8 Related Services 1,628 3% 2,201 4% 35% Public Administration 1,503 3% 1,661 3% 11% I Source: US. Bureau of Labor Statistics 1 I I
I Ecotioniic Churmlerislics 33 = t Unemployment Unemployment soared during the recession of 1981 & 1982 with the loss of approximately 8,000 jobs* but by 1988 Mercer County's rate returned to a more normal cyclic rate of I between 4 - 5%. I Annual Average Unemployment I 18% I 16% 14% 1 12% 10% I 8% 6% 1 4% 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 19851986 1987 19881989 1990 1991 19921993
I - Mercer County * Pennsylvania 8 United Slates 7 .', Source U S Bureau of Labor Statistics I 1 During the period from 1986 - 1991 a net gain of4.600 jobs* was realized.
I In 1991 - 1992 Sharon Steel closed and 3,000 jobs* were lost. I I I
a * Data source: Marketing & Development Strategy Plan 1 Mercer County CERP, Penn-Northwest Development Corporation I I ~~ ~
Labor Force & Unemployment By Municipality And Region
LABOR FORCE LABOR FORCE CIVILIAN % NOTIN CIVILIAN % NOT IN LABOR UNEM- LABOR LABOR UNEM- LABOR MUNICIPAUTY FORCE PLOYED FORCE MUNlCiPALlTY FORCE PLOYED FORCE
Southeast Region Northeast Region Grove city 3637 6.1% 3405 Deer Creek m 3.6% 153 Liberty 588 4.6% 346 French Creek 361 4.4% 262 Pine 1842 3.7% 1402 Lake 244 6.1% 176 Springfield 866 5.9% 545 Mill Creek 270 11.1% 199 Wolf Creek 355 5.4% 155 New Lebanon 89 10.1% 67 Worth 449 6.9% 271 New Vernon 225 2.7% 128 Perry 702 8.5% 434 Southwest Region Sandy Creek 398 8.5% 233 Clark 3w 0.3% 166 Sandy Lake 582 6.5% 31 8 Farrell 2391 14.5% 5061 Sandy Lake 332 5.7% 222 Hermitage 6854 7.1% 5627 Sheakleyville 66 3.0% 50 Lackawannock 1242 6.9% 713 Stoneboro 489 5.9% 362 Sharon 71 56 9.1% 6701 Sharpsville 2116 6.6% 1668 Central Region Shenango 2275 5.5% 1151 Coolspring 969 4.7% 747 South Pymatuning 1337 4.6% 895 Delaware 1062 4.1% 558 West Middlesex 452 4.0% 334 East Lackawanmck 759 4.1% 506 Whealland 257 7.6% 388 Fairview 427 3.3% 231 Wilminglon 466 2.6% 350 Findley 706 6.8% 1256 Fredonia 304 7.6% 184 Northwest Region Jackson 487 4.9% 31 2 Greene 61 8 4.9% 354 Jackson Center 104 6.7% 85 Greenville 3229 7.0% 2214 Jeffewn 963 7.5% 61 7 Hempfield 1720 5.3% 1311 Mercer B 1140 9.5% 757 Jamestorm 320 7.2% 272 Oller Creek 302 5.0% 150 Mercer County u690 6.8% 42259 Pymaluning 1635 8.0% 1166 Pennsylvania 6.0% Salem 304 5.9% 205 Sugar Grove 51 8 6.9% 267 West Salem 1562 2.8% 1265 Source: US. Bureau of Censu I I Ecvrivmic Characteristics 35 I Industrial growth The Department of Labor New Industrial Growth I and Industry projects 1980 - 1993 continued job losses in the 250 2m manufacturing sector, particularly in the primary 200 MOOOOO I metals and related industries. Locally, ul150 I however land absorption $ data for Mercer County 100 indicates that many local I manufacturing industries 50 sooow are expanding and new industries are developing n n I and more so here than in Mercer Butler Crawford neighboring counties. 0Land in Acres Space in Square Feet
I Source Mercer County Marketing 8 Development Strategy Plan
I Availability Of industrial sites
t With the current rate Industrial Sites Available in 1993 I of growth of 20 - 25 acres per year, there 1 1 I 450 is concern that 400 Mercer County's I 350 feasible brownfield sites and readily 300 ...... ~~ ...... ~ ...... available industrial d50 ...... ~ ~ ...... ~~ ...... ~ ...... ~~ I g acreage may be 4200 I E----- quickly exhausted 150 ...... unless additional I industrial land, ., ...... ~...... ~ ~ 100 complete with 50 ..~~~~~~~ ...... infrastructure and a I strategic location, is 0 Greenvtlle Reynold; Reynolds North ' Reynolds Ea51 ' Hermitage ' Kirda made available. 1 Source: Mercer County Marketing 8 Development Strategy Plan I II 1
Economic Characteristics 36 t Retail trade Retail Trade t e Despite a loss in total retail In Mercer County 1400 ,900 establishments most Mercer County commercial centers I experienced increased sales from 1972-1992. Adjusted 1 for inflation, however, countywide retail sales had a 4% decline. t The City of Hermitage experienced the largest t growth in total number of Total Annual retail establishments from 1972 to 1992. I1972 1982 0 1992 I
L Source: U.S.Census of Retail Trade ] e The Department of Labor and Industry predicted 1 larger employment gains in eating and drinking establishments and general merchandise stores through 1995. With the development ofthe Grove City Factory Shops and the additional 400+ jobs created and the pending development of McDonalds, Subway and a motel etc., I their figure of 730 newjobs for both wholesale and retail trade will likely be surpassed by the end of 1995 I Trends In Retail Establishments By Business Group I Miscellaneous Retail I Drug 8 Proprietary
Eating 8 Drinking Furniture 8 Home Furnishings I Apparel 8 Accessories Gasoline Service Stations 1 Automotive Dealers Food Stores I General Merchandise
Bldg. Materials 8 Gardn. Supplies
0 501w150m250300350 I Number of Establishments Source: U.S. Census of Retail Trade t I I Ecorioniic Characteristics 37 1 Income & poverty Mercer County lags behind both the state and nation in per capita personal income.
I The number of families below poverty increased by 53% from 1980 to 1990.
0 The number of families with children headed by a single-parent increased from 2,681 in 1980 1 to 3,382 in 1990 (26.1%). Those same families below poverty with children age 6-17 I increased by 228% in the same period. I I Per Capita Personal Income I $22,000 $20,000
I $18,000 -
Mercer County I $16,000 - Pennsylvania I $14,000 + United States I $12,000 I $10,000 $8,000 \ I \ I \ I I I I { f I 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 I Source: U.S.Bureau of Census 1 I Income & Poverty By Municipality And Region
1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 MEDlAN FAMlLlY INCOME MEDIAN PER FAMILIES BELOW POVERTY BELOW BELOW BELOW n3- %CHNG HOUSE- CAPITA %CHNG POV. POV. POV. B MUNICIPALITY $1979 $1989 197949 HOLD INC INCOME %1979 %1989 7489 tFAM lPERS %PERS sf: *-2 Southeast Region =. Grove City 19.903 30,500 53.7% 24,828 10,342 3.6% 7.1% 97.2% I19 551 9.1% 2 Liberly 21.219 29.375 38.4% 26.779 11.310 5.5% 4.2% -236% 15 75 6.1% Pine 18.206 35,231 93.5% 29.7% 12,027 5.7% 5.6% -1.8% 59 275 7.5% 2 Springfield 18,700 26,174 40.0% 23.177 9,374 7.4% 12.1% 63.5% 65 242 12.8% Wolf Creek 17.353 33.750 94.5% 30.625 12.168 8.1% 6.7% -17.3% 13 59 8.7% Worth 17,137 30,625 78.7% 27,727 12,058 7.9% 8.0% 1.3% 20 103 11.2%
Southwest Region Clark 24,808 37.292 50.3% 34.500 13,049 0.0% 0.1% 2 7 1.2% Farrell 17,548 20,205 15.1% 16,256 8.975 13.0% 26.7% 105.4% 51 1 1.937 28.3% Hermitage 22.222 32.320 454% 27.020 13,334 4.4% 6.1% 38.6% 275 1.184 7.9% Lackawanncck 18,919 25.865 36.7% 22,115 9.669 8.8% 13.0% 47.7% IC4 520 19.6% Sharon 19,207 25.697 33.8% 20.71 1 10.578 7.9% 15.4% 949% 741 3.256 18.8% Sharpsville 21,711 29.m 36.4% 23.136 11,741 5.7% 9.2% 61.4% 129 535 11.3% Shenango 23.263 35,931 54.5% 33.160 13.884 4.7% 5.5% 17.0% 75 344 7.9% South Pymatuning 22,534 32.778 45.5% 30.260 13,lW 6.4% 4.2% -34.4% 37 154 5.6% West Middlesex 20.781 27.338 31.4% 22.m 10.620 10.3% 9.0% -12.6% 24 114 11.6% Wheatland 20,372 26.563 30.4% 19,444 1 1,702 4.3% 11.2% 160.5% x 113 15.3% Wilmington 19.907 26.687 34.1% 25.560 10,177 15.5% 17.6% 13.5% 54 275 23.5%
Northwest Region Greene 18,348 27.260 48.6% 25,161 10,672 5.1% 9.9% 94.1% 36 142 11.5% Greenville 17.965 29.063 61.8% 22.121 10,707 3.5% 14.1% 302.9% 240 1.099 18.0% Hempfield 21.891 36.078 64.8% 33.723 16,529 3.2% 0.8% -75.0% 9 103 2.8% Jamestown 17,721 26,563 49.9% 23.750 9.628 8.3% 13.8% 66.3% 28 111 14.4% Otter Creek 18.456 30,469 65.1% 29.091 11,319 3.4% 4.0% 17.6% 7 40 6.7% Pymatuning 18,800 25.689 38.6% 20,500 9.661 9.3% 14.2% 52.7% 159 625 16.8% Salem 17,371 27,574 58.7% 23.088 11,033 7.9% 11.0% 39.2% 21 90 13.8% Sugar Grove 20,331 31.450 54.7% 28,947 11,526 4.0% 3.8% 5.0% 12 57 5.8% Wes! Salem 19,3!4 3C,?26 %.5% 26.177 11.43 7.4% 6.8% 3.i% 70 279 8.4% Northeast Region Deer Creek 20,357 24,659 21.1% 23.269 8.989 9.8% 14.4% 46.9% 20 98 19.7% French Creek 16,667 27.222 63.3% 25.819 9.m 7.2% 10.8% 50.0% 25 87 11.1% Lake 16.538 27.734 67.7% 23.667 11,046 16.2% 15.6% -3.7% 26 157 24.8% Mill Creek 16,667 31,750 90.5% 29.167 11,468 12.5% 0.0% -100.0% 0 8 1.3% New Lebanon 15.833 23.750 50.0% 20.278 18.562 16.6% 24.0% 44.6% 12 47 23.9% New Vernon 19.904 26.500 33.1% 23,971 10,939 2.0% 6.9% 245.0% 10 43 9.2% Perry 18,073 27.500 52.2% 24,507 10,579 9.0% 6.8% -24.4% 29 151 10.3% Sandy Creek 18,125 30.- 65.9% 26.364 10.7w) 9.6% 6.1% -36.5% 14 69 8.4% Sandy Lake 18.510 27,625 49.2% 23,125 11.250 6.9% 18.6% 169.6% 41 142 19.2% Sandy Lake 18.269 28.750 57.4% 26,202 11,705 9.0% 8.0% -11.1% 28 115 9.9% Sheakleyville 19,375 50.417 57.0% 26.607 9,816 8.1% 9.1% 12.3% 4 22 14.3% Stonebar0 18.821 30,284 60.9% 21,921 11,037 4.4% 5.5% 25.0% 16 1W 10.0%
Central Region CCQlspring 20.955 31,W 49.7% 28,854 12.w5 5.8% 8.6% 48.3% 51 217 11.1% Delaware 21,089 30.871 46.4% 28.750 12,235 5.8% 3.3% -43.1% 21 98 4.8% East Lackawannak 20,551 32,240 56.9% 29.194 11.482 6.1% 8.4% 37.7% 38 168 10.9% Faitview 16,364 26,726 63.3% 23,214 8.983 8.7% 9.4% 8.0% 25 116 12.8% Findley 21.275 27,708 30.2% 25.912 7,943 5.3% 7.3% 37.7% 30 116 8.1% Fredonia 19.ooO 26.618 41.1% 25.288 9.736 5.4% 10.2% 88.9% 21 85 12.3% Jackson 19,612 29,934 52.6% 27.188 11,094 4.4% 8.5% 93.296 26 136 12.6% Jackson Center 16,806 30,ooO 78.5% 19.m 9,688 0.0% 19.1% 13 54 22.8% Jefferson 20.336 30.327 49.1% 27,115 10.567 5.8% 4.5% -22.4% 27 149 7.5% Mercer 17,654 29.688 68.2% 23.405 11.100 9.8% 11.6% 18.4% 77 332 14.1%
MERCER COUNTY 19,975 29,347 46.9% 24.599 11,336 6.6% 10.1% 53.0% 3.404 14.809 12.8% PENNSYLVANIA 19.995 34.856 74.3% 29,069 14.068 7.7% 8.2% 6.5% 11.1% Source: US. Bureau of Cens 1
Economic Characteristics 40 I Findings of the Mercer County C.E.R.P study 1 The Marketing & Development Strategy Plan, also known as the Mercer County C.E.R.P., was undertaken to produce an aggressive development and marketing program for implementation by 1 Penn-Northwest Development Corporation.
The market analysis for the C.E.R.P. study provided the basis for a series of goals and objectives I outlined under four major points. It was recommended that a five (5) year proactive market strategy be undertaken which should include the following: 1 Focus marketing efforts by targeting SIC categories such as medical & laboratory equipment and supplies, consumer housewares & appliances, and diy & hardware goods. 1 0 Conduct research on individual firms before marketing them 1 0 Expand and upgrade marketing materials.
Establish networks with a national and regional outlook via local and regional cooperation among brokers, developers and major industrial employers. I Develop schematic plans for all available industrial sites a 0 Improve direct sales via emphasis on visits to prospective entrepreneurs and firms I Decrease crisis management, expand staff capacity and increase promotion efforts.
0 Increase annual Penn-Northwest budget to enable the corporation to maximize new job 1 creation in Mercer County.
The study noted that the historic success in attracting businesses to the area proves that Mercer a County is a viable location for a variety of business and industry. The following data should be realized as a result of this success and the proper actions taken as the following describes: I 0 Over 2.5 million sq. ft. of new business development and business expansion has occurred. 1 0 There is a shortage of good, usable industrial buildings and the availability of quality land for development is significantly limited.
Mercer County is afforded a unique opportunity for expanded economic development bec'ause I of its strategic location to interstate systems and the newly completed PA Route 60. I 0 Emphasis should be placed on marketing sites which are visible or accessible to Interstate 80. I I I
t Econoniic Characteristics 41
Fifteen (15) sites were analyzed as a result of positive indications in the market analysis conducted I under the C.E.R.P. study. The following are the major highlights of this analysis: I e The Interstate 79, Exit 3 1 should be a priority locations for hture development 0 Public hnding is a necessary part of securing developers and should be pursued in I development of identified market potential sites. e In the long-term the redevelopment and reuse of environmentally sensitive brownfield sites I such as the Westinghouse site should be pursued. The final major focus of the C.E.R.P. study was on tourism in Mercer County. The following I represents recommendations for the Mercer County Tourist Promotion Agency: I 0 Expand the current office/organization as an independent agency e Expand efforts to the Pittsburgh region - take advantage ofthe new airport for a kiosk on I Mercer County tourism opportunities. Enhance relationship with the state department of tourism
I Capitalize on the new opportunities created by the Grove City Factoly Shops that may foster regional cooperation with neighboring counties.
I Overall, the study indicates that development potential exists for Mercer County but to realize this potential many new changes must be made, suitable and highly marketable land must be made available and infrastructure provided. These efforts will require cooperation at the local, state and t federal level. I I I I I I I I
Communify Facilities 42 I Com mu n ity Faci I it ies 1
Sound and readily available infrastructure is critical to business expansion and development. 'The 1 purpose of this section is to assess the current capacity of water and sanitary sewer facilities within Mercer County, as well as identifying common problems and potential improvements tO eliminate these problems. This information combined with other data gathered will provide a 1 basis for establishing realistic goals and objectives for growth within Mercer County. I Water facilities
Public water service is 1 Water Systems concentrated primarily in Public (Centralized) vs. Non-Public Systems the urbanized areas of the county with I Southwest Region Total incidental connections in rural areas along the Southeast Region Total urban fringe or along 1 main lines extended to Central Region Total serve major outlying residential, commercial I Northeast Region Total or industrial developments. 1 Northwest Region Total The major obstacle to 0 20 40 60 80 water system expansion I Percentage of Persons is money according to a survey of all local public providers. 1
The single most compliance inhibiting factor as related to water systems is ever increasing I. treatment requirements.
Smaller municipal providers indicate that the provision of water is so labor intensive due to 1 testing, servicing & training that it consumes the majority of their maintenance person(s) time.
Water system rehabilitation in some form was completed within the past five (5) years by all 1 of the providers. I 0 Providers which expanded their water service area in the last five (5) years includes: Buhl Community Water Association; Reynolds Water Company; and Shenango Valley Water Company. I 1 I Community Facilities 43 Providers which are planning water system improvements within the next five (5) years include: Greenville Municipal Authority; Sharpsville Borough, Shenango Valley Water I Company and Stoneboro Borough. I Sanitary sewer systems
0 Public water and I Sanitary Sewer Systems sanitary sewer service is Public (Centralized) vs. Non-Public Users concentrated primarily in the urbanized areas of
:...... I ...:::...... ,. .. . I.~.,.,.,.,... .::.,. . the county with So"thwest Region Total incidental connections in H=t+l rural areas along the I Southeast Region Total urban fringe or along main lines extended to Central Region Total serve major outlying I Public residential, commercial Northeast Region Total or industrial developments. I Northwest Region Total The major obstacle to 0 20 40 60 80 100 I Percentage of Persons sanitary sewer system expansion is money according to a survey of I Source: US.Bureau of Census local public providers.
The major capacity & compliance problem related to sanitary sewer systems is I inflow/infiltration.
Sanitary sewer system rehabilitation in some form was completed within the past five (5) years I by all providers except Lakeview Joint Sewer Authority.
0 Providers which expanded their service area within the last five (5) years includes: Grove City I Borough and Reynold Disposal Company. I All sanitary providers are planning system improvements within the next five (5) years, with Lakeview Joint Sewer Authority planning a major upgrade. I I ,I I
Communi@ Facilities 44 I
Public Water System Capacity 1
Buhl Community Water Aaaoe. Fredonia Borough Greenviile Municipal Authority .10 MGD Capacity .I2 MGD Capacity 2.0 MGD Capacity 1 1 I
Grove Cit Boroueh Jamestown Borough bbu Community Water Asroc 1 2.9 MGL Canacitv .I4 MGD Capacity .02%GD Capacity I 1 I Re nolda Water Company Sbarprville Borough Shenan o Valley Water Company l5 MGD Capacity .70 MGD Capacity i4.b~~~capacity 1 I 1 Sandy Lake Borough Stoneboro Borough .52 MGD Capacity .30 MGD Capacity I *Other indicates caoacilv lost to ohvsical m limitations imposed by desource*ofsome aspect of processing or storage.
Source: MCRPC Survey of Public Providers I
I
I Community Facilities 45 I 7, Public Sanitary Sewer Capacity I Farrell Munici al Authority Fredonia Borough Greenville Borough I 1.75 MGD eapacity .10 MGD Capacity 11.2 MGD Capacity
I Available (84.00% I I Jamestown Mun. Authority Available (50.00% I I I
- Available (54. I Available (70.M)% I
I thority
Other indicates capacity lost by hysical I limitatiqns of some aspect ofthe pLt processing or storage. I
I Source: MCRPC Survey of Public Providers I I I
Natural, Historic & Cultural Resources 46 I Natural, Historic & Cultural Resources - I
Physical Features I Counties and regions within counties have their own unique geographic or physical features or I settings. These must be taken into consideration when planning for future development. For example, soils types and drainage conditions may dictate whether or not vacant land is usable for anything more than farming. I This section of the plan will examine certain constraints to development such as slopes, soils, wetlands, and floodplains. I Slope I Steep slope areas are predominant in the western part of Mercer County generally following the Shenango River. The northeast portion of the County, particularly in French Creek Township and Lake Wilhelm area, is another. Slopes 16% and greater are areas where development is very I limited or should not be considered at all with the exception of maybe single residential lots.
Soils I In general, soils in Mercer County are fair to poor for most types of development except for I agriculture. Many types have a slowly permeable fragipan or a seasonally high water table which limits their use for structures with basements, large structures, and on-lot sewerage systems because of the wetness of the soils. I The wetness of soils is a serious constraint to new development, particularly as it relates to on-lot sewerage systems. Conventional septic tank systems do not function adequately in soils with a I high water table or slow permeability. An on-lot sewerage system permit often will not be granted under the regulations of the Department of Environmental Resources unless a more expensive alternate system is provided. I There are four (4) soil associations in the county: I 1) RavennaRrenchtown - Poorly drained soil which is level or gently sloping. This soil has many wetlands “inclusions”. I 2) Chenango/Braceville/Halsey - Can be well drained to poorly drained and found on gentle to moderate slopes underlain by sandy or gravelly deposits. ! 3) CanfieldBavenna - Moderately to poorly drained found on gentle to moderate slopes underlain with glacial till. I 1
i Nairrral, Historic & Cirltural Resources 47
4) Wayland/Papakating/Red Hook - Poorly to moderately drained found in level areas and in I flood plains.
The Soil Survey for Mercer County prepared by the USDA Soil Conservation Service contains I additional information not presented here which should be consulted by anyone proposing to develop property. Also, it is strongly recommended that on-site testing be done to confirm soil conditions as a integral element of all site development plans. I Wetlands Wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a I prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, including swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Wetlands are important and valuable to everyone because they 1) improve water quality, 2) control floodwater, 3) control erosion, 4) provide natural resource I products, 5) support fish and wildlife, 6)provide a setting for outdoor recreation, 7) provide educational opportunities, and 8) help preserve the natural beauty of the community.
I Thirty percent (30%) of Pennsylvania's wetlands are located in the northwest and northeast portions of the State which includes Mercer County. Wetlands determinations should be left up to experts because they are difficult to delineate by the untrained eye. Development can impact wetlands areas and vice versa. The destruction of wetlands through development can create flood problems, stream pollution and destroy the natural beauty of an area along with it's habitat. On the other hand, laws protecting wetlands can put a stop to development due to certain I requirements. In certain cases, developers are called upon to replace or mitigate wetlands upon which their development may encroach, or else are required to totally avoid them thereby effectively stopping development. Experts sometimes need to be sought out to delineate wetland I areas prior to development I The county has nine significant wetland areas which have considerable importance in terms of their water supply, flood protection, wildlife and biological value.
I 1) Fowler Bog - French Creek Township 2) Cranberry Swamp - Deer Creek Township 3) Half Moon Swamp - Fairview Township I 4) Pine Swamp - Worth Township 5) Otter Creek Swamp - Coolspring Township 6) Mercer Bog - East Lackawannock Township I 7) Schollards Run - Springfield Township 8) Blacktown Swamp - Liberty Township E 9) Swamp Root - Liberty Township Presently, several agencies are involved in wetlands protection. The U.S. Army Corps of I
Natural, Historic & Cultural Resources 48 I
Engineers, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service are involved in wetlands regulating and/or delineation. I Floodplains I A floodplain is a low land area which is subject to partial or complete inundation from an adjoining or nearby stream, river or watercourse or any area subject to the unusual or rapid accumulation of surface waters from any source. This is generally an area inundated by a 100 I year flood.
In the past it was not unusual for people to build in a flood prone area and even rebuild after being I forced out by a flood. As more building in these areas took place, flooding became even more serious because these additional structures impeded the free flow of water creating more I destruction. This practice came to a halt with the passage of the PA Floodplain Management Act of 1978, I based on the National Flood Insurance Program established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I Today all communities have adopted an ordinance which clearly spells out what can or cannot be done in a floodplain area. The following map shows floodway areas or floodplains in Mercer County. I
Whenever development is being considered near a river or stream, the FEMA maps should be consulted These maps are available for all communities and show officially-identified 100 year I flood hazard areas.
Summary I All the above must be considered carefully if development is to take place properly in the county. I Where development problems exist in the county, it is probably because these physical and geographical features were ignored. I Natural resources
Mercer County has been heavily mined for coal, sand and gravel over the years. While it is still I being mined for sand & gravel, recent mining regulations have caused coal strip mining to come to a halt even though much coal remains to be mined in Mercer County. Depending on the extent of this kind of mining, development can be greatly affected because of the “hop-scotch” effect I which takes place in strip mining.
Woodlands cover a good portion of the county and while some is harvested, most has been left in 1 its natural state. Around steep - sloped areas of the county, woodlands help prevent erosion and I I III
I Nntriral, Historic & Ctilltiral Resources 49
provides a natural habitat for wildlife which is in abundance. Woodlands also provide for visual I and aesthetic appeal which is conducive to development. I Historic resources I National Register sites Mercer County has eight (8) sites which are on the National Register of Historic Places file along 1 with being on the PA Inventory of Historic Places. They are: 1. New Hamburg Historical Area in Delaware Township 2. A Bridge over French Creek in French Creek Township I 3. Quaker Bridge over the Little Shenango in Hempfield Township 4. Gibson House located in Jamestown Borough 5. Bid Bend Historical Area in Jefferson Township I 6. Kidd's Mill Historical Area in Pymatuning Township 7. Buhl Mansion in the City of Sharon I 8. Johnston's Tavern in Springfield Township In addition to these, the Borough of Mercer has designated an area within the borough encompassing the original town a historic district. The purpose is to protect existing dwellings I which have a historic significance either from age, style or persons living in them in the past. A historic review committee has established by the same ordinance to consider any demolition or 1 construction in this area. The City of Sharon attempted at one time to establish such a district within its boundaries but I never got beyond the idea stage. While not on the P.I.H.P. or N.R. an area which is still historically significant is the Camp Reynolds area in Pymatuning Township. I Underground railroad sitelfree black settlements Mercer County had homes which were purported to be part of the underground railroad during I the Civil War. Two homes were a part of this in Mercer Borough: The Hannah house on South Pitt Street and the Kilgore house on South Erie Street. The Crouse home in Jackson Township I and sites in Sheakleyville were also said to be part of it The County also had two black settlements. One was at Indian Run just southwest ofMercer Borough in Wilmington Township established by a Dr. Charles Everett. It did not survive long I because the local climate was too hard on its inhabitants. The second was established on the southern edge of Sandy Lake and was known as Liberia. It virtually ceased to exist in 1850. A state historical marker is located on U.S. 62 south ofthe fairgrounds which calls attention to a I slave cemetery located nearby. I
Natural. Historic & Cultural Resources 50 1 Native American sites 1 Another interesting historical find in the county are native American sites. There are approximately 30 which have been identified by the Carnegie Museum's Archeological Study. These sites consist of campgrounds, burial mounds, cemeteries and villages. 1
There were also two principal Indian trails passing through Mercer County. They were the Cayahaga Path which ran from Franklin to Akron and the Kuskusky-Cussewago Path which ran I from Pulaski to Greenville then out into Ohio.
Iron furnace sites I
Due to its mineral resources and geographic location, an iron and steel industry developed in the county. Sharpsville Borough was the earliest center of the iron industry in the county. Six I furnaces were built here between 1846 and 1872. The Sharon Iron Company built the first iron processor in Sharon while clay iron furnace was the first to be built in Clarksville. Its remains can I be found east of Clay Furnace Road about 2 miles north of U.S. 62. At one time there were 23 furnaces constructed within the county. The Erie Canal helped further I growth of these furnaces. Very little remains of any of them today. Only a few foundations can be found. I What is the significance of all this as it relates to development. Sometimes these sites stand in the way of development. Particularly if they happen to be on the National Register or are a part of a historic district. And rightly so. Our heritage needs to be preserved and hture development must I be done in such a way as to preserve what is left today, if at all possible.
Of course not everything of historic value can be preserved nor should growth necessarily be I halted because of it. Developers, preservationists, local, county and state governments and agencies need to work together in determining what is important to save and what is not. I C uI tu ra I resources I Ag Security Areas Act 43
Although as discussed in the Existing Land Use section farmland and the number of farms has I decreased, agriculture is an important resource in Mercer County. About 90% of the county's soils are prime or important farmland soils. Local farmers have acted to protect this resource by forming Agricultural Security Areas under Act 43 of 1981. I
Out of 3 1 townships in Mercer County, 18 have significant amounts of agricultural land designated as "Agricultural Security Areas". Acreage-wise, this amounts to 74,972 acres and 775 I farms. Ag security areas receive special treatment designed to keep them in agricultural use and 1 11
1
1 Natural, Historic & Culiural Resources 51 prevent unreasonable restrictions on farm operations. Certain benefits accrue to the landowners I who put their land in ag security areas.
These areas are looked at every seven years and action can be taken to remove a parcel from the 1 Ag Security designation. As has been mentioned before, there are a large number of active farms in the county, but their number is dwindling due to a lot of different factors. Placing farmland in I an Ag Security Area can only help preserve what is left. Mercer County also has an active agricultural land preservation program. Under Act 43, counties may use public hnds to purchase long-term agricultural conservation easements from willing I farmers in Ag Security Areas. Farmers are paid for the development rights on the land and in return they keep the land in farms. To date, the county has purchased conservation easements 1 from 12 farms totaling 1422 acres at an average cost of $665 per acre. I Century farms The county has 49 farms that are recognized as Century Farms. They have this designation because the property has been in the same family for at least 100 consecutive years and a family I member still lives on the property; at least 10 of its original acres are still intact or it grosses more than $1000 per year in the sale of farm products. This designation is given out by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. A complete listing is available at the Mercer County I Regional Planning Commission. I I I 1 I I I I I I I
Prospecisfor Growth 52 I Prospects for Growth 1
During the 1970 to 1990 period, Mercer County's population did not show a growth trend. In I fact, population decreased 4.9% in response to a slumping economy.
The decrease, however, was not shared by all areas of the county. Population shifted, matching a I nationwide trend, from urban areas to the suburbs and rural areas. While the county's cities and boroughs combined experienced a 17.5% population loss, all townships combined grew by 18.2%. Commercial development experienced a similar shift as downtowns lost businesses and I suburban malls, plazas and strip development sprang up.
Still, while growth occurred in suburban and rural parts of the county, it did not come near to I matching the rapid, massive sprawl that affected Pittsburgh and Philadelphia suburbs or counties such as Lancaster or York in the southeast PA farm belt 4, i I 2 Future growth potential I There are indicators that Mercer County's economy has recovered and that there is potential for growth: I Total county employment, which in the late 1970's and early 1980's hovered regularly at 50- 51,000 then plunged to 41,000 in early 1983, now is back to 51,000 (summer/fall 1995). Except for the 1992 closing of Sharon Steel (now reopened as Caparo Steel at 1/5 the 1 employment), there were gains in both goods producing and service sectors.
Unemployment, likewise, is down. After reaching the incredible peak of23.9% in early 1983, I it is now 5-6%. I 0 Since the mid-l980's, industrial growth has measured an average of 220,000 square feet and 20 acres per year. This includes re-use, expansions and new development. 1 Current population estimates from the U. S. Census Bureau show an increase in county population. The 1992 estimate was 122,091 and the 1994 estimate was 122,161, both about 1,000 above the 1990 count of 121,003. I Other factors have potential to encourage economic recovery and further growth: 1 Mercer County has strategic access to major North American markets via I-80,I-79 and PA 60 expressways. - I 0 The recent completion of PA 60 and 1-279 provides a rapid link with the Pittsburgh metro 1 I I
I Prospectsfor Growth 53 area which is attractive to industries, businesses and commuters. In fact, word is out that I Pittsburgh commuters have been buying homes in the county's newer housing developments.
0 Growth has been moving northward out of Pittsburgh up the 1-79 corridor (North Hills, I Cranberry, etc.) and has arrived on Mercer County's doorstep. I 0 Mercer County housing costs are low 0 Mercer County's smaller and rural communities offer attractive "quality of life" amenities such as low crime rate, family-friendliness and outstanding natural, recreational and historic 1 resources. I Population projections Mercer County Regional Planning Commission evaluated the growth indicators and other I influential factors and prepared population projections for the county. Projections are shown for each municipality, region and the county total on the next page.
I A cohort-survival projection method was used. This method examines how age cohorts (groups of similarly-aged people) are affected by migration (moving into or out of Mercer County), births and deaths. It looks at past trends in each of several age cohorts and projects their population 1 into the future. Individual cohort survival projections were prepared for the county, each region and the larger municipalities. For smaller municipalities, future population was allocated from I regional totals based on past trends and 1992 and 1994 Census Bureau population estimates. The projection assumes that the local economy stabilizes, that job losses and plant closings are minimized and that new economic development occurs to offset job losses and stop the net- I outmigration of prior decades. It also assumes, although conservatively, that there will be immigration in response to the improved economic environment and quality of life amenities. There is, however, potential for greater growth than projected here. Such was considered in I developing the vision and policy objectives for the county's future. I I I I I I 1
Prospects for Growth 54 1 Population Projections for 2000 8 2010
POPULATION TRENDS PROJECTION 1 MUNICIPALITY GOVT 1970 1980 1990 %7&90 2000 %QoM) 2310 %WlO
Grow Ci Borough 8.312 8.162 8.240 4.9% 8.400 1.9% 8.480 1.0% uberty Township 918 1.199 1.223 33.5% 1.330 8.7% l.m 12.8% i Pine Township 3,514 3.782 4,193 19.3% 4.580 9.2% 4.900 7.0% SpriW Township 1.878 1.904 1.092 0.7% 1.850 3.1% 2.250 15.4% WMCreek Township 610 711 653 7.0% 700 7.2% 720 2.9% Worth Township 767 893 906 18.1% OM 9.3% 1.060 7.1% i Southeasl Region Total 15,997 18.631 17.107 6.8% 17.950 4.9% 18,910 5.3%
ChIk Borough 467 667 810 30.6% 610 0.0% 810 0.0% 1 Fanell ci 11.000 8,845 6.841 37.8% 8.240 8.8% 5.900 -5.4% H-we ci 15.421 16.365 15.m 4.8% 18.800 9.8% 17.502 4.2% Lsclcswnnnnck Township 1.974 2.814 2.877 35.6% 2.620 -2.1% 2.620 0.0% Sharon ci 22,653 19.057 17.493 -22.8% 17.040 -2.6% 16.640 -2.3% SharpsMle Borough 8.128 5.375 4,729 -22.8% 4.540 -4.0% 4.290 -5.5% 1 Shenango Township 3.141 4.399 4,339 38.1% 4,340 0.0% 4.340 0.0% Soulh Fymaluning Township 2,973 3.016 2.775 6.7% 2.800 0.9% 2.800 0.0% Wesl Middlerex Borough 1,293 1,064 982 -24.1% 960 -2.2% 910 -5.2% Wheatland Borough 1.421 1.132 760 -46.5% 700 -7.9% 650 -7.1% Wilmington Township 812 1.073 1,177 45.0% 1.280 8.8% 1,m 5.5% 1 Soulhwert Region Total 67.281 63.607 57.683 -14.3% 57.930 0.4% 57.810 4.8% 1 Green0 Township 1.099 1.292 1,247 13.5% 1.250 0.2% 1.250 0.0% Greenvills Borough 8.704 7.730 6.734 -21.6% 6.400 -5.0% 6.200 -3.1% Hempfield Township 3.628 4.078 3.826 5.5% 3.900 1.9% 4.000 2.6% Jamestown Borough 937 854 761 -18.8% 700 -8.0% 700 0.0% Citer Creek Township 565 605 563 3.2% 800 2.9% 800 0.0% 1 matuning Township 3.073 3.880 3.736 21.6% 3.800 1.7% 3.800 0.0% Salem Township 679 695 678 4.1% 700 3.2% 700 0.0% Sugar Grove Township 1,029 1.153 987 -4.1% 1.050 6.4% 1,100 4.8% W-1 Salem Township 3.551 5.862 3,547 0.1% 3;550 0.1% 3.650 2.8% 1 Northwest Region Total 23.265 24.149 22.099 -5.0% 21.950 4.7% 22.000 0.2%
Deer Creek Township 398 496 513 28.9% 580 13.1% 580 0.0% 1 French Creek Township 601 765 789 31.3% 800 1.4% 800 0.0% Lake Township 544 598 651 19.7% 700 7.5% 720 2.9% Mill Creek Township 466 587 604 29.6% 630 4.3% 640 1.8% New Lebanon Borough 211 197 209 4.9% 210 0.5% 210 0.0% 1 New Vernon Township 402 476 493 22.6% 510 3.4% 520 2.0% PWY Township 1.368 1,597 1,468 7.3% 1,520 3.5% 1.550 2.0%
Sandy Creek Township 753 847 806 7.0% 840~ ~~ 4.2% 850 1.2% Sandy Lake Borough 772 779 722 6.5% 720 4.3% 720 0.0% Sandy Lake Township 884 1.163 1.161 31.3% 1,250 7.7% l.m 4.0% 1 Sheakleyviile Borough 141 155 145 2.8% 150 3.4% 150 0.0% Stoneboro Borough 1.129 1.177 1.091 -3.4% 1,100 0.8% 1,100 0.0% Northeast Region Total 7.689 8.837 8.652 12.8% 9.010 4.1% 9.140 1.4% 1
Coolspring Township 1,518 1.984 2,140 41.0% 2.260 5.6% 2,330 3.1% DelaWre Township 1,863 2,205 2.064 10.8%. 2.190 6.1% 2.250 2.7% East Lsckawannock Township 1,314 1.7w 1.606 22.2% 1.650 2.7% 1.700 3.0% 1 Faiwiew Township 689 965 910 2.4% 960 5.5% 990 3.1% Findley Township 1,337 1,651 2.284 70.8% 2.400 5.1% 2.480 3.3% Fredonia Borough 731 712 683 6.6% 700 2.5% 700 0.0% Jackson Township 691 1,045 1.$a9 57.8% 1.200 10.2% 1.250 4.2% Jackson Center Borough 274 265 244 -10.9% 260 6.6% 270 3.8% 1 Jenemn Township 1.623 2.007 1,998 23.1% 2.100 5.1% 2.170 3.3% Mercer Borough 2.773 2.532 2.444 -11.9% 2.550 4.3% 2.650 3.9% Central Region Total 13.013 15.075 15.462 18.8% 16.270 5.2% 16.790 3.2% 1 MERCER COUNTY 127.225 128.299 121.003 4.9% 123.110 1.7% 124.454 1.1% I1 Mercer County Comprehensive Plan
\ I Regional Public Meetings 55 I Regional Public Meetings
I The Mercer County Regional Planning Commission conducted four regional public meetings as part of the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan project. The meetings were held four consecutive evenings from January 30th to February 2nd, one in each quadrant of the county. Invitations I were sent to public officials, community leaders and other interested parties. Also, meetings were publicized in the news media.
I The purpose was to identify public concerns about land use, growth and development issues. Also, the public was asked to give opinions of what makes communities livable, or what makes for a high quality of life in Mercer County. The Mercer County Regional Planning Commission 1 presented a IS-minute program on its observations about local trends and conditions, then the public was asked for its opinion. Summaries of each meeting begin on the next page.
I Major issues t Common themes emerged at each of the meetings. The participants desired improved economic opportunities. They wanted more and higher-paying jobs to upgrade the standard of living of local families and encourage young people to stay here and allow others to return. They t supported accommodating more development, especially higher-paying industry, and providing necessary public facilities and other amenities (within responsible financial bounds) to facilitate I development. However, participants were also cautious about growth. They foresaw loss of important values - smaller-town atmosphere, attractive rural countryside and agriculture, lower crime, more personal I & family-friendly communities - if a North HilldCranberry type of development spread northward to Mercer County.
I Regional cooperation and planning was a priority issue at every meeting. Participants saw the value of pooling resources and efforts across municipal boundaries to achieve common objectives t in land use, growth and development. I Livable communities Responses were similar in all four regions about ingredients for livable communities. Recurring themes included good-paying jobs, good schools, low crime and sound, affordable housing. I Other higher priorities were recreation, both neighborhood and community-wide facilities, low taxes and ease of mobility and access (via road system and public transit). A program of planning with land use controls and development standards was generally thought to be important to a livable communities, although participants suggested more flexibility and responsiveness in such I controls. i1 I
Regional Public Meetings 56 I Lakeview regional public meeting I
Monday. January 30, 7:30 PM 1 Lakeview Middle School I5 persons attending I Major issues I Opportunity - Preserve small town character Need -More and better jobs, high-tech jobs Need - To get more & better jobs, will have to provide community amenities, including: I - Aflordable housing - Access to hospitals, shopping, recreation - Quality people 1 - Low crime (good job & good home will do much to reduce crime) -Good, well-planned road system Problem - Many older homes, many with renter occupants, in poor condition I Need -Maintain the condition and quality of homes Need - Stronger tax revenue base I Problem - Unplannedhnzoned community next to planned/zoned community Need - Public transit? Not a great concern because people help needy neighbors get around Need - Community leaders to take active role in planning for needs I
Ingredients for livable communities 1
Good school system - It's the #1 real estate question - People shop around Aflordable housing 8 Access to hospitals, shopping, recreation Rural setting - It's easier to get to know and trust your neighbors Low crime 1 Good road system Regional cooperation - Governments working in harmony towards common goals, plan Environmental controls are good, but should be more locally sensitive 1 Truth in planning - Stability, long-term commitments to preserve neighborhood character Community leadership Community self-help -Neighbors helping neighbors I II I I 1
1 Regional Public Meetings 57 I Grove City regional public meeting
Tuesday, January 31. 7:30 PM I Grove City Borough Building I 33 persons attending 1 Major issues Need - More commercialhndustrial opportunities, stronger manufacturing base Need - Invest in community facilities and utilities to enable development opportunities I Need - Communities must work together to plan for, guide and control growth Need - Performance standards (in land use controls) to ensure quality development Need - Central business district is important to maintain I Need -Protect and aid agricultural community Problem - Movement of growth and development northward in 1-79 corridor - Growth of people seeking small, quiet community here may destroy small, quiet community 1 Need - Regional plan to provide locally-needed development, but limit northward sprawl up 1-79 corridor I Ingredients for livable communities
I Good schools Low taxes Affordable housing I Good-paying jobs Low crime rate 1 Diversification of business and industry Recreation - Both neighborhood playgrounds and community/regional parks Good health care facilities I Adequate day-care centers Better public transportation I I I I I Regional Public Meetings 58 Shenango Valley regional public meeting -
Wednesday, February I, 7:30 PM Hermitage City Building I9 persons attending Major issues I Need - Regional thinking and cooperation in planning/development and government services Need - Reinvestment in older parts of communities, assistance to help older communities Problem - Farrell has only 6,000+ people where it once had 16,000 - Is this decline a valley-wide t problem or just Farrell's? Need - Balance between commercial and residential development Need - Encourage both commercial and industrial development 1 Need - Improve/extend infrastructure to enable development opportunities - Maintain existing infrastructure Problem - Funding inadequate for speculative expansion of infrastructure I Problem - Antiquated taxing structure in state Opportunity - Rezone PA 18 corridor for commercial development I ingredients for livable communities I AfTordable housing Good schools Adequate public safety services Good job opportunities, good-paying jobs '~ Ready access to shopping, entertainment, cultural activities Recreation, especially walking-distance neighborhood facilities Adequate health care facilities Reasonable tax rates I Good transportation network Public transportation Land use/zoning controls - with flexibility 11 Responsible and responsive government I 1 I 1 Regional Piihlic Meetings 59 I Greenville regional public meeting Thursahy, Fehruary 2, 7:30 PM I Henipfield Township Building 16persons aitendirig
Major issues
I Opportunity - Wetlands are an asset to conserve - Communities will be wanting quality water Opportunity - Redevelopment of vacant industrial sites for new industrial development I Need - Public investment in clean-up of vacant industrial sites to allow their reuse Need - To focus on providing a quality family environment - County is nice family place: - Low crime - Many unique and diverse interests I -But, better jobs are found elsewhere and people are leaving in pursuit Need -Positive attitude I Need - Amenities that will attract industry/jobs Need - Encourage smaller businesses, diversification Opportunity - Great potential in the projected turnover of housing from aging homeowners to I new owners in coming years Need - Encourage more land planning Opportunity - Capitalize on educational assets, especially higher education opportunity I Need - Improve elementary/secondary schools Need - More regional planning - More cooperation between Greenville, Hempfield, West Salem I - Success of Grove City Factory Shops community cooperation serves as a model Opportunity - Market the region's recreation opportunities, promote tourism opportunities I Need - Target recreation opportunities for increasingly older population 1 Ingredients for livable communities Good schools (dedicated teachers, progressive curriculums) I Recreation Low crime, good public services, especially safety Transit system I Viable downtown? (responses were not all positive) Sound, affordable housing - Via code enforcement, housing rehab programs Zoning and land use controls I Favorable tax structure I I
Public Opinion Survey 60 f Public Opinion Survey 1
The Mercer County Regional Planning Commission conducted a public opinion survey as part of 1 the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan project. Survey questionnaires were mailed March 13, 1995 to a random sample of 1,570 Mercer County households with a return goal of25%. A total of 353 completed surveys were returned, giving the survey a 90% level of accuracy. I
The purpose of the survey was to obtain public opinion about growth, development and land use issues. It also asked how important certain factors such as jobs, recreation, sound housing or I open space are to more livable communities A copy of the survey form with tabulated responses is included in the appendix. 1 Major issues 1 Public opinion ran similar to that expressed at the regional public meetings held in January and February. Respondents indicated a desire for improved economic opportunities. I 0 80.2% favored (combined "favor" and "strongly favor") more growth and development. 0 83.6% favored development leading to higher-paying jobs 0 80.5% favored any and all job opportunities. 1 0 Favor was overwhelming for redeveloping abandoned industrial sites (90.4% - by far the most favored and least opposed issue), but to a lesser degree respondents favored new job opportunities wherever they could be created (66.9%). I
However, like the regional meeting participants, respondents gave indications of being cautious about growth. I
0 73.9% favored more protection of natural resources, open spaces and rural character. I 0 75.6%favored public programs to conserve natural & scenic areas. 0 72% favored public regulations to minimize pollution of the environment. 0 Also, land use controls which regulate growth and development received positive response t - 72.8% in favor of zoning and 70.3% in favor of standards to minimize development impact (bufferkreening. stormwater control, etc.). I Other issues rated favorably by 65% or more respondents included:
0 69% -Revitalization & reinvestment in downtowns. i 66.9% - Programs to help needy families maintain their homes 0 64.9% - Intergovernmental sharing of services and costs. 1 I I I I Public Opinion Survey 61 Respondents were most opposed to public financing and incentives which support new I development. 27.8% opposed (combined "oppose" and "strongly oppose") public financing of water, sewer & transportation facilities to encourage new development. I 29.7% opposed tax abatements and public financing to encourage new development, although opposition was less if such incentives were used only in limited, designated 1 development areas (22.4%). These issues were three of only four issues in the survey to receive less than 50% I favorable response. Opposition to such public incentives runs counter to the favor expressed for growth and development in general, but may indicate that the public is conservative or suspicious or lacks i understanding about public financing supporting private development. I 1 Major Issues by % Responding Favorably I I 1 i I I
I 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% I I I I'
Public Opinion Survey 62 1, Llvable communities 1~ Again, survey responses were similar to opinions expressed in the regional public meetings. The most important ingredients for livable communities are listed below with the percentage who responded that they are "very important": IN 94.1%-Good schools 1 0 93 5% - Low crime 0 87.3% -Good health care 0 80.2% - Good-paying jobs 1 0 73.7% - Sound, well-maintained housing conditions 0 66.9% - Ease of traffic movement 0 66.3%- Mordable housing I 1 Livable Communities lngredients by % Responding Very Important 1 I I I I 1 1 i
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% I I' I Public Opinion Survey 63
Other factors receiving 50% or more "very important" responses include: economically sound I downtowns (56.9%), intergovernmental cooperation (55.8%), zoning & land use controls (S3.5%), regional planning & problem solving (53.5%) and rural setting, attractive countryside, I open & green spaces (50.1%). Factors receiving the highest percentage of "not important" responses were:
I 19.3% -Public transit 0 18.8% -Historic sites & buildings 0 15.0% -Artistic & cultural events & activities 0 15.0% - Community parks with a broad range of recreation facilities 14.4% -Neighborhood parks within walking or short-driving distance
I While these received the highest "not important" responses, it should be noted that less than one in five respondents thought these factors were not important. Indeed, the vast majority of respondents thought all listed factors were either somewhat or very important, although there I were clear indications of which had the greatest or least priority. I Regiona I perspectives
Survey responses were tallied for each of the five regions as mapped earlier in this plan. The I survey tabulation by region is included in the appendix. With few exceptions, regional responses matched the countywide responses and no outstanding patterns of opinion variation by region I were observed. I Representativeness of the survey Each respondent was asked to give basic demographic information which was tabulated to determine whether the sample of respondents was representative of the countywide population I The sample demographics were compared to 1990 census statistics and available updated information.
I The sample is representative of the countywide population with the following minor exceptions:
0 Blacks amounted to 1.4% of the respondents compared to 4.2% black households I countywide. Other minority race respondents amounted to 1.1% compared to 0.3% households countywide. (1.2%of the respondents did not answer the question.)
I There was a slight undersampling of the lowest-income group. 7.6% of the respondents had household incomes under $10,000 compared to 13% households countywide. Other I income groups were fairly represented. I There appears to have been an oversampling in Hermitage with a higher percentage of ~1 I
Public Opinion Survey 64 1
respondents than other zip codes. This may be a result of stronger interest in comprehensive planning because of recent, well-publicized goning issues in Hermitage plus the city's recent completion of its own comprehensive plan. I I 1 I I I I I 1 Mercer County Comprehensive Plan I I I I I t I I I I I
I Purpose of the Policy Plan 65 I Purpose of the Policy Plan
I The next sections of this phase of the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan are its most important - the Policy Plan itself It contains a vision statemetit defining the ideal character of Mercer County’s communities and the most important ingredients for making them more livable in the I future. It also containspolicy objectives which enumerate the preferred positions, opinions and directions regarding many land use, growth and development issues. I How developed I A special visioning committee played the lead role in developing the Policy Plan. It was a stakeholder group including 52 members from a variety of backgrounds: government officials, community and economic development groups, builders, a realtor and other business people, and I many interested citizens. The committee reviewed background information contained earlier in this report plus the regional I meeting and public opinion survey findings. The committee met twice. The first meeting produced an acceptable vision statement, livable communities ingredients, general policy objective on growth and development and a draft and unranked group of policy objectives. The second I meeting produced acceptable ranked policy objectives. The committee was also mailed information between meetings and invited to give input to be brought up at meetings.
I The vision statement and policy objectives contained herein are those accepted by the visioning committee. They represent the ideas of committee members and Mercer County Regional Planning Commission staff intermixed with expertise from other plans and reports. The entire I package was debated, fine-tuned and accepted by the committee prior to its publication here.
Also, the draft vision and policy objectives were submitted for review to all 48 municipalities and I 9 countywide organizations involved in community development. They provided additional input I incorporated herein. Purpose and use
I The purpose and use of the Policy Plan is twofold:
It is the foundation upon which the next phase of the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan will I be built. The implementing actions and strategies of the next phase will be designed to I achieve the vision and policy objectives stated here. 0 Secondly, it should be used to weigh the desirability of public and private policies and actions I that affect land use, growth and development. The vision and objectives should be applied I I
Purpose of the Policy Plan 66 I when considering development proposals, utility improvements, hnding applications, zoning changes, etc. The questions should be asked: I - Do such actions support the vision or policy objectives? - Will the proposals help make our communities more livable? I - Are public or private decision makers giving proper consideration to the publicly- supported values stated herein? I In this regard, the Policy Plan will have usefulness even if no second phase of the Comprehensive Plan were ever completed. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Vision Statement 67 I Vision Statement I Mercer County has and should maintain a diversity of community types and living conditions: A metro urban center in the Shenango Valley and regional urban centers in Grove City, 1 Greenville, Mercer and Sandy LakeEtoneboro which offer ample and diverse economic opportunities, commercial goods and services and housing with availability of sound utilities, community services (public safety, education, health care, human services) and amenities I (recreation, arts and culture, historic places) and with convenient accesdtransportation connections; and I Rural towns and countryside which offer a more peaceful and less congested living environment, have healthy and prosperous agriculture and offer open and green space, natural I areas, scenic landscapes and recreational opportunities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, etc. I Ingredients for livable communities Mercer County should plan for, preserve and promote livable communities. A vision for livable communities was created by the Visioning Committee based on input from the regional public I meetings and public opinion survey. The ingredients for livable communities in order of priority are:
I Priority 1 (higher priority) Priority 2 Good schools Sound, attractive downtowns Low crime (adequate public safety) Intergovernmental cooperation I Good health care Zoning & land development controls Healthy, diverse economy (good jobs) Regional cooperation & planning Sound housing conditions Neighborhood parks (close-to-home) I Ease of traffic movement, mobility, access Broad community recreation facilities AfTordable housing Rural setting, countryside & open spaces Sound infrastructure (waterkewer, utilities) Urbadrural diversity I Low cost of living Priority 3 I Small-town atmosphere Priority 4 (lower priority) Thriving farms & agriculture Public transit system Environmental controls Artistic/cultural activities & events I Good human service programs Historic sites & buildings Support programs for low income & I disadvantaged I I Policy Objectives 48 PoI icy 0bjectives 1; I
The following policy objectives and priorities were drafted based on responses from the regicinal I public meetings and countywide public opinion survey. The Visioning Committee debated, fine- tuned, then accepted the objectives as they appear here. The committee also ranked the objectives in comparative priority, with Priority One objectives having higher priority than Priority I Two objectives. General policy objective on growth and development I Mercer County and its communities should plan for more growth and economic development I which will result in more and higher-paying jobs and which will: Upgrade the standard of living of local families. 1 0 Encourage young people to stay in or return to Mercer County 0 Enhance the community tax base. 0 Ensure long-term economic stability. I
Growth should not occur to the extent that it will cause loss of treasured local values and way of life such as: I
o Smaller-town atmosphere. 0 Attractive countryside and thriving agriculture. I Q Lowercrime. 0 More family-friendly communities. 1 Growth & economic development I Priority One
0 In general, encourage olanned growth & development I
Encourage a business climate which is conducive to new development and expansiodretention of business and industry to provide greater job opportunities and employment/ economic 1 stability. I 0 Promote diversity of economic development in the county. Redevelop brownfield (idle, existing) industrial sites and support revisions of state & federal I environmental legislation to encourage cleanup and reuse of brownfield sites. I I I
1 PoIicy Objectives 69
0 Designate target areas to accommodate long-term economic growth & concentrate new 0 development in designated growth areas. Growth areas should be designated at locations which have the greatest marketability for quality development, minimize public expense for infiastructure improvements, and extend and maintain the sense of place for existing I communities. Encourage reinvestment in & revitalization of downtowns. Encourage creative land use, I development and reuse proposals which serve to attract people to downtowns. 1 Priority Two 0 Revitalize the Mercer County Redevelopment Authority to facilitate brownfield development.
I Continue to offer incentives of tax incremental financing, tax abatements (used judiciously), public financing, etc. to encourage new development and encourage capitalization of needed I infrastructure. 1 0 Promote a vital tourism industry. Community facilities & services
I Priority One
Encourage public/private financing for the provision of adequate water and sewerage systems I to protect the public health and the environment.
0 Encourage public/private financing of water, sewer & transportation facilities in limited, I designated growth areas. I Target reinvestment in public infrastructure in urban centers and urban neighborhoods to encourage their revitalization. I Promote transportation improvements which will relieve congestion on existing roads & highways and prevent congestion from occurring where it does not yet occur. I Encourage intergovernmental cooperation in providing community facilities & services. I - Encourage equal availability of and access to libraries for all people in Mercer County. - Support efforts to improve the even distribution and quality of health care.
I - Encourage availability of adequate family & human services I I ~~ I
Policy Objectives 70 I' 0 Support improvements by school districts' which improve the quality of education I Housing
Priority One I
0 Encourage, via both the public and private sectors, the development of a diversity of housing types, sizes and price levels to meet the changing needs of all county residents. 1
0 Recognize the value of existing sound residential neighborhoods to community livability & the I economy, and encourage their preservation.
0 Promote use of land use/development standards for bufferkcreening, stormwater control, I lighting, etc., to minimize development impact on residential areas.
Priority Two 1 Facilitate use of public & private fbnds to help eligible families repair & maintain their homes. I Recreation I Priority One
0 Give priority to greater use and maintenance of existing recreation facilities and promotion of 1 new facilities when deemed necessary because of growth or changing recreation demands.
Priority Two 1
0 Promote neighborhoods parks within walking or short-driving distance to enhance the quality of residential areas. I 0 Promote adequate community parks with a broad range of recreation facilities 1 0 Encourage new development to reserve recreation sites and opedgreen space within developments. I Natural & historic resources 1 Priority One
0 Promote land use and development standards which minimize the impact of development on I the environment. I I~ I I Policy Objectives 71 1 Priority Two In general, recognize the value of and encourage protection of natural resources, open spaces I and rural character. 0 Promote public and private support and programs and common sense regulations to:
I - Protect or conserve natural & scenic areas. 1 - Minimize environmental pollution and preserve important environmental values. I - Protect or preserve significant historic sites. Agriculture
1 Priority One
Continue to promote and support agriculture as an important part of the economy and I economic development. I Promote agriculture as a preferred land use in rural communities. I Priority Two 0 Encourage local farmers to place their land in agricultural security areas in order to preserve i the county's farms and farmlands. 0 Promote public and private programs to aid the agricultural economy.
I Miscellaneous I Priority One Promote land use & development proposals and patterns which support the livable I communities ingredients set forth in this plan. Promote a "sense of place" in Mercer County communities, that is:
1 - Attachment to neighborhood or street I - Familiarity and mutual support among neighbors I I
Policy Objectives 72 I - Pride in community I - Sense of history, and - Conduciveness to pedestrian activity and socialization I Encourage appropriate mix of residential, commercial, agricultural & industrial land uses, different housing types and different building & development styles to instill pleasant, uselid I variety and avoid unfriendly, counterproductive rigidity in community development patterns
Encourage mutual support between communities to revitalize more distressed communities & I neighborhoods for the overall economic and social well-being of the county.
Promote land use patterns that enable efficient transportation and ease of mobility, access and I interconnection within the community. I Planning & land use controls
Priority One I
0 Promote use of zoning controls throughout the county and encourage planning & zoning on a regional (joint municipal) basis. 1 0 Preserve authority in municipal governnients to enact and administer zoning controls i 0 Develop performance-oriented land use controls which allow flexibility and variety in meeting land use & community development objectives. i Priority Two 1 Promote use of land use controls which set standards for building style, signs, traffic control, etc., for high quality development. 1 0 Encourage a regional approach to planning designated growth areas, economic development areas, revitalization areas & land use controls. 1 Establish continuing lines of communication and educate communities and the public concerning comprehensive planning objectives and community & economic development efforts. I I I I Mercer County Comprehensive Plan I 1 I Mercer County Comprehensive Plan
I Visioning (Policy Advisory) Committee members
I Cheryl Bahmck Debbie Loutzenhiser Walter Richardson citizen, West Middlesex Tax Collector, Greenville citiza Grove City Harry Barbour Dick Mackell Gertrude Roeorl Barbour Brothers, Inc., Stoneborn Grove City Borough, Grove City South Pymatuning Twp. Planning (t Charles Bestwick Rod McClelland Commission, Sharpsville Mercer County Strategic Plan Mercer Ares Development Corp., Dick &huller Committee, Grove City Mercer Lackawannock Twp., Hermitage I William Booth Lynn McClimans Don Sebastian citizen, Greenville Greenville Area Chamber of Mercer County Board of Realtors, Alice Bradley Commerce, Greenville Sharpsville League of Women Voters, Mary Ann McConnell Brian Shlpley I Hermitage citizen, Mercer Aid-Rep. Phil English, Hennitage Cloyd E. "Gene" Brenneman Jason McCright Tom Smith citizen, Sharpsville citizen, Greenville West Middlesex Borough. West I Dennis Cascio Harold McQuiston Middlesex GreenvilleBorough, Greenville McQuiston Insurance, Sandy Thomas Stanton Gary Cervone Lake Enterprise Zone Corn., Wheatland Mercer County Community Jim Mondok Eric Thomas I Action Agency, Sharon Mercer Co. Conservation District, Thomas Construction, Grove City Mike Clancy Mercer Floyd Tingley citizen, Grove City Douglas Moon citizen, Stoneborn I Tom Clarke Technowood, Greenville Tom Todarello citizen, Mercer William Morocco citizen, Grove City Ron Faull City of Fanell, Fanell Thomas Tulip 1 Liberty Twp, Grove City James Nuipb PA Economy League, Sharon Adaline Fitzgerald Pine Twp., Grove City Pat White Mercer Area Chamber of Donald Perry City of Hennitage, Hennitage Commerce, Mercer citizen, Hermitage Jim Winner 1 Janice Good Bob Piccirilli Winner International, Sharon New Lebanon Borough, New Sharpsville Borough, Sharpsville Pat Woodings Lebanon Burroughs Price League of Women Voters, Sharon I John Holliday Greenville Planning Commission, Mary Ziegler Shenango Valley Chamber & Greenville New Lebanon Borough, New IDC, Sharon Jane Rath Lebanon Dr. Patricia Homer Grove City Chamber & IDC, I Greenville Area Scbool District, Grove City Greenviile Mark Rath Albert Law Grove City Chamber, Grove City I New Vernon Twp., Clarks Mills Larry Reicbard Olivia Lazor Penn-Northwest Development County Commissioner, South Corporation, Mercer F'ymatuning Twp. Brian Reiser I James Long Stoneboro Borough, Stoneboro Shenango Valley Urban League, Ginny Steese Richardson ,I Fmell County Treasurer, Grove City I I I Mercer County Comprehensive Plan
I Survey I
You are one of a select group of Mercer Countians who are being asked to answer this survey. I Opinions will be used by community leaders to develop a plan for future growth, development and land use around the county. The plan will create a vision for how our communities can become more livable, that is, better places to live, work and play. Your survey answers will help build I that vision.
0 Please take the time to fill out the survey. Answer the questions as honestly as possible. There I are no right or wrong answers. Your opinion is what counts.
1 0 When done, re-fold the survey so that the mailing label and pre-paid postage are showing Then, put it back in the mail. That's all there is to it! I Do not put your return address on the survey. This is a random and confidential survey! No one will know the names or addresses of people who answer the survey. I
I This survey is being conducted by the Mercer County Regional Planning Commission. The Commission is preparing theMercer County Comprehensive PZan and is charged with planning I for the county's future. If you have questions, please feel free to call: Mercer County Regional Planning Commission 94 East Shenango Street I Sharpsville, PA 16150 I 412-962-5787 I Please return the survey by March 21. That's easy to remember - it's the 1st day of spring!
I Thank you very much. 1 I 1 Please mark your opinion on current issues. What should Mercer County and its communities do about growth, development, land use and the condition or character of our communities? 1' For each one mark the appropriate box to describe your opinion as either: I Strongly Oppose, 2 Oppose, 3 Neutral, 4 Favor, 5 Strongly Favor, or N No Opinion 1, StMdY Strongly No Oppose Oppose Neutral Favor Favor Opinion I A. In general, encourage more growth and development 2.5% 4.8% 9.3% 38.8% 41.4% 3.1% B. In general, encourage more protection of natural 0.0% 5.9% 16.4% 39.1% 34.8% 3.7% I resources, open spaces and rural character C. Encourage development which results in: I' 1. Higher-payingjob opportunities 1.4% 0.8% 7.6% 35.7% 47.9% 6.5% 2. Any and all job opportunities 1.7% 4.5% 8.8% 36.3% 44.2% 4.5% 11 D. Provide new job opportunities by: 1. Redeveloping abandoned industrial sites 0.3% 0.3% 4.2% 27.5% 62.9% 4.5% Ii 2. Limited designation of new industrial areas 3.7% 8.5% 16.7% 37.4% 22.7% ll.O% 3. Encouraging opportunities wherever presented 7.9% 10.2% 11.3% 35.7% 31.2% 3.7% 1 E. Provide public financing of water, sewer & 8.8% 19.0% 24.1% 26.9% 16.7% 4.5% transportation system expansions to encourage new 1' development F. In general, offer incentives of tax abatements, public 8.5% 21.2% 16.7% 34.6% 13.6% 5.4% financing, etc. to encourage new development. I G. Offer incentives of tax abatements, public financing, 7.9% 14.4% 20.4% 39.4% 10.2% 7.6% ,I etc., only in limited, designated development areas. H. Encourage revitalization & reinvestment in downtowns 1.7% 5.1% 12.2% 40.8% 39.2% 2.0% 1. Target incentives such as public financing, less- 3.7% 14.4% 26.1% 23.5% 22.9% 9.3% I restrictive regulation, marketing support, etc., to downtowns rather than outlying commercial areas I J. Provide public support & programs to build more 4.5% 18.4% 21.5% 32.0% 20.1% 3.4% affordable housing K. Provide public support & programs to help needy 2.8% Il.O% 16.1% 43.6% 23.2% 3.1% 1 families repair & maintain their homes L. Provide public support & programs to protect or 2.0% 11.3% 24.6% 37.1% 21.0% 4.0% 1: preseme historic sites M. Provide public support & programs to protect or 1.4% 5.7% 15.0% 43.3% 32.3% 2.3% conserve natural & scenic areas I 0. Use public regulations to minimize pollution of the 2.5% 8.2% 13.3% 37.7% 34.3% 4.0% environment. I I 7
I P. Provide public support & programs to aid agriculture 6.5% 14.7% 21.8% 35.4% 16.1% 5.4% ‘I Q. Encourage intergovernmental cooperation by: 1. Sharing services & costs 2.8% 6.5% 15.6% 34.8% 30.0% 10.2% I 2. Consolidating governments 3.4% 10.2% 18.4% 26.1% 29.2% 12.7% R. Promote zoning controls which designate areas for 4.0% 5.9% 10.5% 41.9% 30.9% 6.8% different types of development & limit where growth 1 should or should not occur S. Promote standards for landscaping, building style, 5.1% 9.9% 16.7% 38.5% 24.4% 5.4% I signs, traffic control, etc., for high-quality development T. Promote standards for buffedscreening, stormwater 2.3% 5.1% 13.6% 44.5% 25.8% 8.8% I control, lighting, etc., to minimize development impact Please mark your opinion on ingredients for livable communities. How important are each of the I following factors for making our communities better places to live, work & play?
For each one mark the appropriate box to rate the factor as either: I I Not Important, 2 Somewhat Important, 3 Very Important, or N No Opinion
Not Somewhat Vev No 1 Important Important Important Opinion A. Good-paying jobs 1.1% 16.4% 80.2% 2.3% B. Goodschools 0.6% 4.8% 94.1% 0.6% I C. Neighborhood parks within walking or short-driving distance 14.4% 40.5% 41.9% 3.1% D. Community parks with a broad range of recreation facilities 15.0% 42.8% 40.5% 1.7% 1 E. Lawcrime 0.3% 4.2% 93.5% 2.0% F. Small-town atmosphere 6.8% 39.9% 49.9% 3.4% G. Ease of traffic movement 2.3% 27.8% 66.9% 3.1% I H. Public transit system 19.3% 48.2% 30.6% 2.0% I. Artistic & cultural events & activities 15.0% 50.7% 29.7% 4.5% I J. Historic sites & buildings 18.8% 54.4% 23.5% 4.0% K. Rural setting, attractive countryside, open & green spaces 6.5% 40.1% 50.1% 3.1% L. Affordable housing 4.2% 27.5% 66.3% 2.0% 1 M. Sound, well-maintained housing conditions 2.0% 22.1% 73.7% 2.3% N. Good health care 1.7% 10.2% 87.3% 1.1% 0. Human services for lower-income, disadvantaged persons 9.9% 39.9% 46.2% 4.0% I P. Economically sound farms & agriculture 6.5% 40.2% 48.2% 4.8% Q. Zoning & land development controls 5.9% 37.4% 53.5% 3.4% I R. Environmental protection controls 7.6% 41.1% 47.3% 4.0% S. Intergovernmental cooperation 4.8% 32.9% 55.8% 6.5% T. Regional planning & problem solving 5.1% 35.7% 53.5% 5.7% I U. Economically sound downtowns 5.9% 33.7% 56.9% 3.4% 1 V. Other I Please answer the following brief questions about yourself. They will help us be certain we have a valid sample of Mercer County citizens. 1 A. What is your postal zip code? See Below D. What is your ethnic group? 1. white 96.3% B. What is your age? 2. Black 1.4% 1 1. 24oryounger 1.1% 3. Otherethnic 1.1% 2. 25-44 27.8% 3. 45-64 36.8% E. What was your 1994 household income? I 4. 65 orolder 33.4% 1. Under$10,000 7.6% 2. $10-20,000 21.2% C. Areyou... 3. $20-40,000 32.6% 1 I. Male 62.0% 4. $40-60,000 22.1% 2. Female 36.8% 5. Over%60,000 13.6% I Responses by zip code: 16110 0.3% 16143 0.3% 1 16113 0.3% 16145 4.0% 16121 4.8% 16146 11.9% 16124 1.7% 16148 17.0% 16125 14.2% 16150 11.3% I 16127 9.6% 16153 2.8% 16130 0.3% 16154 1.7% 16133 0.3% 16159 5.1% I 16134 2.0% 16161 0.8% 16137 8.5% Other 0.3%' I Where percentages in the above categories do not add up to loo%, it is because some respondents Iefi a blank line. I 1 I I
~ Survey I I
Mercer County Regional Planning Commission 94 East Shenango Street I Sharpsville, PA 16150 I 1 The following table list Mercer County's five (5) Regions average scores to each survey question. The following system was used to ranked answers to the survey questions: 1 .O - 1.9 = Strongly Oppose 2.0 - 2.9 =Oppose 3.0 - 3.9 =Neutral 4.0 - 4.9 =Favor 5.0 - 5.0 = Strongly Favor Current Issues AVERAGE SCORE BY REGION
~ Questions NE -C -4.04 -4.00 -3.85 3.93 3.19
4.20 3.82 4.31 4.11 I 4.00 I C2. Any and all iob ouuorliinities I 4.03 4.13 3.92
DI. Rsdcrrloping abandoned industrial sites -4.32 4.52 ' 4.57 D2. Limited designation of new ihdustrirl areas 3.28 3.35 I 3.89 3.38 I 3.37 I 3.55 I 3.44 I
-3.32 3.05 1 3.17
2.68 3.22 I 3.41 4.11 4.18 1 3.94 I
1. Target incentives rucli 1s piihlic financing Itsrestriaivc rrgulatia& marketing support, nc., lo donnto\\ns ~atlicrlhm outlying cmmercial areas. -3.41 2.76 ! 3.00 I. Pmvidc public support & prop;llaslo build more affordable housing -3.69 K. Pmvidc public supprt & pmgrsnu to help needy families rrpair Bi maintain heir homes 3.84 3.81 I 3.31 1 3.41 + - M. Provide public support & pra5ams to protea or conserve natural & miicareas -3.83 N. Use public regulations lo miiiimize pollution ofthe ewiroiuwnt -3.90 3.89 I 3.45 I 0.Provide public support & prognnu to aid agn'culture 3.42 *3.64 3.44 3.24 I 2.94 I P. Encourage iiitergavcrmiimtal cM)pration by:
3.59 3.46 3.86 3.96 I 3.63 I R Ronlotc standards for landscaping building ayk, rip.lrafic coliml. dc., for hi&- quality developnimt 3.34 3.46
S. Promote standards for hffcrlmniing stonn water mnml. lighting dc.. to minimire developmnu impan 3.46 3.38 3.81 ~ - rumnt luun - STRONGLY OPP ;E Oh STRONGLY FAVOR - I -NW NW -SE -0.0 -56.3 -29.4 I B. In gmeral. encourage more prmection of natiiral resources. own spaces and rural dmraaer 0.0 35.9 *-20.6 I CI. Hieher-Davinaiob wmrtunilies I 1.6 2.4 I 0.0 54.7 29.4- C2. Anv and all iob omrtunilies I 4.7 50.0 20.6- I D. Provide no” iob omrtunilier I ~ ~~ - - DI. Redeveloping abandoned industrial sites 0.0 -65.6 29.4 I D2. Limited designation of new indoarial areas 1.6 -25.0 11.8 D3. Encouragingopportunities wherever presented 1.6 37.5 17.6 E. Rovide public financing of wvaler, sewer & I trancpntalion rynm srplcrions lo encourage new 6.3 21.9 2.9 dzvelo~ment I - F. In general, offer iiimilives oflax ahatonen& public I I 4.0 2.7 -18.8 8.8 0. Offer ineeidives oftax ahatanen& public financing etc., only iu limited, derigllated developiiient areas 4.0 2.7 9.1 I 2.9 7.8 16.0 13.5 10.9 . 0.0 1 0.0 2.7 35.9 28.0 1 29.7 1 46.1 23.5 - 1. Target inceirlivrj such as public financing lcrr I restrictive regulation, marketing support. etc., to 0.0 5.4 25.0 16.0 13.5 23.0 11.8 do~vntownsrather than outlying comiierfiil nrens. - J. Provide public support & programs to build more affordable liouring 0.0 5.4 26.6 12.0 13.) 20.0 11.8 I R. Provide public support &programs lo help needy families repair & iitaintain their honies I 0.0 4.0 2.7 18.8 -14.7 I L Provide public support & progmw to protect or “mehistoric sites I 0.0 4.0 0.0 -15.6 -14.7
4.0 0.0 29.7 24.0 40.5 22.4 17.6 I N. Use public support lo minimize polhilion ofthe ~Nim,”,,aU I 1.6 0.0 5.4 37.5 28.0 29.7 33.3 17.6 I 4.0 94 +14.1 5.9 - - - - 0.0 2.7 28. I 11.8 1 P2. Consolidating govemmem 3.1 0.0 2.7 29.7 27.0 34.5 20.6 1 3.1 0.0 5.4 20.0 - -20.3 29.7 32.7 -11.8 R Proniote aandards for landscaping. building afyle, signs, trafic control, etc.. for high-qdity 9.4 0.0 2.7 18.8 12.0 18.9 33.3 8.8 Ii develophmt
S. Promote staiidards for bufferlscreening storm water rmdrol, lighting. elc.. lo minimize impact -3.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 I 2.9 15.6 , 12.0 24.3 34.5 14.7 I1 I I I I
INGREDIENTS FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES AVERAGE SCORE BY REGION Questions NWNE c SW SE A. Good-paying jobs 2.14 2.84 2.84 2.19 2.64 B. GoodSchcols I 2.91 I 2.96 I 2.95 1 2.91 I 2.94 I C. Neighborhood parks within walking or shofl-diiving distance 2.13 1.33 2.09 2.33 2.27 D. Community parks with a broad range of recreation facilities 2.30 2.04 2.19 2.22 2.44 E. LowCrime 2.85 1.83 3.00 2.89 2.82
F. Small-tonm atmosphere I 2.39 I 2.56 . I 2.19 I 2.40 I 2.30 I G. Ease of ti-afic movement I 2.65 I 2.58 1 2.50 I 2.65 1 2.62 I H. Public transit system 12.10 11.92 11.92 12.15 11.88 I 1. Artistic & cultural ex'ents & activities 12.16 11.83 (1.94 12.15 12.03 I J. Historic sites & buildings I 2.00 I 1.88 I 2.03 I 2.00 1 1.88 I K. Rural setting, attxactive counttyside, open & peen spaces 2.55 2.46 2.62 2.26 2.56
L. Affordable housing 2.77 2.56 2.40 2.59 2.48 M. Sound, \vell-maintained housing conditions 2.19 2.64 2.68 2.12 2.55 N. Good health care 2.94 2.79 2.83 2.86 2.61 0. Human services far lower-income, disadvantaged persons I 2.44 I 2.05 I 2.00 I 2.36 I 2.03 I P. Economically sound farm & agriculture I 2.51 I 2.60 I 2.33 I 2.24 I 2.19 I 0.Zoning & land develoDment controls I 2.33 I 2.36 I 2.22 I 2.49 1.2.31 I ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ R. Environmental cooperation 2.38 2.16 2.12 2.41 2.03 S. Intergovernmental cooperation 2.38 2.26 238 241 2.21 T. Regional planning & problem solving 2.33 2.09 2.14 2 50 2.28 U. Economically sound do\mto\ms 2.52 2.17 228 252 2.56 - Ingredients for Livable Communilies % NOT IhlPORTANT I Yo VERY IMP01 ‘ANT I sw QUESTIONS -mv - TTT A. Godpaying jobs -1.6 -1.2 5fF 51.8 164.7 I E. Goodschools -0.0 -0.G 0.0 95.3 76.0 91.9 C. Neighborhood parks within walking or 9.1 tl short-driving distance __20.3 - D. Community parks with a broad range of recreation facilities 14.1 15.2 “P - - 1 E. Low Crime 0.0 -0.6 F. Smnll-to\m atmosphere 3.1 7.9 y5.9 51.6 I G. Ease of traffic morement -1.7 2.4 I H. Public transit system 4.7 24.3 16.4 1 I I. Artistic & Cultural events & activities 21.9 20.0 18.9 13.9 I J. Historic sites & buildings 10.9 12.0 16.2 15.2 I K. Rural setting, attracti\,e counttyside, open & green spaces -23.4 12.0 0.0 -9. I 2.9 54.7 48.0 59.5 43.6 1 55.9 I -1.6 8.0 8.1 -3.0 8.8 75.0 52.0 62.2 M. Sound, \\.ell-maintained housing conditions 0.0 4.0 2.7 2.4 2.9 81.3 56.0 70.3 I I N. Good health care 0.0 0.0 5.4 1.8 0.0 92.2 68.0 86.5 0.Human sewices for lower-income. 1 disadvantaged persons J.7 16.0 13.5 7.3 17.6 53.1 32.0 35.1 P. Economically sound Calms & I I apiculture 3.1 12.0 10.8 4.8 14.7 56.3 56.0 45.9 I 0.Zoning & land deveioDmen1conuols 7.8 4.0 5.4 3.6 2.9 43.8 44.0 35.1 t R. Environmental protection controls -9.4 8.0 2.7 -6.1 5.9 45.3 28.0 35.1 S. Intergovernmental cooperation -3.1 0.0 5.4 -6.1 2.9 51.6 44.0 43.2 I T. Regional planning & problem solving 1.6 0.0 5.4 4.8 8.8 46.9, 36.0 27.0 U. Economically sound do\\nto\\ns -4.8 4.0 1.8 -5.5 5.9 57.8 36.0 40.5 -61.8 I 1 I I 1 I Mercer County Comprehensive Plan
November 1996 Mercer County Comprehensive Plan
On behalf of
7ta &-
%wed& 1996
The preparation of this report was financed in part by a SPAG grant from the Department of Community Affairs under the provisions of Act 5A approved June 30, 1995, as administered by the Bureau of Community Planning, Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. Table of Contents
Acknowledgments Housing Plan ...... 22 Me~uCounty Housing Commission findings .... 22 Preface kdz??443pcan 7- 7- The Land Use Planning Process ...... 25 Introduction ...... 1 procesS ...... 25 why a comprehensiveplan? ...... 1 Locatid theory for various land uses 21 Legal status of a comprehensive plan ...... 1 Twophsses ...... 2 The Future Land Use Map ...... 28 Livable communities theme ...... 2 Land use categories ...... 28 Actions & Strategies Plan process ...... 3 Land use trends 29 Planning regions ...... 5 Projected land use needs ...... 30 southwest region ...... 3 1 Ndwest region ...... 33 Northeast region ...... Southeast region ...... Policy Plan Background ...... I Central region...... How developed ...... 7 putposeanduse...... I Planning Toolbox ...... 39
Vision Statement ...... 8 Ingredients for livable communities ...... 8
Policy Objectives . 9 General policy objec 9 Urbdsuburban preservation areas ... Growth & econofnic development ...... 9 Community facilities & services Grant Program Reference ...... 55 ...... 11 sources ...... II -7-Ph Agriculture ...... 12 Miscellaneous ... 12 Community Facilities Plan ...... 63 Planning & land use controls 13 Rural preservation areas Growih target areas Revitalization target 7-66E9- Wise use land banks Urbanhburban Background , ...... 15 Local infrashucture financing program ...... 68 Incorporation o by reference ...... 15
Economic Development Plan (CERP) ...... 16 Summary of conclusions & recommendations .... 16 Cmtmarketing efforts ...... 11 Public meetings minutes Interrelationship to Comprehensive Plan 18 Public hearing minutes Transportation Plan ...... 19 Goals ...... 19 County commissioners' adopting resolution Transportation factors 20 Transportation priorities ...... 20 Annual Action Plans Acknowledgments
The Mercer County Comprehensive Plan was a publicly-owned and publicly-driven project. The Actions & Strategies Plan, like the Policy Plan before it, involved hundreds of public officials, agency representatives, business people, and citizens. This progressive group, leaders all, gave much time and effort to planning for livable communities and a better Mercer County future.
Mercer County Board of Commissioners who stand committed to planning and achieving a high quality of life for Mercer County citizens:
1996 Board: 1995 Board: Richard R. Stevenson, Chairman Olivia M. Lazor, Chairman Cloyd E. Brenneman Joseph F. Fragle Olivia M. Lazor John G. Johnson William M. Reznor
0 Mercer County Regional Planning Commission which embodies regional planning and cooperation and provided valuable input throughout the Comprehensive Plan:
James L. Hogan - Jefferson, Jim Carnes - Mercer Chairman John G. Johnson - Mercer Burroughs Price, Jr. - Greenville, Janice Good - New Lebanon Vice Chairman Mary A. Ziegler - New Lebanon Richard A. Mackell - Mercer County, Edward Bowman - Sandy Lake Secretary Robert W. Kaltenbaugh - Sandy Lake Ray Foster - Wheatland, Treasurer John P. Alfred0 - Sharpsville William Morocco - Farrell Rocco DelFratte - Sharpsville Jerry Miller - Farrell Brian Reiser - Stoneboro Gary Nitch - Hermitage Samuel A. Scott - Stoneboro James A. Rollinson - Hermitage Linda Bollinger - West Middlesex James "Pat" White - Hermitage Ronald Dubrasky - West Middlesex Joseph L. Baldwin - Sharon Mary Jane Cusick - Wheatland Leo A. Hanley - Sharon John B. Courtney - Findley Chris Outrakis - Sharon Elliot Lengel - Findley Russell Shaffer - Clark Russell L. Dawes - Hempfield Ronald Boyd - Fredonia Mary Gealy - Jackson Larry McAdams - Fredonia W. Jerry Vernam - Jackson Dennis C. Cascio - Greenville Joanne Brown - Jefferson Clifford McCandless - Grove City Dave Beatty - Liberty Thomas D. Shaffer - Grove City Ron Faull - Liberty Wesley McAfoose - Jackson Center Frank Cochran - New Vernon Lee Tharp - Jackson Center Albert W. Law - New Vernon Darryl Pinney - Jamestown Richard Straub - Otter Creek Paulette Young - Otter Creek Jim Dickson - Wolf Creek Richard Marshall - Perry Jim Doersch - Wolf Creek Fred Brenner - Pine Dean Alexander - Mercer County Thomas B. Miller - Pine Freida Eakman - Mercer County Richard Shenvood - Pymatuning Ethel Friede - Mercer County Phillip P. Steele - Pymatuning Joseph A. Loedding - Mercer County John Draskovic - Shenango Patricia Meehan - Mercer County Mike Sabo - Shenango Paul E. Mehalko - Mercer County Michael Nashtock - South Pymatuning Gail G. Moon - Mercer County Richard Dillaman - Springfield Marta Nagel - Mercer County Harold M. IfB - Springfield Richard R. Stevenson - Mercer County Jeff Hoy - Wilmington Chuck Murrin - Supervisors Assoc. Carol Kaufman - Wilmington Robert G.Kocherns - Solicitor
0 Mercer County Regional Planning Commission Staff which worked hard developing this plan, mixing its expertise with the visions and opinions of many stakeholders:
Dennis G. Puko, Executive Director John S. Buly, Planner Richard R. Darko, Assistant Director Carmen L. Reichard, Grants Admin. Julie M. Slater, Assistant Director Margaret B. Heldorfer, Draftsperson Daniel M. Gracenin, Senior Planner Marilyn Ciprich, Admin. Secretary Steven L. Tingley, Planner Evelyn Wike, Secretary Bethany L. Graham, Planner
0 Graney, Grossman, Ray and Associates of New Wilmington, PA, the planning consultant which partnered with the MCRPC staff to develop the plan and which infused both a battery of new ideas and a sincere interest and caring for the county community:
Richard L. Grossman, Partner Todd F. Colosimo, Assoc. Plannei Thomas W. Graney, Admin. Partner Jack D. Losco, Assoc. Planner Nicole Artzberger, Assoc. Planner Barbara A. Schiek, Secretary
0 Visioning Committee, a cross-section of county representation (citizens, government, business, etc.) which ultimately scrutinized this work, instilled “common sense”, and shaped the plan’s ideas and strategies into acceptability. (Committee list on next page.)
0 Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Community & Economic Development) which provided funding, direction, advice, and continued support:
Dallas A. Dollase, Director Anthony J. Mottle, Planning Analyst Bureau of Community Planning Erie Regional Ofice
0 And last but not least, the regional public meeting participants and the many agency/ governmentlprivate-sector representatives, all of whom provided input critical to the future vision contained in this plan. Mercer County Comprehensive Plan
Visioning Committee members
Cheryl Babroek Albert Law Mark Ratb citizen, West Middlesex New Vernon Twp., Clark Mills citizen, Grove City Harry Barbour Olivia Lazor Larry Reichard Barbour Brothers. Inc., Stoneboro County Commissioner, Sonth Penn-Norlhwest Development Charles Bestwick Pymatuning Twp. Corporation, Mercer Mercer County Strategic Plan Elliott Lengel Brian Reiser Committee, Grove City PA Farm Bureau, Findley Twp. Stoneboro Borough, Stoneboro William Booth Betty Liogle Ginny Steese Richardson citizen, Greenville citizen, Grove City County Treasurer, Grove City Mary Bowlin James Long Walter Richardson Grove City Chamber of Shenango Valley Urban League, citizen, Grove City Commerce, Grove City Farrell Doug Riley Alice Bradley Debbie Loutzenbiser Greenville Area Chamber of League of Women Voters, Tax Collector, Greenville Commerce, Greenville Hermitage Dick Mackell Gertrude Rococi Cloyd E. "Gene" BFenneman MCRF'C, Grove City South -tuning Twp. Planning County Commissioner, Rod McClelland Commission, Sharpsville Sharpsville Mercer Area Development Corp., Dick Schuller Dennla Cascio Macer Lackawannock Twp., Hermitage Greenville Borough, Greenville Mary Ann McConneU Don Sebastian Gary Cervone citizen, Mercer Mercer County Board of Realtors, Mercer County Community Jason McCright Sharpsville Action Agency, Sharon citizen, Greenville Brian Shipley Mike Clancy Harold McQuiston Aid-Rep. Phil English, Hermitage citizen, Grove City McQuiston Insurance, Sandy Tbomaa Staaton Tom Clarke Lake Enterprise Zone Corn., Wheatland citizen, Mercer Patricia Meehan Carl Swartz John Courtney citizen, Sharpsville Olter Creek Twp., Greenville Mercer County Ag Development Jim Mondok Eric Thomas Council, Findley Twp. Mercer Co. Conservation District, Thomas Construction, Grove City Ron Faull Mercer Floyd Tmgley Liberty Twp, Grove City Douglas Moon citizen, Stonehoro Adaline Fitzgerald Technowood, Greenville Tom Todarello Mercer Area Chamber of William Morocco citizen, Grove City Commerce, Mercer City of Farrell, Farrell Thomas Tulip Dave George Bob Nicolls PA Economy League, Sharon West Middlesex Borough, West Nicolls Realty, Sharpsville Pat white Middlesex James Nulph City of Hennitage, Hermitage Janice Good Pine Twp., Grove City Jim Winner New Lebanon Borough, New Donald Perry Winner International, Sharon Lebanon citizen, Hermitage Pat Woodings John Holliday Bob Piccirilli League of Women Voters, Sharon Shenango Valley Chamber & Sharpsville Borough, Sharpsville Mary Ziegler IDC, Sharon Burroughs Price New Lebanon Borough, New Dr. Patricia Homer Greenville Planning Commission, Lebanon Greenville Area School District, Greenville Greenville Jaue Rath citizen, Grove City Preface
It was coincidental but timely that, as this Mercer County Comprehensive Plan was nearing completion, the Mercer County Historical Society celebrated its 50th anniversary. It gave cause to reflect on where the county has been in the past and where it is going in the future. In fact, community leaders were asked to write their vision for the next 50 years and place it in a time capsule to be opened in the year 2046.
Mercer County is at a crossroads not seen since industrialization in the late 1800’s-early 1900’s built cities and towns out of the then forests and pastoral countryside. Suburbanization is growing northward from the Pittsburgh metro area. Mercer County is a next stop on this self- defeating quest for small town and rural amenities which suburbanization eventually destroys.
There is realistic potential for growth in the near future to reach 140,000 population (it is about 123,000 now) with accompanying businesses and industries. In the form of suburban sprawl, it could consume an entire average-sized township and 150-200 average-sued farms. Or, that same growth could revitalize the existing cities and boroughs without loss of farms and green space. This plan promotes a responsible combination of the two.
Concerning the 50-year hture there are two visions. In one, Mercer County succumbs to suburbanization. It includes sprawling subdivisions of homogenous housing where local families neither can afford to live nor are desired by the new residents. It includes nondescript commercial strips along congested highways unfiiendly to pedestrians and fhstrating to drivers. The public will pay for costly public utility extensions, enlarged highways, and increased services for police and fire protection, snow plowing, etc. With a priority for personal wealth over community wealth, centers of activity, culture, and pride like the Mercer County Courthouse will be literally unbuildable. However, before 2046, suburbanization’s cheaper, styleless construction, dependence on the automobile, and lack of a true sense of community will be its downfall.
The other vision is the one this plan promotes for Mercer County. It also foresees a growing county, but the growth will include the older communities, enabling them to thrive. There is even potential for a new town patterned after the flavor of the older towns. Despite growth, communities will maintain their smaller-town, family-friendly, and culturally-unique character. Those aspects will indeed be in demand. With more folks working from home (tele-commuting), shopping from home, and being entertained at home, places of social interaction like the neighborhood sidewalk and the community park will be very important. Culturally distinct places such as the ethnic clubs of the Shenango Valley, historic downtowns, and even old smokestack industries will become public places and tourist attractions.
Mercer County is in the envious position of being able to plan its destiny before new growth is realized. The countywide community has expressed its vision in this plan via 21 open meetings throughout the county with 460+ participants, a countywide public opinion survey, and countless meetings with community officials and organizations. Now it is time to roll up our sleeves and do our parts, whether large or small, to make it happen. -- Mercer County Comprehensive Plan Introduction I In trod ucti o n
Mercer County Regional Planning Commission undertook the development of the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan in order to help shape the kind of future that Mercer County residents desire. The plan serves as a guide for public and private decision-making that will shape future growth, development, land use, and community character.
This plan recognizes that most decisions regarding the use of land are private concerns of individuals. This plan also recognizes that decisions affecting public facilities, public costs, and the overall quality of life involve more than one individual. They must take into account the concerns of the community at-large and the interests of future citizens who will inherit the lands, resources, and problems we leave behind. Why a comprehensive plan?
The impetus to develop a new countywide comprehensive plan originated with the 1991 Mercer County Sirategic Plan. Two objectives in the Strategic Plan called for preparation of a county land use plan and coordinated, regional land use policies and controls. The overriding goal, said the 150+ community leaders who wrote the Strategic Plan, is “to improve the standardof living and quality of lije for Mercer County ciiizens. ”
The Mercer County Regional Planning Commission, in its MCRPC 2000 self-evaluation and organization plan, stated that the Commission should be doing more and better planning to enhance the county’s future. It noted that it is a tragedy to maintain the status quo and fail to set and pursue new goals for the betterment of communities.
Lastly, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (Act 247 of 1968 as amended by Act 170 of 1988 and further amendments) requires that all counties “shall ... prepare andadopt a comprehensive plan. ” While Mercer County does have a comprehensive plan (prepared in seven volumes and a summary from 1973 to 1975), it is outdated and was never adopted by the Mercer County Board of Commissioners.
Legal status of a comprehensive plan
Under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, a comprehensive plan is only an advisory document. It is not itself a development ordinance or zoning map and does not contain any rules or regulations.
The state planning code does, however, encourage consistency between a county comprehensive plan and municipal plans and actions as follows: Znfroduction 2
Municipal comprehensive plans shall be generally consistent with the county plan
Certain municipal actions involving streets, watercourses, waterlsewer facilities, and public buildings and grounds must be submitted to the county planning agency for review.
Adoption, amendment, or repeal of any comprehensive plan, official map, subdivision ordinance, or zoning ordinance must be submitted to the county planning agency for review.
Certain school district actions involving school buildings and land must be submitted to the county planning agency for review.
In addition to these planning code requirements, some government grants or permits require a determination that the associated activity is generally in conformance with a county comprehensive plan. Two phases
The Mercer County Comprehensive Plan is divided into two phases:
Policy Plan phase (separate, previous work) which identifies the major issues affecting land use, growth and development, sets forth a vision of Mercer County’s future, and lists broad policy objectives designed to realize that vision, all based on a consensus of the public a and community leaders. The policy objectives stand as policy “positions” on critical issues.
Actions 8 Strategies Plan phase (this document) which recommends short-range and long-range strategies to achieve the vision and implement policy objectives of the Policy Plan. Focal points are a land use plan and map, suggestions for improvements to local zoning, and subdivisiodand development ordinances, plus suggestions for public/private investments to improve waterkewer facilities, transportation, housing, etc.
Livable communities theme
The theme of both phases of the Comprehensive Plan is “PlanflingforLivable Communities. ” The highest priority is placed on defining what will make Mercer County communities better places to live, work, and play.
A “visioning” process was used to define livability. The Mercer County Regional Planning Commission brought together representatives of diverse interests and the general public to create a vision. Participants were asked to envision what characteristics of their community make it a good place to live and what changes are desired to make it a better place to live. The result was a public consensus on aspirations and values set forth as a guiding beacon to drive the remainder of the planning process. a Introduction 3 Actions & Strategies Plan process
The accompanying graph gives a quick view of the process utilized in development of the Actions & Strategies Plan. It included:
Review 8 research
- The Mercer County Regional Planning Commission (MCRPC) staff and planning consultant Graney, Grossman, Ray and Associates (GGR) reviewed existing community comprehensive plans, sewer & water plans, and zoning & subdivision ordinances. There were three reasons for the review: 1) to gain a better understanding of community needs and problems, 2) to clearly understand the directions communities have already set for themselves, and 3) to ensure compatibility of the county plan with local plans.
- The MCRPC staff and GGR researched possible strategies or “tools” to be considered for inclusion in the plan. An array of ideas were obtained from publications, contacts with planners and community leaders from outside Mercer County, and even “on-line” sources.
0 Incorporation of existing plans
- Three countywide plans related to the Comprehensive Plan were completed or underway at the beginning of this work: 1) housing needs plan (Mercer County Housing Commission), 2) long-range transportation plan (Mercer County Metropolitan Planning Organization), and 3) Community Economic Recovery Program (CERP)plan (Penn- Northwest Development Corporation). The Comprehensive Plan was designed not to unnecessarily duplicate these plans, but rather to incorporate them inasmuch as they address the previously endorsed Policy Plan.
- The full MCRPC reviewed each of these plans at separate monthly meetings
- The visioning committee reviewed each of these plans at its first meeting.
0 Round 1 public meetings
A first round of public meetings was held in April and May. Meetings were publicized as widely as possible via the local media and direct mailings to all local governments and potentially-interested persons and organizations.
Regional public meetings were held in each of the five planning regions identified in this plan. Participants drew land use plans for their own communities or neighborhoods to build on the countywide vision defined in the Policy Plan. They used markers to sketch their ideas on work maps. Then, each person applied stickers to the maps to cast votes for what they thought were the best and worst ideas. Introduction 4
- The first visioning committee meeting was held. Members engaged in a slightly different mapping exercise. They were given stickers representing realistic allocations of projected future growth (1 industry sticker representing 50 new industrial acres, etc.) and asked to place growth in desired locations on a county map, considering both new growth areas and revitalizationheuse of existing developed areas. Then, each member voted via a different set of stickers for what they thought were the best and worst ideas.
- GGR and the MCRPC stafF prepared a county land use plan map representing a composite of all input received at public meetings.
Round 2 public meetings
- A second round of public meetings was held in May, also widely publicized.
- Regional public meetings were again held in each of the five planning regions. Participants reviewed the composite land use plan map for their region, made any desired adjustments, then reached consensus on its final form. Also, they discussed potential “tools” or strategies which could be used to implement the plan. Many tools were written on flip charts by GGR and MCRPC st&. Other tools were suggested by the participants themselves. At the end, each person applied stickers to the flip charts to cast votes for what they thought were the best and worst tools.
- The second visioning committee meeting was held. Members reviewed the countywide land use plan map with all input incorporated from the second regional meetings. A consensus was reached on its final form. Members also reviewed the implementation tools suggested at regional meetings. The tools were debated and, in a few instances, modified in breakout groups. The entire committee then agreed via consensus on a final tool list.
Public review
- Acceptance by the visioning committee at its second meeting marked the first step in a final public review process
- The full Mercer County Regional Planning Commission reviewed and endorsed the Actions & Strategies Plan at a special meeting June 1996. - 25,
- MCRPC held public meetings September 30 and October IS, 1996 and the county commissioners held a public hearing October 24, 1996 in accord with the PA Municipalities Planning Code. Public reaction ranged from questions to supportive comments. Minutes of the public meetings and public hearing are in the Appendix.
- The Mercer County Board of Commissioners adopted the Comprehensive Plan (both phases) on November 7, 1996. The adopting resolution is in the Appendix. Introduction 5 Planning regions
For purposes of this plan, the county was divided into five planning regions (see accompanying map). Each region includes one of the county’s five urbdeconomic centers plus surrounding area. The five regions are:
0 Southeast region - Grove City center and surrounding area. Southwest region - Shenango Valley center and surrounding area. 0 Northwest region - Greenville center and surrounding area. 0 Northeast region - Sandy LakdStoneboro center and surrounding area 0 Central region - Mercer center and surrounding area.
It is acknowledged that some municipalities on the edge of one region may feel stronger ties to another region. That’s OK. These regions are not drawn to suggest how municipalities should ally themselves, but rather to create logical “packages” for collecting and presenting information in this plan. Introduction 6
Actions & Strategies Plan Development Process
Mercer County Comprehensive Plan
Review 8 Incorporation of Round 1 Round 2 Public research-- existin plans public meetings public meetings review ,- May36 I June to Nov. 96 I Nov. 95 to Feb.to %ay36 7 npr.toMay36 7 Feb. 96
MCRPC FUN Vlslonlng 8GGR MCRPC 5 regl0nal MCRPC I revlew publlc committee revlew 6 revlew of mtg. #z - local plans, 3 plans meetings - approval, Moption research zountywlde publlc (housing, region land land use by county strategy transp., (housing. use plan meeting, commls- Ideas lrom econ. dev.) consensus, county publica- consensus, commls- sloners at 3 econ. dev.) suggested Implemen- tions 6 monthly Implemen- sloners 0 planner meetlngs meeting tation tools publlc network consensus hearfng sources Mercer County Comprehensive Plan e Policy Plan Background 7 Policy Plan Background
The next sections of this document are reprinted exactly as contained in the previous phase of the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan - the Policy Plan. They are reprinted because of their importance in defining a consensus vision for the future. They also provide the foundation on which the Actions & Strategies Plan is built, the direction towards which implementing actions and strategies must strive.
Included is a vision sfatemen: defining the ideal character of Mercer County’s communities and the most important ingredients for making them more livable in the future. Also included are policy objectives which enumerate the preferred positions, opinions, and directions regarding many land use, growth, and development issues.
How developed
The visioning committee played the lead role in developing the Policy Plan. The vision statement and policy objectives contained herein are those accepted by the committee. They represent the ideas of conunittee members and Mercer County Regional Planning Commission staff intermixed with expertise from other plans and reports. The entire package was debated, fine-tuned, and accepted by the committee prior to its publication in the Policy Plan.
Also, the vision statement and policy objectives were submitted for review to all 48 municipalities, 9 countywide organizations involved in community development, and the county commissioners. They provided additional input incorporated herein. Purpose and use
The purpose and use of the Policy Plan is twofold:
0 It is the foundation upon which the Actions & Strategies Plan is built. The implementing actions and strategies are designed to achieve the vision and policy objectives stated herein
0 Secondly, it should be used to weigh the desirability of public and private policies and actions that affect land use, growth, and development. The vision and objectives should be applied when considering development proposals, utility improvements, hnding applications, zoning changes, etc. The questions should be asked:
- Do such actions support the vision or policy objectives? - Will the proposals help make our communities more livable? - Are public or private decision makers giving proper consideration to the publicly- e supported values stated herein? Vision Statement 8 Vision Statement
Mercer County has and should maintain a diversity of community types and living conditions:
0 A metro urban center in the Shenango Valley and regional urban centers in Grove City, Greenville, Mercer, and Sandy LakdStoneboro which offer ample and diverse economic opportunities, commercial goods and services, and housing with availability of sound utilities, community services (public safety, education, health care, human services), and amenities (recreation, arts and culture, historic places) and with convenient accesdtransportation connections; and
0 Rural towns and countryside which offer a more peaceful and less congested living environment, have healthy and prosperous agriculture, and offer open and green space, natural areas, scenic landscapes, and recreational opportunities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, etc,.
Ingredients for livable communities
Mercer County should plan for, preserve, and promote livable communities. A vision for livable communities was created by the visioning committee based on input from the regional public meetings and public opinion survey. The ingredients for livable communities in order of priority are:
0 Priority 1 (higher priority) 0 Priority2 Good schools Sound, attractive downtowns Low crime (adequate public safety) Intergovernmental cooperation Good health care Zoning & land development controls Healthy, diverse economy (good jobs) Regional cooperation & planning Sound housing conditions Neighborhood parks (close-to-home) Ease of traffic movement, mobility, access Broad community recreation facilities Mordable housing Rural setting, countryside & open spaces Sound infrastructure (waterhewer, utilities) Urbadrural diversity Low cost of living 0 Priority 3 Small-town atmosphere 0 Priority 4 (lower priority) Thriving farms & agriculture Public transit system Environmental controls Artistic/cultural activities & events Good human service programs Historic sites & buildings Support programs for low income & disadvantaged Policy Objectives 9 Policy 0bjectives
The following policy objectives and priorities were drafted based on responses from the regional public meetings and countywide public opinion survey. The visioning committee debated, fine- tuned, then accepted the objectives as they appear here. The committee also ranked the objectives in comparative priority, with “priority one” objectives having higher priority than “priority two” objectives. General policy objective on growth and development
Mercer County and its communities should plan for more growth and economic development which will result in more and higher-paying jobs and which will:
0 Upgrade the standard of living of local families. 0 Encourage young people to stay in or return to Mercer County. Enhance the community tax base. 0 Ensure long-term economic stability.
Growth should not occur to the extent that it will cause loss of treasured local values and way of life such as:
0 Smaller-town atmosphere. 0 Attractive countryside and thriving agriculture. Lowercrime. 0 More family-friendly communities.
Growth & economic development
Priority One
0 In general, encourage olanned growth & development
0 Encourage a business climate which is conducive to new development and expansiodretention of business and industry to provide greater job opportunities and employmend economic stability.
Promote diversity of economic development in the county.
0 Redevelop brownfield (idle, existing) industrial sites and support revisions of state & federal environmental legislation to encourage cleanup and reuse of brownfield sites. Policy Objectives IO
0 Designate target areas to accommodate long-term economic growth & concentrate new development in designated growth areas. Growth areas should be designated at locations which have the greatest marketability for quality development, minimize public expense for infrastructure improvements, and extend and maintain the sense of place for existing communities.
Encourage reinvestment in & revitalization of downtowns. Encourage creative land use, development, and reuse proposals which serve to attract people to downtowns.
Priority Two
Revitalize the Mercer County Redevelopment Authority to facilitate brownfeld development.
0 Continue to offer incentives of tax incremental financing, tax abatements (used judiciously), public financing, etc. to encourage new development and encourage capitalization of needed infrastructure.
0 Promote a vital tourism industry
Community facilities & services
Priority One
0 Encourage public/private financing for the provision of adequate water and sewerage systems to protect the public health and the environment.
Encourage publidprivate financing of water, sewer, and transportation facilities in limited, designated growth areas.
0 Target reinvestment in public infrastructure in urban centers and urban neighborhoods to encourage their revitalization.
0 Promote transportation improvements which will relieve congestion on existing roads & highways and prevent congestion from occurring where it does not yet occur.
Encourage intergovernmental cooperation in providing community facilities & services.
- Encourage equal availability of and access to libraries for all people in Mercer County
- Support efforts to improve the even distribution and quality of health care.
- Encourage availability of adequate family & human services. Policy Objectives I I
Support improvements by school districts which improve the quality of education.
Housing
Priority One
0 Encourage, via both the public and private sectors, the development of a diversity of housing types, sizes, and price levels to meet the changing needs of all county residents.
0 Recognize the value of existing sound residential neighborhoods to community livability & the economy, and encourage their preservation.
0 Promote use of land usddevelopment standards for bufferkreening, stormwater control, lighting, etc., to minimize development impact on residential areas.
Priority Two
Facilitate use of public & private hnds to help eligible families repair & maintain their homes. Recreation
Priority One
0 Give priority to greater use and maintenance of existing recreation facilities and promotion of new facilities when deemed necessary because of growth or changing recreation demands.
Priority Two
0 Promote neighborhoods parks within walking or short-driving distance to enhance the quality of residential areas.
Promote adequate community parks with a broad range of recreation facilities.
0 Encourage new development to reserve recreation sites and opedgreen space within developments.
Natural & historic resources
Priority One
0 Promote land use and development standards which minimize the impact of development on the environment. Policy Objectives 12
Priority Two
0 In general, recognize the value of and encourage protection of natural resources, open spalces, and rural character.
Promote public and private support and programs and common sense regulations to:
- Protect or conserve natural & scenic areas
- Minimize environmental pollution and preserve important environmental values.
- Protect or preserve significant historic sites.
Ag ricuI t ure
Priority One
Continue to promote and support agriculture as an important part of the economy and economic development.
0 Promote agriculture as a preferred land use in rural communities.
Priority Two
0 Encourage local fanners to place their land in agricultural security areas in order to preserve the county’s fanns and farmlands.
Promote public and private programs to aid the agricultural economy
Miscellaneous
Priority One
0 Promote land use & development proposals and patterns which support the livable communities ingredients set forth in this plan.
0 Promote a “sense of place” in Mercer County communities, that is:
- Attachment to neighborhood or street
- Familiarity and mutual support among neighbors
- Pride in community Policy Objectives 13
- Sense of history, and
- Conduciveness to pedestrian activity and socialization.
0 Encourage appropriate mix of residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial land uses, different housing types, and different building & development styles to instill pleasant, useful variety and avoid unfriendly, counterproductive rigidity in community development patterns.
0 Encourage mutual support between communities to revitalize more distressed communities & neighborhoods for the overall economic and social well-being of the county.
Promote land use patterns that enable efficient transportation and ease of mobility, access, and interconnection within the community.
Planning & land use controls
Priority One
0 Promote use of zoning controls throughout the county and encourage planning & zoning on a regional (joint municipal) basis.
0 Preserve authority in municipal governments to enact and administer zoning controls.
0 Develop performance-oriented land use controls which allow flexibility and variety in meeting land use & community development objectives.
Priority Two
0 Promote use of land use controls which set standards for building style, signs, traffic control, etc., for high quality development.
0 Encourage a regional approach to planning designated growth areas, economic development areas, revitalization areas, and land use controls.
0 Establish continuing lines of communication and educate communities and the public concerning comprehensive planning objectives and community & economic development efforts Policy Objectives 14 Mercer County Comprehensive Plan e Background I5 Background
Comprehensive plans typically contain a series of sub-plans addressing different community functions - housing, transportation, economy, land use, and community facilities. The inclusion and integration of these many functions is indeed what makes the plan comprehensive.
The Mercer County Comprehensive Plan is no different. However, in designing the planning process in its early stages, it was known that there were separate efforts underway to develop related plans for economic development, transportation, and housing.
The Mercer County Regional Planning Commission set a goal to incorporate those plans into the comprehensive plan. There were three reasons for doing so: 1) to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, 2) to reduce the cost of preparing the comprehensive plan, and 3) to foster a spirit of cooperation and goodwill with the organizations preparing the related plans. Incorporation of plans by reference
By recommendation of the Mercer County Regional Planning Commission and acceptance of the visioning committee, two of the plans - the Community Economic Recovery Program (CERP) plan and the Long Range Transportation Plan - are hereby incorporated into the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan by reference and as further duly noted in the following summaries. One of the plans - the housing plan - is not yet completed and, thus, is not actually incorporated into the comprehensive plan. However, many of its unpublished findings are summarized herein for useful guidance.
The following sections summarize each of the three plans. Information presented includes background and purpose of the plan, the responsible organization, and the objectives, recommendations, and strategies which are most relevant to the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan. Economic Development Plan (CERP) 16 Economic Development Plan (CERP)
A countywide Community Economic Recovery Program (CERF') plan was prepared in 1993 by a consultant team for Penn-Northwest Development Corporation, the county's lead economic development agency. Entitled Marketing (e Development Strategy Plan For Industrial And Tourism Markets, it produced an aggressive development and marketing program for the county.
The plan documents historical economic development trends in terms of space and availability in Mercer County since 1980. It also assesses the level and magnitude of competition with other nearby counties and provides evidence to support new industrial park development. Penn- Northwest Development Corporation added priorities and directions and is implementing the economic developmentlmarketingprogram with full county support.
Summary of conclusions & recommendations
The following represents a summary of relevant data, conclusions, and recommendations of the CEW-based current plan:
0 Mercer County has a strategic location in terms of its proximity to the interstate system and the Pittsburgh Airport.
Existing industrial space that became occupied from 1980-1993 equaled 1.1 million square feet; new industrial space equaled 914,600 square feet, and expansion space equaled 773,100 square feet totaling together more than 1.6 million square feet of additional industrial space.
Over 4,000 new industrial-related jobs were created between 1980 and 1993 as a result of new growth and development.
0 Approximately 622,000 square feet of additional industrial growth occurred between 1994 and 1995 (not including the Grove City Factory Shops and Caparo) bringing new growth to 2.8 million square feet.
The amount of new industrial growth in Mercer County in square feet was greater than the growth reported by nearby counties for the period of 1980-1995.
0 The majority or 62% of new growth through 1993 occurred in the Hermitage and Shenango Valley areas, but this trend is beginning to shift.
0 There is a shortage of good, usable industrial buildings and the availability of quality land for development is significantly limited. Economic Development Plan (CW) I7
0 Several large warehouse distribution prospects requiring 200,000-600,000 square feet to develop have been turned away due to a lack of assembled infi-astructure-readyproperty.
0 Land absorption reported From 1980-1995 approximates 375 acres or 25 acres per year. However, local experts project that 1,000 acres of infi-astructure-improved industrial land will be required to accommodate demand and anticipated growth over the next 10 years.
The plan evaluated 15 sites for potential future industrial development. Criteria used to assess and prioritize the sites included: proximity to interstate system, size, topography, visibility, accessibility, land use compatibility, ownership pattern, expansion potential, existing uses, wetlands, utilities, and proximity to an economic center.
Developers want a location at or easily accessible to an interstate. Interstate 79 Exit 3 1 should be a priority location for future development. Other priority sites include 1-79 Exit 33 and 1-80 Exit 2.
0 In the long term, the redevelopment and reuse of environmentally sensitive brownfield sites such as the Westinghouse site should be pursued.
The plan noted that the historic success in attracting businesses to the area proves that Mercer County is a viable location for a variety of business and industry. Current marketing efforts
Penn-Northwest’s CEW-based marketing efforts currently include:
Network with business & industry leaders, county & local officials, state government, brokers, realtors, and site selection consultants.
Concentrate on packaging and marketing existing developed sites
Facilitate development of new industrial sites and facilities including but not limited to:
- Mercer Exit 2,1-80 (170 acres) - Jackson Commerce Park, Exit 33,I-79 (60 ac.) - Grove City/Akport, Exit 3 1,I-79 - FarreWHermitage Site (84 ac.) - GreenvilleiReynolds I & I1 (60 ac. & 150 ac.) - Hermitage Industrial Park (30 ac.) - Pine Township Industrial Park, Rt. 208 (15 ac.) - Wheatland Industrial Park (5 ac.) - Westinghouse (1 .O million sq. fit.). Economic Development Plan (CERF') I8 Interrelationship to Comprehensive Plan
A critical interrelationship between the CERP and the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan lies in the future land use plan and its influence on the community facilities plan and local and regional land use controls. The future land use plan depicts areas where growth is desired and determines to a great extent the layout of the community facilities plan. The community facilities plan in turn influences where public investment should occur to expand or create new infrastructure. As state and federal financial assistance becomes more scarce, the targeting of planned growth areas for industrial development will be necessarily restricted to areas with easily-accessed utilities and other adequate infrastructure. The CERP and the community facilities plan must be in concert to ensure appropriate targeting of future infrastructure projects.
The future land use plan will also influence local and regional land use controls which guide growth and development and thus should be compatible with the CERP to encourage planned development. Therefore, appropriate elements of the CERP are incorporated in the analysis and proposal for future land use in Mercer County. TransporiaiionPlan 19 Trans portati o n PIan
Mercer County developed it’s original transportation plan in the early 1970’s. This two-volume set, which analyzed existing facilities and recommended improvements, served as the county’s primary source for programming projects into the 1980‘s.
In 1981 the U.S. Census Bureau designated the Shenango Valley as an urbanized area and Mercer County as a metropolitan statistical area. This required the Shenango Valley and later the entire county to perform annual transportation planning via a Metropolitan Planning Organization @€PO)under the direction of a coordinating committee of local and state government representatives. The MPO is responsible for analyzing and programming all transportation projects within Mercer County that receive federal aid. Many highway and transit related issues have been addressed, ranging from energy conservation and congestion reduction to the provision of mass transit services and facilities.
In 1991, Congress enacted the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) which required MPOs to perform additional planning, namely a long range transportation plan covering twenty years. The plan has considerable clout. For any transportation project to receive federal aid, it must be included in the MPO long range plan.
Mercer County’s Long Range Transportation Plan was completed in 1994 by the Mercer County Regional Planning Commission which serves as staff support for the MPO. The following sections give a brief overview of the more important sections of the long range plan.
Goals
The overall goal of the long range plan is to develop plans and programs which will establish and maintain a transportation system that is:
Safe The plan considers the safety factor in all aspects of transportation planning.
Balanced and coordinated The transportation network should be a unified system that is balanced and coordinated to insure that all potential users are served.
Reliable, comfortable and convenient The transportation system must be dependable, and planned service levels and schedules should be maintained. TransporfationPlan 20
Accessible The transportation system should be accessible for all persons for a broad variety of activities and locations.
Environmentally compatible The transportation system should relate to and serve the existing and planned environment of the county.
Economical and efficient Transportation projects should contribute to the achievement of economy and efficiency in the transportation system. Transportation factors
When developing the long range plan the local MPO was required to address what the federal govenunent calls “transportation factors.” These factors deal with transportation issues that vary from land use planning to environmental concerns. Fifteen factors are addressed in the long range plan, with four of these having the most relevance to the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan:
Preservation of existing transportation facilities, and where practical, ways to meet transportation needs by using existing transportation facilities more efficiently.
The need to relieve congestion and prevent congestion from occumng where it does not yet occur.
0 The likely effect of transportation policy decisions on land use and development, and the consistency of transportation plans and programs with provisions of all applicable short and long-term land use and development plans
0 The overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions.
Transportation priorities
Based on the goals and transportation factors, the local MPO has developed a plan which addresses the priorities of the county. It is stated in this Comprehensive Plan that maintaining livable communities and preventing excessive growth are priorities. The long range transportation plan contains specific highway, bridge, and public transit projects which address these issues. These projects will aid in the revitalization of the older downtown areas, provide for economic opportunities in the growth target areas, and provide greater safety in the preservation areas.
In addition to the county’s long range plan, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has developed a number of policies which relate to the county’s Comprehensive Plan. Based on financial constraints PennDOT has stated that it will give priority to projects which.maintain 0 ” I. TransjmrtafionPlan 21 existing highways and bridges over new projects, the likes of which often encourage sprawl. This policy is reflected in the county’s current long range plan. There are no projects listed in the upcoming four-year fknding period that are new facilities or major capacity-adding expansions.
The local MPO which represents all of Mercer County recognizes the interrelationshipbetween land use and transportation. Due to the ever increasing financial constraints placed upon it, at both the federal and state levels, the MPO will re-evaluate the long range plan every three (3) years. This will ensure its consistency with local goals and objectives established in the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan. Housing Plan 22 Housing Plan
In 1992, the newly-formed Mercer County Housing Commission set out to prepare a countywide plan for housing. The commission was established by the Mercer County Commissioners under the permanent chair of the Mercer County Community Action Agency. It included representation from many organizations involved in housing programs including agencies which manage or support subsidized housing, municipalities with housing rehab programs, financing institutions, shelters for special needs persons, and agencies which offer housing support services.
The keystone of the plan was to be a demand-based needs assessment. The assessment was to quantify actual unmet, measurable demand for housing, financing, or support services. Hard data would be presented in the form of waiting lists for subsidized housing or rehab assistance, reported denials for home purchase or repair financing, and documented turn-aways for support services due to lack of finding.
To date the plan has not been completed. Without a completed plan, the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan will simply present relevant but unpublished findings assembled to date by the Mercer County Housing Commission. They, by themselves, suggest actions to be taken. Mercer County Housing Commission findings
Subsidized rental housing
2,500 such units exist in Mercer County. Unmet needs include:
Private subsidized housing has 1,040 households on waiting lists.
0 Public subsidized housing also has waiting lists (exact amount not yet known)
Home ownership
971 mortgage loan applications were approved in 1993 by local lending institutions. Of note:
195 or 15% were denied. The most common reason was credit history followed by debthncome ratio, employment history, and collateral.
U. S. RECDS provided 34 direct mortgages in 1994, 8 were denied, and IO applicants remain on a waiting list.
0 Mercer County Community Action Agency needs an additional $300,000 to serve a waiting list for its lower-income home ownership program. Housing Plan 23
Home improvement financing
443 private loans averaging $14,226 were provided by local lending institutions in 1993. Local government-supported housing rehab programs completed 77 rehabs averaging $1 1,462. Of note:
0 Public rehab waiting lists contain 145 households needing $1.6 million funding.
There are 42 municipalities with no local rehab program but likely have similar needs.
0 Mercer County Community Action Agency weatherization program serves the entire county and has a substantial waiting list (exact amount not yet known).
Other recommended actions 8 strategies
Other housing-related actions and strategies are presented in the Land Use Plan chapter. It presents realistic projections of housing needs based on the numbers of persons expected to reside in the county and the types of housing which they will likely demand, and implementation tools regarding housing conservation and rehab.
‘a .. Mercer County Comprehensive Plan The Land Use Planning Process 25 The Land Use Planning Process
The Land Use Plan is a focal element of the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan. It brings the Policy Plan to a spatial level, relating the vision and policy objectives to the desired pattern of on- the-ground development. It addresses key questions such as what type of development should occur, where should it occur, and how much?
The Land Use Plan has two main parts:
0 Future Land Use Map - A map which identifies preferred types of development and their location in the county. Text accompanies the map to provide more in-depth thought into map designations.
0 Planning Tool Box - Additional text which describes particular actions and strategies which may be employed to help yield the result prescribed by the Future Land Use Map. Process
The Policy Plan was developed out of a strong process of receiving citizen input, reflecting the common vision of Mercer Countians. Therefore, the goal of the Land Use Plan was to convert that vision into a workable guide to achieve livable communities.
Because of the level of enthusiasm for this participatory planning project, the Mercer County Regional Planning Commission and consultant Graney, Grossman, Ray and Associates decided that citizens should have a similar opportunity to actually design the Land Use Plan. Therefore, a series of regional meetings were again held. Participants at these meetings worked with copies of the Policy Plan and county base maps to sketch out the preferred fiiture land use for their neighborhoods, communities, and region. Where possible, citizens were divided into groups based upon neighborhood and community associations. This allowed them to plan first for their immediate surroundings (the area they were most familiar with). The role of the facilitator was confined to asking pertinent questions to help the group reach a consensus.
Because this is a county-level plan, it was decided to utilize broad categories of growth-related land use forms rather than traditional zoning-related categories. Participants were asked to identify the preferred fiiture land uses in their region based upon the following categories:
0 Growth - Areas which are now vacant or sparsely developed and which should be targeted for new development to meet a goal or objective of the Policy Plan. For example, this may be a vacant area which would be suitable for an industrial park, housing development, or retail store. The Land Use Planning Process 26
0 No change - Areas which should retain their present characteristics. No change areas may be developed or undeveloped. For example, such areas could be single-family neighborhoods which should remain single-family neighborhoods. They might also be significant natural areas or farms which should be preserved or conserved (used wisely).
0 Alteration - Alteration are areas where the current use of land is undesirable. This was the participant’s chance to say “no.” For example, this might include a commercial development that has increased traffic near a residential neighborhood, creating problems that affect livability. By recommending alteration, citizens were charting a new direction for land use in that area.
0 Revitalization - Revitalition areas acknowledge either significant changes in economics to devalue land for its present use (marketplace failure) or the failure of current land use policy. For example, revitalization areas might include abandoned industrial facilities that could be re- developed for new uses which meet the goals of the Policy Plan.
After the sketch maps were completed by each group, the session participants had a second opportunity to express their support or disapproval of the land use choice. Each participant was given a set of traffic light stickers to “vote” on various areas. Green stickers indicated favor, red stickers indicated disapproval, and yellow stickers indicated a need for fixther thought.
Because the regional meetings placed no limitations upon the amounts of land area set aside for growth, preservation of current uses, revitalization, or alteration, the countywide visioning committee was used as a forum to modify preferences in light of finite-projected growth. Participants in these meetings were given stickers which symbolically represented projected growth in terms of housing units, commercial acreage, and industrial acreage. To summarize these, Mercer County will probably see a steady growth which will likely be at the following levels:
Residential - 4,500 new households and replacement units over the next 10 years
Commercial - Approximately 250 acres of commercial development over the next 10 years.
Industrial - About 1,000 acres of growth, expansion and reuse over the next 10 years.
These figures include new construction, expansion of existing facilities, and the reuse of idle buildings for all categories.
Participants’ stickers were proportionally representative of anticipated growth. Each “family” sticker represented 100 new households. Each “factory” sticker represented 50 acres of industrial development. Each “storefront” sticker represented 10 acres of commercial development. Participants could place stickers on known vacant land, areas of idle buildings, or near existing development. To assist in keeping focus, some brief “rules” of locational theory were presented: The Land Use Planning Process 27 Locational theory for various land uses
Residential uses
Urban areas with full public utilities can support higher densities of households per acre. 0 Should be encouraged near schools, parks, and other residential developments. Can locate on any street or road. Often best succeed in low traffic areas. Infrastructure requirements linked to density. Government support programs (grants and low interest loans) are available for specialized forms of housing.
Commercial uses
Market theory encourages similar facilities to locate together in corridors or nodes. 0 Usually succeed in high traffic or high visibility areas. 0 Normally require public water and sewer. 0 Large, high impact facilities often conflict with residential uses. 0 Government support programs (except infrastructure and downtown reuse) are not normally available.
Industrial uses
0 Many such businesses desire access to interstate or arterial highway. Must normally be located on relatively flat land. 0 Public water and sewer are necessary. High incidence of conflict with neighboring residential uses. 0 Many government support programs exist to assist in placement of industries
This work by the visioning committee was combined with maps from the regional meetings during a design charette with the consultant and MCRPC staff. This revised map was then presented at a second series of regional meetings. The resulting map became the final Future Land Use Map. The Future Laud Use Map 28 The Future Land Use Map
This land use process allowed a great number of stakeholders to translate the Policy Plan into a.n ideal future reality. A key product is the future land use map. It graphically and clearly displays the stakeholders’ vision for the future. It maps the county into several categories of land use, representing not only different ideals for future development, but also different prescriptions for public and private action to make more livable communities. Land use categories
By the end of the process, five future land use categories were created
Revitalization target areas - Typically, these represented older downtown, and older residential areas across Mercer County. Citizens believed these were areas which needed some form of action to restore them to vitality. In some cases, this was recognition of economic problems. In other cases, the designation was a reaction to physical deterioration (or a combination of physical and economic problems). It is also interesting to note that these represent areas of significant historical public investment in infrastructure, streets, and services. Citizens supported and advocated revitalization, based often upon the need to maintain this previous investment.
Growth target areas - Citizens defined growth target areas as places where they would like to see new or expanded housing, commercial, or industrial development. Sometimes, these were adjacent to areas which had seen significant growth, or areas which represented a logical expansion of existing communities. In other cases, new growth areas were depicted as areas citizens hoped that growth could be encouraged. Thus, growth areas have a wide variance in terms of marketability. Some of the growth areas are highly desirable; others may require significant public investment or private-sector encouragement. What is crucial is that the participants strongly supported a concept of planned, targeted growth as a continuation of the stated objectives of the Policy Plan.
Wise use land banks - The concept of wise use land banks was created as a solution to citizen conflicts during the visioning process. In various meetings, these areas were cited for alteration (meaning current or anticipated development patterns were disliked) or received numerous cautionary votes. Numerous times it was also stated that some development might be acceptable if it were of exceptionally high quality, rather than mere quantity. The three areas represent unique corridors currently utilized for low density uses (single-family residences, agriculture, light commercial), but where market forces could lead to intense development and a loss of some property rights via conflict. The final consensus were that these areas should be kept like a future use bank account, pending further study. It was also agreed that each was important enough to The Future Land Use Map 29 warrant a separate planning process which would involve residents, landowners, neighboring business owners, local officials, and other interested parties.
Urbanlrural preservation of uses and features - There were also both rural and urban areas which the meeting participants wished to remain as they presently are. This should not be construed to mean that the door is shut to any future development. “Preserve existing uses and features” is simply defined that any new development should be of a highly compatible use, density, and type of existing development. Thus, rural areas should remain agricultural, low density residential and available for traditional rural uses. Urbdsuburban preservation areas are generally residential neighborhoods which should be protected from land use conflicts. These two land use categories were the citizens’ means of strongly stating, “If it isn‘t broke, don’t fix it.” Land use trends
Land use data and trends were analyzed in the Trends and Issues section of the Policy Plan, but a more critical look is warranted here. When Mercer County’s 20-year growth rates for residential, commercial, and industrial land use are compared 20-year trends in households and population, income and retail sales, and employment, the results are revealing.
0 In the 20-year period from the early 1970’s to the early 20-Year Residential Land Use Trend 1990‘s, residential land use grew 46% while the number of households grew I only 19% and the Residential land population decreased 5%. Households In other words, less n population lived in more PWhtii housing units which on the average consumed more land than did older housing.
0 In the same 20-year period, commercial land use grew 20-Year Commercial Land Use Trend 33% while median family income (adjusted for inflation) decreased 7% and retail sales (adjusted for 20% inflation) decreased 4%. A shift occurred from older 10% %lea (adj. id.) downtowns to newer 0% suburban areas with no real gain in market share. The Future Land Use Map 30 e- In the same 20-year period, 20-Year Industrial Land Use Trend industrial land use grew l 24% while non-agricultural employment grew only 2%. More land was consumed I by an economy which, Industrial land averaged over 20 years, rn was stagnant. Non-ag. empl.
Graphs sourcc: Mercer County Regional Planning Commission, U.S. Census Bureau & PA Department of Labor & Industry
In summary, a common theme emerges with each trend. In 20 years, more and more land was consumed by relatively the same amount of people, housing, commerce, and industry. People and development have simply chosen to relocate themselves, typically from the older, urban areas to the newer suburban and rural areas. If Mercer County experiences growth (very realistic given current indications), land consumption and sprawl development will be a major concern.
Projected land use needs
In order to conform to the Policy Plan goal of planning for desired growth and preventing excessive growth, the Land Use Plan is based on a realistic projection of hture land use needs Projections were developed for housing, commercial, and industrial land use needs over the next ten-year period.
Housing
Mercer County population is projected to increase from 121,003 in 1990 to 123,110 in 2000 (according to Mercer County Comprehensive Plan Policy Plan). By factoring out an estimated 5,500 group quarters population (5,378 in 1990) and factoring in an average of 2.47 persons per household (2.54 in 1990) and a 5% housing vacancy rate (5% in 1990), it is projected that 2,100 housing units will be needed to accommodate 1990-2000 population growth.
In addition, housing loss due to attrition (fire, abandonment, change of use) is estimated to amount to 5% of the housing supply. It is projected that 2,400 housing units will be needed to replace that loss.
In total, 4,500 housing units are needed for residents expected to reside in Mercer County in the next ten years. Based on 1990’s average density of 1.6 unitdacre, over 2,800 acres will be needed to accommodate new and replacement housing. If a positive growth environment occurs and population grows to 130,000, housing needs could reach 7,400 units or over 4:600 acres in the next ten years. The Future Land Use Mq 31
Commercial
Commercial land use grew from 1,465 acres in 1973 to 1,945 acres in 1993, an increase of 480 acres (according to Mercer County Comprehensive Plan Policy Plan). This occurred during a period when the number of retail establishments in the county actually declined and retail sales decreased by 4% adjusted for inflation. The growth in commercial land use is more due to movement of business eom urban centers to new outlying commercial areas.
Whereas there was a past 20-year growth of 500 acres (250 acres each 10 years) under a scenario of sprawl development, it is projected that 250 acres will be needed for new commercial growth under a scenario of non-sprawl development.
Industrial
The Mercer County CEW plan measured average industrial land absorption in recent years at 25 acredyear. This is further supported by the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan Policy Plan which measured industrial land use growth at 380 acres from 1973-93. Given the desire to improve economic development and job creation results, it is estimated that more than double the recent land absorption will be needed to meet desired goals. Higher projections are proposed in consultation with Penn-Northwest Development Corporation for two reasons: 1) new industries in the I-8OA-79 corridors are likely to be warehouse and distribution which has greater land needs per employee, and 2) the interstate comdor locations will draw from a labor market involving several counties beyond Mercer County.
It is projected that 1,000 acres will be needed for new industrial growth in the next ten years.
The following text gives a summary by region of the future land use map, more specifics about types of preferred land use (residential, commercial, industrial) and more insight into the stakeholder discussion and reasons behind the designated categories. Southwest region
Revitalization target areas
The old business and industry heart of the Shenango Valley, also now the major part of the Shenango Valley Enterprise Zone - Larger economic development opportunities include reuse of idle portions of Caparo Steel in Farrell (in planning stages with Shenango Valley Industrial Development Corporation), reuse of the vacant Westinghouse plant in Sharon (pending Superfund environmental clean-up), and continued revitalization of downtown Sharon.
Urban residential neighborhoods adjacent to the business and industrial center - These neighborhoods include older, more dense housing and are characterized by low incomes, high minority population, and high percentages of non-owner occupants. neFuture LA& Use Map 32
0 Older business and residential areas at and around downtown West Middlesex.
Growth target areas j:l
0 PA 18 from Morefield Road area to Lamor Road area in Hermitage - This comdor is favored for business growth and has substantial vacant parcels for development opportunities.
0 Broadway Road corridor and nearby areas in Hermitage and Wheatland - This area is currently targeted for industrial development and has some remaining parcels for further development.
East suburbs (Hermitage) and north suburbs (Hermitage & South Pymatuning) -These areas are within service reach of existing sanitary sewers and are logical growth choices for residential development.
0 West Middlesex outgrowth in Shenango Township - This area has sanitary sewer service which area proponents believe is under-exploited due to lack of development. It is a good opportunity for residential extension of the West Middlesex community. The PA 18 comdor should receive more attention for businesdindustrial development opportunities.
An area south of PA 3 18 between PA 60 and 1-80 extending to MitchelUFennelYMinner Roads presents an opportunity for economic development. It should be carefully planned to minimize impacts on existing residential development and sprawl into nearby rural areas. e Completion of the half-diamond interchange at PA 60PA 318 is important for access.
Shenango Lake growth area - Recreationhourism growth should be pursued here. Both the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (Shenango Reservoir) and Shenango Valley Chamber of Commerce have discussed development opportunities despite the restrictions of federal ownership of the lake and surrounding lands.
Wise use land banks
0 PA 18 comdor between Longview Road and Morefield Road - This area generated the most debate among regional meeting and Visioning committee participants:
b On one side were proponents of business development. They said the widening of PA 18 to 5 lanes (to be completed end of 1996) along with its growing traflic and closeness to I- 80 makes for an ideal environment for new business development and a devalued environment for existing residential development. Good business opportunities may be lost if PA 18 is not available.
b On the other side were opponents of business development. They said new businesses would create traffic congestion the improved highway is supposed to relieve. They feared a AMENDMENT 11/19/98
The Future Land Use Map 33 I that Hermitage was at or nearing retail market saturation and that new businesses on PA 18 would more likely be transplants from another part of the city. City officials were concerned about preserving investment and quality of development in already built-up sections of the city.
The consensus reached was that this part of PA 18 should not be immediately targeted for widespread business development, The corridor should be carefully studied and targeted for business development only after development demand could not be met elsewhere in the city and it was evident that new development would not adversely impact existing development.
The city and county should also explore means of enhancing the corridor via landscaping and beautification. This would serve to restore value to the residential properties and create an attractive gateway leading to the Hermitage commercial center.
Urbanlrural preservation I
0 Stable urban neighborhoods in the center of the Shenango Valley, east end of West Middlesex and Clark - These are attractive and stable neighborhoods which should be preserved. l
0 Rural areas in the outskirts of Hermitage, Shenango, and South Pymatuning - These areas should remain dominated by more open spaces, farm uses, and other low-density development. Northwest region
Revitalization target areas
~
0 Older, urban centers in Greenville and Jamestown -The downtowns and older adjacent neighborhoods should be targets for revitalization efforts. Downtown Greenville should continue to be a focal point for regional attention. Downtown Jamestown, on the gateway to the popular Pymatuning recreation area, could be an interesting target for creative tourism and travel business opportunities.
Growth target areas
0 Extended communities around Greenville and Jamestown - These areas are good choices for extended residential growth and carehlly planned business growth, coordinated so it does not adversely affect downtown revitalization efforts.
I 0 Reynolds industrial park growth areas - Two growth areas are being developed by Greenville- I Reynolds Industrial Development Corporation. Reynolds East on the Kidd’s Mill Road has I the most long-term industrial growth possibilities in the region. I The Future Land Use Map 34
Urbanlrural preservation
Greenville neighborhoods - Greenville and nearby parts of Hempfield and West Salem have stable, attractive neighborhoods to be preserved.
Reynolds development - This area, which grew out of a WWII army camp, has a sound business district along PA 18 and a sound residential area to be preserved.
The balance of the region is and should remain dominated by more open spaces, farm uses and other low-density development.
Northeast region
Revitalization target areas
Town centers - The older town centers of Stoneboro, Sandy Lake, New Lebanon, and Sheakleyville, both business and residential areas, should receive continued attention for revitalization and reinvestment.
Growth target areas
Extended communities around Stoneboro and Sandy Lake - These areas are good choices for extended residential growth and carefully planned business growth, coordinated so it does not adversely affect downtown revitalization efforts.
0 I-79PA 358 interchange - This area is targeted for business and industrial development (a small amount exists already). It is more of a long-term consideration, however, because of the lack of public sewer and water service and the large cost of extending such service from the Sandy Lake/Stoneboro area or building new facilities at the interchange.
Urbanlrural preservation
The balance of the region is and should remain dominated by more open spaces, farm uses, and other low-density development.
Recreation development
One element of development potential shared across this region which was emphasized at the regional meetings is recreation and tourism. The region possesses outstanding recreational/ tourism resources:
0 Two lakes - Lake Wilhelm with surrounding Goddard State Park and Sandy Lake with the historical Lakeside Park in Stoneboro. The Future Land Use Map 35
Sandy Creek valley rail trail - This trail for bicycles and pedestrians is initially being developed from Stoneboro to east of Sandy Lake, but has potential to extend eastward to and connect with a growing Allegheny River valley trail system.
0 French Creek - It is one of the most unique and biologically significant waterways in Pennsylvania and indeed the northeastern United States.
Efforts should be made to take advantage of these resources for improved rural economic vitality. Care should be employed to ensure that development is appropriate for rural preservation goals and does not adversely affect the resource on which it is capitalizing.
The Sandy Creek valley rail trail presents an outstanding small town economic opportunity if it can be completed all the way to the Allegheny River and its system of trails. Significant recreational traffic could be generated if Sandy LakdStoneboro was the western terminus of this popular trail system. Southeast region
Revitalization target areas
Downtown Grove City - The downtown area should be a regional priority for revitalization efforts to ensure its long-term viability.
Growth target areas
Extended community around Grove City - This area is a good choice for extended residential growth and carefully planned business growth, coordinated so it does not adversely affect downtown revitalization efforts.
0 I-79PA 208 interchange - This area underwent dramatic change beginning two years ago with development of a major retail outlet center and coattail businesses. Public sewer and water now serves much of the interchange and more growth is likely.
The area is a good target for fiirther business and industrial growth, but growth should be contained within a limited, controlled area. There is potential here for unplanned growth to burst and sprawl along the PA 208 corridor creating a snarl of traffic signals, enterindexiting automobiles, acres of pavement, and agglomerations of signs which do not match the vision of an otherwise rural community. Initially, the development area should extend no fbrther than from PA 258 on the east to the vicinity of Grove City Airport on the west.
Leesburg village - It is ideal for additional development of village uses already there (homes, shops, historic sites, etc.) and enhancement of the rural, small-town pathway of tourism a developed at a scale similar and sensitive to the existing village (human-scale buildings, short The Future Land Use Map 36
road setback, reuse of homes, school). It is not ideal for sprawling suburban commercial development set back behind expansive parking lots underneath bright all-night lighting.
Wise use land banks
0 PA 208 corridor - This highway corridor between the 1-79 interchange and Grove City has potential similar to the PA 18 corridor in Hermitage, although its potential is not as immediate There will be traffic in the corridor, both travelers coming to the outlet center from Grove City and points east and travelers going from the outlet center to Grove City tourist attractions With public sanitary sewer service running through the corridor, the ingredients are there for development pressure
However, there is reason for the corridor to remain undeveloped Since out-of-town tourists come to this area to avoid the congestion and pace of urban life, the corridor should offer them a pastoral setting which leaves a lasting, positive impression
Nonetheless, if development does occur it should be of a high quality which generates meaningful economic return, blends into the pastoral setting as much as possible and does not adversely impact revitalization efforts in nearby towns or villages Like PA 18, this corridor should undergo careful study and planning for any development.
Urbanlrural preservation
0 Grove City neighborhoods - Grove City and nearby parts of Pine have stable, attractive neighborhoods to be preserved In fact, this community has hardly a blighted area to its nme, a quality worth working hard to keep
The balance of the region is and should remain dominated by more open spaces, farm uses and other low-density development The Wolf Creek and Neshannock Creek corridors are two outstanding greenways which dissect the region Central region
Revitalization target areas
Downtown Mercer - The downtown area should be a regional priority for revitalization efforts to ensure its long-term viability.
0 Town centers -The older town centers of Fredonia and Jackson Center, both business and residential areas, should receive continued attention for revitalization and reinvestment. e The Fuiure Land Use Map 3 7 Growth target areas
Extended community around Mercer and Fredonia - These areas are good choices for extended residential growth and carefully planned business growth, coordinated so it does not adversely affect downtown revitalization efforts.
0 I-79/US 62 interchange plus Jackson Center and Lake Latonka - This area attracted much interest at the regional meetings. There was even talk of a new, greater community by the linking of three areas:
Jackson Center has room to extend its existing community with more residential development.
Lake Latonka has room for significantly more infill residential development although the current lack of public sanitary sewer service is a serious constraint which must be overcome.
The I-79/US 62 interchange has land and potential for both industrial and business development oriented to serve a growing regional community. An industrial development project, Jackson Commerce Park being developed by Lakeview Industrial Development Corporation, is already underway on 100 acres in the SE interchange quadrant. Business 0 development on available road frontage, carefully planned and contained without sprawl, would be an ideal complement to the region.
I-SO/US 19 interchange - This interchange would be a very marketable location for economic development if public sewer and water service were provided. It should include primarily industrial development and effort should be made to secure as large as possible tracts of land for larger-scale development opportunities. Commercial development should be secondary and minimal so as not to sprawl the impact of development along US 19.
0 Charleston village - This village was suggested for extended residential growth with village- scale business possibilities.
Wise use land banks
US 19 conidor - This comdor is currently primarily agricultural. However, if public water and sewer service were extended from Mercer to the I-SO/US 19 interchange, development potential of the conidor could change. Carefbl study and planning is recommended before development should be promoted in this comdor. The Future Land Use Map 38
Urbanlrural preservation
Mercer neighborhoods - Mercer and nearby parts of surrounding townships have stable, attractive neighborhoods to be preserved. In fact, this community has notoriety as a quaint, historic, Victorian community, a quality worth working hard to keep.
The balance of the region is and should remain dominated by more open spaces, farm uses and other low-density development Planning Toolbox 39 Planning Toolbox
Mercer County has arrived at a common vision of its ideal hture. Though every & stakeholder may not agree with everything, a consensus reflecting the community’s unique needs and desires has been reached. However, even with widespread approval, this vision will not be self-fulfilling. Actions by county officials, local governments, community-based organizations, and public-spirited citizens will be necessary to move the plan from a paper map to a livable reality.
The Planning Toolbox should be used as that - a list of potential “tools” to solve land use problems and meet land use plan objectives for growth, revitalization, wise use, and preservation. The accompanying toolbox has been designed to present specific solutions for specific problems for specific land use categories. However, certain tools are appropriate for a number of land use categories as shown on the matrix. An explanation for each of the toolbox’s planning or implementation tools begins below. Countywide
0 Promote intercommunity cooperation in all forms, especially where it supports economic and land use realities.
Tool Joint planning and zoning -Joint planning and zoning are authorized by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, but have never been utilized in Mercer County. Any municipality, even a rural township, which conducts stand-alone planning and zoning must legally plan for every conceivable industrial, commercial, and residential form of development. For example, even a totally rural farmindresidential community would need to zone for industrial uses. Joint planning and zoning allows multiple municipalities to share the burden of providing for various uses on a regional basis. A township could allow the downtown in a neighboring borough to serve as its commercial zone.
First Step: Meet with neighboring communities to form joint planning commission.
Further Reading: Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Guiding Growth (Pennsylvania Environmental Council)
Fundinn Assistance: SCPAFVSPAG (for official joint documents)
Tool Councils of Government (COG) - Councils of government represent a municipal management tool. They provide a larger pool of communities to purchase and share equipment. They can also serve as the vehicle to provide shared zoning, codes, or sewage a enforcement. Planning Toolbox 40
First Step: Meet with local communities to discuss need for a COG.
Further Reading: Intergovernmental CooperafionManual (Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development)
Funding Assistance: COG grant (PA DCED)
0 Promote quality development over quantity development.
Tool Official maps - Like joint planning and zoning, official maps are a tool provided for by the Planning Code which have not been utilized in Mercer County. Official maps are best defined as an officially adopted location map which declares the projected land a community will need for public purposes. Such legitimate public purposes may include road improvements (widening), parks, open space, municipal facilities, new infrastructures, or wellhead protection areas. With an adopted map, the community has one year to acquire property upon the land owner’s application to build, subdivide, or develop. Municipalities may not withhold eventual approval of landowner’s use based merely upon the map. There must also be some form of purchase or conveyance. The most important hnction of the map is it allows a year for municipalities to formally acquire properties identified upon the map.
First Steo: Discuss the objective need for an official map with governing body and local planning commission.
Further Reading: Local Land Use Controls in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development)
Fundine Assistance: SCPAP/SPAG
Tool 0 Development awards - If Mercer County is to promote quality development, it must find some means to acknowledge those developers who meet local goals for livable communities. This need not be a cash award. It could include a professional plaque and an honorary dinner. The dinner would also represent an opportunity to feature speakers who could educate the engineers/surveyors/realtodhomebuilders/developercommunity about the financial advantages of quality development. Over time, the award will grow in prestige, and an important segment of the community will learn how to build more livable communities.
First Steo: Create a balanced awards review committee (realtor, planner, architect, landscape architect, citizens).
Funding Assistance: The private sector (building supply stores, etc.) could be sought to underwrite the cost of the banquet and donate to the award. ,/ h, PlanningToolbox
-0 Prirmuy Implementation Tool 0 Semndaiy Implementation Tool
e
e Planning Toolbox 41
0 Develop a means for every Mercer County resident to assist in making their Dlan become a reality.
Tool 0 Municipallagency partnering - It is immediately and clearly acknowledged that the county itself has only partial abilities to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Municipalities have much authority in community development programs, zoning, and other regulations. Independently governed and financed agencies play lead roles in community projects for economic development, housing, agriculture, etc.
Therefore, municipalities and community development agencies should be recruited as partners in implementing the plan. Partnership could be accomplished via a simple agreement or resolution. Several advantages would be gained. Municipdagency partners would commit to support plan implementation via their own programs and actions. By supporting the plan, they would act more cooperatively rather than competitively. Also, municipalities without a current plan would have the county plan to accept as their plan or to use as a starting point for their own plan.
An important element of the partnership would be to invite municipalities to submit their own plan for inclusion in the county plan as an amendment. This Comprehensive Plan is intended to be a dynamic not static document which responds to local planning efforts. Local plans 0 intended for amendment of the county plan should: Address specific elements of the county plan to be amended
+ Be prepared from a community or regional perspective, that is, irrespective of municipal boundaries, or demonstrate cooperation with and acceptance by surrounding municipalities in the planning process.
Include extensive public participation in plan development.
First Steo: MCRPC should develop a model partnering resolution or agreement. Then, MCRPC should undertake an outreach effort to discuss the Comprehensive Plan and partnership with all municipalities and appropriate agencies. If municipalities desire to prepare their own plan, MCRPC should offer guidance on the planning process.
Further Reading: Lancaster County’s plan includes the municipal partners’ concept.
Financial Assistance: The 1996-97 XEDStrategic Community Partnerships Program is a possible source of funds for the outreach and partnership-building effort.
Tool Cornrnunity/regional planning - Since this Comprehensive Plan was prepared at a county scale, a logical next step is to conduct a more detailed level of planning at the Planning Toolbox 42
“community” level. Community is referred to in a regional sense irrespective of municipal boundaries.
In response to public interest in planning generated by the Comprehensive Plan and a belief that “change is in the wind’’, many communities desire to undertake plans at their level. MCRPC should assist communities inasmuch as resources are available in the coming years to undertake community/regional plans throughout the county.
First Steo: Promote planning at the community/regional level then assist with plans as resources are available in the short-term future.
Financial Assistance: SPAG and SCPAP grant programs.
Tool Education and marketing -Just as widespread public involvement was important in developing the Comprehensive Plan, so will widespread public involvement be important in implementing the plan. If the public actively and visibly continues its support of the plan, the county, municipalities, and agencies will more readily take implementing actions.
Mercer County through MCRPC should undertake a public education and marketing program. A key element would be an informationallpromotional flyer or tabloid designed for widespread public distribution. Its purpose would be to give the public a friendlier, more inviting, and more readable version of the Comprehensive Plan which is also suitable for mass distribution. Another element would be a visual program (slides, graphics, etc.) for delivety to municipalities and agencies as part of the partnering outreach effort and to community groups and the general public A private firm with experience in education and marketing promotions should be consulted in both elements. Such help will be integral to translating the plan from its more technical format to a publicly-marketable product.
First Steo: Seek funding for private educatiodmarketing assistance and development of flyer and program, then carry out program as designed.
Funding Assistance: The 1996-97 DCED Strategic Community Partnerships Program is a possible source of funds for consulting and production costs.
Tool 0 Friends of planning organization -There is little doubt that planning and livable communities are important to Mercer County. Unfortunately, citizens will have little input about plan implementation. The Mercer County Regional Planning Commission will have an important role, but they also have responsibility to review local zoning amendments, administer subdivision regulations, and a host of other ongoing responsibilities. It must be the responsibility of the citizens who created this vision to see that it does not die. An “advocacy” organization should be created and meet periodically to ensure implementation. e Planning Toolbox 43 First SteD: MCRPC should sponsor the initial meeting and serve as administrators of the organization. However, the leadership role must come from citizens. Meetings should be held enough to objectively gauge progress.
Financial Assistance: The organization should charge modest dues for the purpose of distributing a livable communities newsletter.
Tool Planning roundtables - Another tool to ensure continued citizen participation in the Comprehensive Plan as it is being implemented is planning roundtables. Public meetings can be held in which citizens and oficials alike review what is being done or not being done to implement the plan, revisit plan objectives, and keep alive the goal of more livable communities. Roundtables should continue the momentum built via two years of regional public meetings in developing the plan. They should be held annually, late-winter or early- spring, in each of the five planning regions.
First SteD: MCRPC should begin in 1997 and continue thereafter with annual planning roundtables in each of five planning regions.
Tool Livable communities index -A difficult part of planning is measuring the outcome. In other words, how do planners, officials, and the public know what effect the plan and its implementation have had on the community? Some communities have developed and 0 effectively used a numeric index. They have taken quantifiable statistics such as income, joblessness, substandard housing, crime rates, etc. and built them together into a composite numeric rating or index which can be compared year-to-year to measure the “progress” of the community. Detractors claim that such indices are abused in the political arena or that carelessly developed indices are misleading and do more harm than good.
First SteD: MCRPC should determine via some public forum if a “livable communities index” for Mercer County should be developed and, if hvorable, work with a task force of agencies and officials to choose appropriate statistics and measures for the index.
Further Reading: Planning (‘‘Going by the Numbers”, September 1996, American Planning Association)
Tool Promote assistance for municipal officials in total quality management - Total quality management is a management approach which has revolutionized the private sector. Some analysts believe the quality revolution saved American industry.
At present, the American Water Works Association has prepared some quality tools for local water systems, but many efforts have been based upon alteration of private-sector approaches.
First SteD: Meet with communities which have been involved in TQM (Cranberry Township, a Venango County Economic Development Corporation). Consider a seminar on the subject. Planning Toolbox 44
Further Reading: There are numerous TQM textbooks available; no single one is recognized as a superior.
Financial Assistance: No great outlay of fbnds is anticipated. Rural preservation areas
Mercer Countians overwhelmingly like the open space, family farms, and low density, mixed-use areas which characterize rural portions of the county. They wish that this remain a part of Mercer County's wondrous diversity. While there is not opposition to all development, there is a consensus that these areas should be protected from intense development which would:
Threaten rural landscapes and livability
Make farming practically impossible
Force rural local governments to provide expensive urban public services
One of the most supported approaches to this problem was to simply insure that there is no public subsidy for the infrastructure that causes intense development in these areas. For example, there was widespread citizen support that there should be no priority for water and sewer extensions to these areas (with the occasional exception of existing developments which have health and safety problems). This is discussed hrther in the Community Facilities Plan.
In a similar measure, it is recommended that 'transportation projects, which cause sprawl (i.e., highway improvement projects), should also ,not receive public subsidy within these areas. Instead, citizens support an investment of public dollars in these areas which would strengthen the farm economy, preserve and protect existing development, and promote the quality of life that these areas have become known for.
Tool Model rural zoning ordinance -Frequently, rural areas in Mercer County have no planning or zoning programs. Often, this is, frankly, due to the fact that many zoning ordinances have been too restrictive or simply inappropriate for rural areas. An ideal rural model zoning ordinance should ensure that agriculture remains a preferred use as well as permitting the mix of activities which characterize rural areas. It is wholly reasonable in a low density setting for a sawmill on a 10-acre lot to abut a house on a 20-acre lot. Yet, few, if any, Euclidian zoning ordinances would permit such variations or diversity.
Other elements of a good rural zoning ordinance include the flexibility for farm-based businesses, such as direct sales, feed mills, implement dealerships, sawmills, and repair businesses, as well as a variety of non-farm home businesses and cottage industries. The ordinance should protect these areas from developments that are of such intense nature or large-scale that they would require public water and sewer or road improvements. Planning Toolbox 45
This model zoning ordinance would also be particularly appropriate for rural communities to participate in joint planning and zoning ordinances. The key is that it would release them from accommodating all forms of growth, whether it is desired or not. Again, if an entire township wishes to remain agricultural, joint zoning is the only legal practical means to do so.
First Steu: MCRPC staff to develop a specific model ordinance.
Further Reading: For over five years, there have been numerous documents which have attempted to change the nature of planning and zoning for rural areas. These include Rural By Design by Randall Arendt and Guiding Growth published by PA Environmental Council. Numerous articles have also been included in Small Town magazine.
Fundine Assistance: Were this conducted as a county project, it would be eligible for SPAG assistance. However, due to the fact that Mercer County has received SPAG hnding for two consecutive years, this would not be likely in the immediate future.
Tool 0 Deed notation - One very serious concern of fanners in areas which are experiencing residential growth is that of residentiaVagricultural conflict. New homeowners, especially those who have moved to a rural area from an urban setting, are frequently unaware of many of the side effects of modern farming practices. Fanners frequently undertake common activity use which inadvertently create bad relations with their neighbors (manure spreading, a crop spraying, night work). The root of this problem seems to be ignorance on the lack of these new homeowners. Many communities have adopted a form of deed notation so that subdivision plats and new deeds include a statement such as follows:
“This land is an agricultural area. The owner must acknowledge the primacy of agriculture in this area and understands this property may be subject to the noise, dust, and odors which are a common part of normal farming practice.”
Deed notations could be integrated into zoning ordinances or subdivision ordinances. It may be possible to include this in the county subdivision ordinances where Agricultural Security Areas (ASA) as well as lands abutting Agricultural Security Areas. At present, deeds in ASAs are tagged as such. However, this can change upon the owner’s request. This form of notation does not restrict property rights, but provides a level of consumer protection for home buyers and security for farmers.
First Stem Mercer County Regional Planning Commission staffto prepare text for inclusion in subdivision regulations. Communities wishing to adopt this outside ASAs but in agricultural zoned areas may do so via a special exception or non-farm dwellings. The only special exception provision could be the inclusion of deed notations for the new residential lots.
Further Reading: Guiding Growth (Pennsylvania Environmental Council); Zoning for Farming (Center for Rural Pennsylvania) Planning Toolbox 46
Funding Assistance: It is anticipated that this change would require no significant outlay of funds.
Tool 0 Conservation subdivisions - In Pennsylvania, various forms of flexible development may be permitted at the local level, via planned residential development (PRD)revisions. The PRD process is purposely designed to allow a community and a developer to make a trade off between larger lots for common, perpetually dedicated open space which would serve as buffers, parkland, and on-lot septic areas, or sold as farmland. In a classic conservation subdivision, the developer gains the same number of housing units for the entire development, but simply refigures them to utilize less land. Thus, it promotes more rural landscapes without compromising property rights. At best, the conservation subdivision will preserve streams, woodlands, and scenic vistas, buffer the development for neighboring uses, and still preserve high quality of life and high property values for the residents.
First Steo: At the local level, such an amendment could be introduced through zoning by a developer, the governing body, or the Planning Code. A model ordinance could also be prepared by the county for municipal use.
-: -: Conservation Subdivision Design, a Four-Step Process (Natural Lands Trust, February 1995), Rural by Design (Randall Arendt).
m:A SCPAP or SPAG grant could be utilized for this amendment or as part of an integrated planning program in an income-eligible community.
The aforementioned tools primarily are designed to attempt to conserve and preserve the rural landscape resources of Mercer County. However, this Comprehensive Plan recognizes that there can be no real preservation of agriculture in rural areas without a strong rural economy. Farmland must be valuable as farmland. This can only occur where farmers have markets and outlets for their products which will return high profits. Therefore, a number of tools are recommended which specifically target economic development in rural areas.
Tool 0 An agricultural economic development action plan -Mercer County has been very successful at promoting industrial development via the Penn-Northwest Development Corporation, Shenango Valley Enterprise Zone, and similar initiatives. It is now necessary to utilize the same tools and techniques for the agricultural economy. A portion of the human infrastructure to implement is already in place through the Mercer County Agricultural Development Council. It is recommended that such an action pladmarket study be commissioned which examines a number of issues including:
More local agricultural infrastructure (more fanner's markets, more feed lots, more food processing businesses, or any value-added business which use local agricultural products) e Planning Toolbox 47 c Additional financing and capital for first-time farmers and additional capital to develop agricultural-supported businesses
+ An education program to assist farmers in accessing USDA loan guarantees or direct loans for capital.
b The development of “homestead or “agricultural enterprise zones.” This program could identify areas where agricultural development is needed and establish an innovative program parallel to the industrial enterprise zones, including tax credits, reduced rate loans, and direct business assistance.
First Steo: Seek support and direction of Mercer County Agricultural Development Council
Funding Assistance: Fund for Rural America
Tool 0 Tourism development for rural areas -Mercer County has a great variety of potential tourism resources. Tourism is also recognized as an important approach to import capital From outside the rural communities. Among specific initiatives recommended are:
+ Work with local communities, especially in the northeast to pursue rails-to-trails river conservation areas for low-intensity tourism infrastructure. It is also recommended that 0 more non-rails-to-trails be examined, especially for accessibility for both members of local community and tourists and where public land is already available to avoid acquisition costs.
+ Commission an ecotourism study to put all potential tourism components together in a marketable package. This ecotourism study should lead to concrete marketing recommendations for potential niches.
First Stev: MCRPC to meet with Penn-Northwest Development Corporation and the Mercer County Convention & Visitors Bureau
Tool 0 Local land trust to assure locally treasured land - There are certainly some areas of such high quality and tourism potential in Mercer County that it may be worthwhile to purchase them. Where this is the case, purchasing options are often best conducted by a land trust. Unfortunately, in Mercer County, the two existing land trusts have not had the resources to make such purchases. The Western Pennsylvania Conservancy has enormous financial resources for the purchase of land, but, frankly, the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy seldom purchases land based on local needs and local priorities. (In fact, recent acquisition by the Conservancy in Venango and Elk Counties have created ill will between local governments and the Conservancy.) Thus, the county should develop means for a locallv controlled land trust, which would allow local citizens to make a decision about what a high quality landscapes should be acquired in a cooperative fashion. Planning Toolbox 48
First Steo: MCRPC to meet with existing local land trusts
Further Reading: Pennsylvania Land Conservation Handbook (Allegheny Land Trust)
Fundine: Keystone Recreation Program, PA DCNR land trust grants.
Growth target areas
The Comprehensive Plan has established growth target areas for two reasons. First is an attempt to identify areas where market conditions are favorable to growth and to remove any potential impediments which would hinder new development. To be competitive in terms of economic development, the county must maintain such'sites. However, there is a second purpose for these growth target areas. If the planning process can make growth target areas extremely attractive for development, it would steer development away from the rural preservation areas where intense development is not favored. Thus, the idea of target growth areas simultaneously meets the goals for other future land use areas.
This does not mean that citizens wish to see low-quality development in these or any areas. Their comments during regional meetings where that congestive highway development and low standard commercial site development should be avoided. They also did not wish to see these areas steal finite market share from revitalization areas. Thus, there is a mandate to plan for realistic amounts of commercial growth. Finally, it was continually stated that the priority should be on job-creating, capital importing industrial businesses. Specific tools to meet these goals include:
Tool 0 Model interstate interchange zoning district - Traditional Euclidian zoning segregated industrial and commercial areas at interstate interchanges. This was based on the potential for conflict between traditional industries (coal tipples, steel mills, etc.) and retail development, However, the market has shown that most growth industries, especially those which choose new sites, are of a much lower impact. It is, therefore, wholly reasonable that a zoning district at an interstate interchange could accommodate both light industry and highway commercial activities. In practice, this could also lead to a more logical form of land utilization. Ideally, commercial entities would utilize the high-profile interchange sites while industry would make use ofbacklots and,lower visibility sites.
One of the best examples of this situation in Mercer County is the proximity of the new outlet mall development to both the Murphy Flour and Buckeye Hone facilities. In both cases, the industrial developments have little, if any, effect upon the commercial development. It is recommended MCRPC staff work to prepare and amend a suitable model zoning district for inclusion in local zoning ordinances.
First Steo: Preparation of a model ordinance by staff. Planning TooIbox 49
Financinp: The preparation of such a model would not entail a significant outlay of funds.
Tool 0 Extension of infrastructure prior to development at sites where market conditions indicate a favorable potential for development - In instances where financially feasible, it is recommended that speculative extensions of public water and sewer be made to certain interchanges (the specifics of these are discussed in the Community Facilities Plan).
Tool 0 Land development criteria for large-scale developments - There is often a mistaken notion that land development regulations decrease development opportunities. Actually, the quality developments consciously look for quality settings. It is no coincidence that the fastest growing residential developments in central and western Pennsylvania frequently employ deed covenants which regulate land utilization far beyond that of municipal zoning. Furthermore, site development standards are the best means to avoid the congestive highway development which causes eventual sprawl and expensive highway improvements. In particular, site development regulations for major site developments should include some provisions for the development of a secondary access road system. Secondary access roads allow internal traffic, such as that between commercial developments, to move on a separate system from through-traffic. It is a proven congestion management tool. However, it is generally only cost-effective in situations where it is a requirement of major land 0 developments prior to development. First SteD: Inclusion of such regulations and standards for major land developments in county subdivision regulations.
Financing- Alternatives: If right-of-ways are initially reserved, the system could be developed as the need for them grow.
Finally, some growth areas must accommodate the small livable human-scale developments that have made Mercer County's communities quality places to live. Many of the growth areas represent traditional villages and neighborhoods which should be allowed to expand naturally. However, this expansion should be cognizant of the existing street layouts, lot sizes, setbacks, and uses which have created the quality character of the communities. It is recommended, thus, that some additional tools be employed for these areas.
Tool Model village zoning districts - Villages are successful forms of human settlement patterns because they retain a human scale. Within the context of this human scale, a variety of commercial, residential, and institutional uses can flourish. Within the past five to ten years, planners have recognized the innate quality of the village form of development and have begun to develop model ordinances which allow limited commercial and residential uses to flourish side by side. Cottage industries, home occupations, and part-time businesses seldom create the type of conflict that an intense development, such as a shopping mall, create when Planning Toolbox 50
abutting residential. Rather than regulate use, village zoning should be thought of as regulating the scale of development.
First Stem Development of a model ordinance provisions by MCRPC staff.
Further Reading: Reinventing the Village (American Planning Association), Visionsfor a New American Dream (Anton Clarence Nelessen).
Financing Alternatives: If proceeded by a village plan, and integrated into a holistic planning process, many of Mercer County's villages, which have been identified as growth areas, may be income-eligible for SCPAP or SPAG assistance. Revitalization areas
Historically, Mercer County has maintained a good balance between economic growth and retention of the ingredients of livability. However, a number of communities in the county have seen changing market forces cause private-sector divestment. Ironically, these areas contain some of the most intense public-sector investment.' Frequently, the communities which have historically invested in full public water and sewer, sidewalks, street systems, street lights, and police and fire services, have been the most likely to see private-sector divestment. This divestment has taken a form of both business closings/relocations and residential outmigrations. Due to the historic allocation of tax dollars to construct this extensive system of facilities and services, it is essential these areas maintain a stable growing tax base. If these areas can be attractive for new development, it is frequently very cost-effective from a public subsidy vantage. Therefore, the Comprehensive Plan recommends a focus of public investment in these revitalization areas to create a safe and physical environment and a growing tax base. Specific tools include:
Tool 0 Statelfederal grant assistance -Frequently, the revitalization areas have the highest eligibility for state and federal land dollars. However, not all communities have fully utilized the opportunities available to them. It is recommended MCRPC staff work with communities to assure they are aware of opportunities and have the assistance to apply for a number of targeted programs, especially:
Main Street Program
+ EPA Brownfield Cleanup Funds Communities of Opportunity County CDBG Entitlement Funds State CDBG Competitive Funds b State (DCED) Community Revitalization Program
Tool 0 Mercer County Redevelopment Authority - Redevelopment authorities have powers and functions available to them that municipal governments either do not possess or possess 0 Planning Toolbox 51 only with much greater restrictions. Such functions include acquisition and disposition of property and financing.
The Mercer County Redevelopment Authority could be instrumental in brownfield reuse or other urban revitalization projects which involve reuse of substandard and underutilized properties. In the last 15 years, the authority has been involved in no projects other than the 1985 tornado recovery project.
First Steu: A study should be performed to define areas in Mercer County which could qualify as redevelopment areas under state law and which have potential revitalization projects in which the Mercer County Redevelopment Authority can serve a facilitating role.
Further Reading: Pennsylvrmia Urban Redevelopment Law (Act 385 of 1945)
Funding Alternatives: See statelfederal grant assistance outlined in previous tool
Tool 8 TlFlLERTA - Communities may also utilize certain flexibilities within their property tax code to encourage reinvestment. Most common tools available are Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) and Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance (LERTA). TIF allows a percentage of property taxes in a designated revitalization area to be devoted specifically towards public improvement which would benefit property owners. It requires support of property owners a within the revitalization area and generally best succeeds in conjunction with a planning program which results in economic benefit. LERTA is the form of tax abatement allowed under Pennsylvania law. LERTA permits communities to designate areas in which there would be an up to ten-year abatement of taxes on building improvements or new construction. Communities would continue to receive the original taxes on existing buildings or land.
In Pennsylvania, LERTA was originally designated to allow communities to specifically target certain areas within their entire boundaries. However, it has frequency been used throughout the whole community often subsidizing developments which would recur regardless of the system. LERTA, when used, should be specifically focused on areas where development may not occur without this extra incentive.
First Step: TIF - meet with landowners; LERTA - adopt ordinance.
Tool 0 BOCA Property Maintenance Code - The BOCA Property Maintenance Code is designed to maintain a minimum health and safety standard for existing dwellings and structures. Frequently, it is a highly successfbl tool in conjunction with housing rehabilitation or main street program. Once code violations are identified, financial assistance can be offered through a government-funded housing rehabilitation program.
First Step: Read, amend, and adopt model code. 0 Planning Toolbox 52
Tool Historic Preservation Tax Credits -Many of the revitalization areas contain a wealth of historic buildings. If included on a National Register of Historic Places or eligible for the National Register, property owners of income-producing property who make improvements to these properties in a sensitive manner may receive a 20 percent tax credit based on the amount of finding spent in restoration. Unfortunately, few property owners are aware of this program.
First Step: Educate local officials to educate building owners.
Tool Aggressive residential marketing program - Many communities employ industrial marketing programs to attract new industry. However, few have embarked on a program to encourage new residents in revitalization areas. It is recommended that Mercer County work with such communities to develop this tool.
First Step: Create residential development committee.
Tool 0 Local currency study - One of the greatest problems of revitalization communities have is a net loss of total capital. The money local residents earn is frequently spent outside the community. This encourages the cycle of divestment. It is recommended a study be commissioned for the development of local currency. This local currency would be accepted by businesses and individuals on a volunteer basis and would substitutdaugment one to three percent of total community capital (individual household earnings and business receipts). a Local currency is entirely legal and assures that a certain amount of the community’s earnings will perpetuate staying within the community. By accepting and utilizing the local currency, it encourages nearby businesses to utilize each other for services and residents to utilize local businesses.
First SteD: Ithaca, New York was the first community in the United States to develop local currency. It is recommended that persons interested in this tool contact and, if possible, visit the community of Ithaca.
Further Reading: Ithaca HoursHome Page, available on the Internet. Search String - Ithaca, Hour.
Financine Alternatives: It would be necessary to develop some initial private or semi-private investment to print and manage the currency resource. Wise use land banks
The wise use land banks represent areas which have enormous potential. There is also extreme pressure for conversion of land uses, such as residential to commercial. However, once such pressure occurs in residential areas, it frequently does not convert the entire area. All markets are limited and the market for new retail service business entities certainly is. Homeowners caught in a Planning Toolbox 53
such an area in transition may not have all options to vend their property to a commercial entity. They are, thus, trapped in a high-traffic, low quality-of-life situation with substantially devalued property. Careful planning must ensure the property rights of all within the wise use land banks as protected. These areas are so crucial to the future ofMercer County that they warrant separate study. Such studies should involve homeowners, speculative landowners, local officials, and nearby communities which could be affected by changes. It is recommended that a similar planning process as was conducted for the Comprehensive Plan be utilized in each of these areas. Because of the study process, wise use land banks should be developed only after growth areas have been developed. If development precedes completion of these studies, public funds should not be utilized to subsidize development.
Because the wise use land banks are also the gateways to existing communities, it is also recommended that transportation funding be available through the Internodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) be utilized for enhancement of landscapes and property values. It is a necessity to move traffic in these areas, but they should also serve as aesthetically pleasing gateways from interstate interchanges to existing communities.
Urbanlsuburban preservation areas
Many of the neighborhoods and communities in Mercer County were perceived by stakeholders as being fine places to live exactly as they are. The work of planning in such a situation is to ensure they remain so. In these areas, there are still land resources to accommodate new development. This should be encouraged. However, the means should be undertaken to ensure this new development and infill is fully integrated into the existing structure. This can be done through a number of tools.
Tool 0 Model residential zoning ordinance -Zoning has been inappropriately used in many sound urban residential neighborhoods. Zoning standards designed for new, low-density, suburban development are being used in existing urban neighborhoods. The newer standards would not allow the existing neighborhood with its close-knit homes and closeness to the street to be built! New model zoning provisions should be drafted designed to protect existing residential areas, assure continuity of transportation networks between new and existing development, and allow some flexibility for neighborhood-scale, pedestrian (not automobile) oriented commercial services.
First Steo: MCRPC staffprepare model
Further Reading: Save Our Land Save Our Towns (Thomas Hylton), A BefterPlace foLive Philip Langdon).
Tool 0 Comprehensive review of all local zoning and subdivision requirements - Ironically, many zoning ordinances and some subdivision regulations would not permit the e replication of the best neighborhoods in a community. It is recommended communities PIanning Toolbox 54
examine their existing neighborhoods, determine what they like, and ensure through a comprehensive review that livable features they desire can be replicated.
First Steu: Local planning commission to review ordinance.
Further Reading: The Hidden Design in Lund Use Ordinances (MAC/USM Design Arts Project).
Tool 0 Urban forestrylgreenspace initiatives -There is no doubt that the key ingredient to a livable community is landscaping, street trees, and forests. A number of initiatives are available to communities to both preserve existing trees through development ordinances and ensure the planting of new ones.
First SteD: MCRF'C should sponsor an urban foresdstreet tree seminar for municipal officials.
Further Reading: Fried of Tree City U.S.A. (a newsletter from the National Arbor Day Foundation), MunicipaI Shade Tree Commission Guide (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Leisure Tap Series)
Financial Resources: America the Beautihl Grant Grant Program Reference 55 Grant Program Reference
This list contains only brief introductory material on those assistance programs referred to in the toolbox. Persons wanting information on other programs, as well as further information on these, should contact MCRPC. Community Development Block Grant (entitlement)
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development and U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
Source of Funds: Federal
Eligibility: Seven county municipalities receive an annual entitlement allocation of CDBG funding (Sharon, Hermitage, Farrell, Grove City, Greenville, Sharpsville, and Pine). The remaining non-entitlement municipalities may submit a proposal to Mercer County requesting a portion of the county’s entitlement allocation. Entitlements submit funding applications on a yearly basis - Sharon to U. S. HUD and the others to PA DCED. Funds may be used to benefit low/moderate-income persons, eliminate slums and blight, or serve an urgent need.
Potential Program Uses: A wide variety of community development projects are eligible although the primary focus of the CDBG program is to benefit low/moderate-income citizens. Within this context, CDBG funds may be used for housing rehab, code enforcement, water and sewer improvements, sidewalks, recreation, and similar projects.
Community Development Block Grant (competitive)
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Source of Funds: Federal
Eligibility: Any non-entitlement municipality for a project that benefits at least 51 percent lowlmoderate-income persons.
Potential Program Uses: Even more than the CDBG entitlement program, direct low/moderate-income benefit must be shown for success with a CDBG competitive application In the past, funding awards for housing rehabilitation and serious infrastructure problems have been given priority by the Department of Community and Economic Development. Grant Program Reference 56 HOME Program
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Source of Funds: Federal
Eligibility: Any municipality or municipal authority
Potential Program Uses: Providing affordable, quality housing to very low-income households (up to 50 percent of median family income for an area), and integrating persons with disabilities into all housing programs are the current priorities for the HOME program.
Com m unities of Opportunity
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Source of Funds: State
Eligibility: Any county, city, township, or borough
Potential Program Uses: This program is very flexible for non-housing community development uses. Recent initiatives include industrial development, physical revitalization, downtown initiatives, and a broad array of community facilities.
Community Revitalization Program
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Source of Funds: State
Eligibility: Any county, city, borough, or township plus redevelopment and industrial development authorities and non-profit and community organizations. This program was established and funded by the state for fiscal year 1996-97. There is no certainty that it will be hnded annually although communities should closely monitor its availability in the future.
Potential Program Uses: The program fhds a virtually limitless array of community development projects designed to enhance quality of life and competitiveness for economic development. Eligible projects include landhuilding acquisition, infrastructure, building rehabilitation or demolition, purchase of machinery/equipment, planning and promotion, public safety, recreation, and other community-based activities. Grani Program Reference S7 Strategic Community Partnerships Program
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Source of Funds: State
Eligibility: Any county, city, borough, or township plus redevelopment and industrial development authorities and non-profit and community organizations. This program was established and funded by the state for fiscal year 1996-97. There is no certainty that it will be funded annually although communities should closely monitor its availability in the future.
Potential Program Uses: The program is in essence a “planning” program designed to help communities develop strategic initiatives for community/economic development. It also funds projects that are crucial in addressing specific community development needs but lack the necessary financial resources. Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST)
Administering Agency: PENNVEST
Source of Funds: A mixture of state and federal
Eligibility: Any public or private water or waste water operator (municipality, authority, individual, cooperative, corporation).
Potential Program Uses: Since the PENNVEST program was begun in March of 1988, it has become a centerpiece of infrastructure funding in Pennsylvania funding water, sewer, and stormwater systems. It is primarily a low interest loan with an occasional grant component.
Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund (KEY ‘93)
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission
Source of Funds: State
Eligibility: Any Pennsylvania municipality, qualifying land trust or historical society
Potential Program Uses: Recreation planning and projects, open space, historic preservation Grant Program Reference 58 Local Government Capital Projects Loan Program
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Source of Funds: State
Potential Program Uses: This program is intended to give small local governments, who find the cost of borrowing at conventional rates to be prohibitive, an opportunity to secure needed funds at an interest rate of 2 percent per annum. Eligible uses include facilities and equipment. Rural Housing and Community Development Service (RHCDS) (Community Facilities Loan)
Administering Agency: Rural Econoniic and Community Development Service, USDA
Source of Funds: Federal
Eligibility: Loans and guarantees are available to special purpose districts, municipalities, counties, and non-profit corporations to develop essential community facilities in rural areas and towns with 20,000 or less in population.
Potential Program Uses: Loan hnds may be used to construct, enlarge, or improve community facilities for health care, public safety, and public services. Examples include nursing homes, hospitals, police and fire stations, rescue vehicles, sidewalks, street improvements, libraries, city halls, and animal shelters. Rural Utilities Services (RUS)(Water and Waste Removal)
Administering Agency: Rural Economic and Community Development Service, USDA
Source of Funds: Federal
Eligibility: Rural areas and towns with a population of 10,000 persons or less
Potential Program Uses: Rural utilities service grants and loans help develop water and waste disposal systems in rural areas. Grant Program Reference 59 Community Facilities Program (CFA)
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Source of Funds: State
Eligibility: Any Pennsylvania borough, township, or city with a population of 12,000 persons or less. Municipal or county authorities which service less than 12,000 persons are also eligible.
Potential Program Uses: This program provides grants for the construction, expansion, or improvement of water facilities, sanitary sewage disposal facilities, and access roads to serve a public water or sanitary sewer facility. This grant excludes sewage treatment facilities and storm sewers. Infrastructure Development Program (IDP) (Formerly the BID and Site Development Programs)
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Source of Funds: State
Eligibility: Eligible applicants include the following: municipalities, industrial development authorities, municipal authorities, redevelopment authorities, and local development districts. Private companies or private developers cannot apply directly for assistance. Eligible private companies and developers need to apply through an eligible applicant. Examples of eligible private companies and developers include: agricultural enterprises (excluding farms), industrial enterprises, manufacturing enterprises, export services enterprises, and research and development enterprises.
Local Match: Applicants must provide evidence of a commitment from a private company or developer to provide matching fimds. The match must be at least $2 for every $1 of the IDP award.
Potential Program Uses: The intent of the Infrastructure Development Program is to provide grants and loans for infrastructure improvements necessary to complement eligible capital investment by private companies and developers. Grant Program Reference 60 State Planning Assistance Grant Program (SPAG)
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Source of Funds: State
Eligibility: Any county, township, city, incorporated town, borough, home rule municipality, multi-municipal planning agency, or council of government.
Potential Program Uses: The State Planning Assistance Grant program seeks to provide hnding assistance to municipalities for the purpose of developing and improving community planning and management capabilities. Small Communities Planning Assistance Program (SCPAP)
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Source of Funds: Federal (CDBG set aside)
Eligibility: All Pennsylvania boroughs, incorporated towns and townships, except those receiving CDBG funds directly from the federal government because they are federal entitlement communities, those eligible to receive funds through the HUD Urban County CDBG program, and those entitlements under the Pennsylvania CDBG program with a population of over 10,000 persons.
Potential Program Uses: The Small Communities Planning Assistance Program is the planning assistance component of the Pennsylvania CDBG program. Its goals are to help communities address local needs and problems, such as housing and publickommunity facilities Shared Municipal Services Program
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Source of Funds: State
Eligibility: Newly formed COGS and groups of two or more municipalities.
Potential Program Uses: This program provides new COGSwith 50% of their administrative costs for the initial three years afier forming. It also will assist municipalities undertaking shared services projects including, but not limited to, police record administration, joint ownership of municipal equipment, data processing, and sign-making. Grant Program Reference 61 Transportation Enhancements Program (ISTEA)
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Source of Funds: Federal
Eligibility: Municipalities or not-for-profit organizations may be project sponsors. Currently there are no hnds available. All Enhancements funds authorized for Pennsylvania under the 1991 federal Internodal Surface Transportation Eficiency Act (ISTEA) have been expended. However, hnds may again be available if the Enhancements Program is included in the next federal transportation authorization to replace ISTEA by October 1997.
Potential Program Uses: Projects which “enhance” the transportation system including landscaping and scenic beautification, pedestrian and bicycle trails, rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities, control and removal of outdoor advertising, and others. Opportunity Grant Program
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Source of Funds: State
Eligibility: Agricultural processors, manufacturing, industrial, research & development, traded services and firms establishing a national or regional headquarters.
Potential Program Uses: The goal of the program is to provide grant monies to companies that will create or preserve jobs within the Commonwealth. The program has a 4: 1 public match ratio but has no minimum nor maximum. The grant can be used for job training, infrastructure, land & building improvements, machinery & equipment, working capital, and environmental assessment and remediation. Municipal Tree Restoration Program
Administering Agency: Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry
Elig ibi I ity : Any Municipality
Potential Program Uses: Replacement of deteriorated street trees. Grant Program Reference 62 Pennsylvania Urban and Community Forestry Council Grant I Administering Agency: PA Urban and Community Forestry Council Eligibility: Municipalities, shade tree commissions and other groups whose objective is to hrther urban and community forestry.
Potential Program Uses: Mini Grants - $100 to get organized to perform certain urban and community forestly activities. Special Grants Program - $500 to $5,000 (1:l match cash &/or in- kind) to groups to finther urban and community forestry such as inspections, tree wrap removal, weeding, and education programs, etc. Municipal Challenge Grants - Grant for the purchase and delivery of up to 50 trees (match 1: 1 cash or in-kind). i New USDA programs
There are two new USDA programs with potential for Mercer County. However, they have not been finalized. The first is the Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP). The RCAP may replace traditional USDA grantAoan programs for infrastructure and rural housing. The second new program is the Fund for Rural America, which will contain a variety of technology, rural development, business and research components.
Other state programs
~ A variety of other state administered fhding programs exist that were not listed here. For additional information contact the PA Center for Local Government Services as follows:
Mr. Kim Coon, Executive Director Mr. Leo LaChance Center for Local Government Services Northwest Regional Ofice 352 Forum Building Center for Local Government Services Harrisburg, PA 17120 3rd Floor, Rothrock Building 121 West 10th Street (71 7)787-8 169 Erie, PA 16501 Fax: (717)772-4559 (814)871-4241
The Center serves as a link between the Commonwealth and local governments serving as a point of contact in coordinating state resources and acting as an ombudsman with other agencies of the Commonwealth. -- Mercer County Comprehensive Plan Communi& Faci(ities Plan 63 Communitv Facilities Plan
There is no doubt that water and sewer are absolutely necessary to support new development in Mercer County. The maintenance, construction, and extension of infrastructure is also extremely expensive. The expense is at least partly the responsibility of the community. Therefore, the Community Facilities Plan must foremost be a statement about where members of the community feel that cost is warranted. This also makes the recommendations of the Community Facilities Plan a means to implement the Land Use Plan.
The regional meetings and visioning committee sessions also began a process of defining a community facilities role for Mercer County. Again, the countywide emphasis was not for a role as a dictator; rather as a partner, a technician, and especially a planner.
Generally speaking, a planned expansion or extension of infrastructure will benefit all parties concerned. Ofien, however, a major project could involve multiple entities (municipalities, authorities, etc.). The specific recommended county roles include:
Assistance in the development of intercommunity systems and intercommunity agreements - As a neutral party interested in the well-being of the entire county community, the county can play a unique role in finding cooperative intercommunity facilities solutions. This is especially true in that the county can help steer a common sense middle ground between too many small local systems and state policies of massive regionalization which promote sprawl. For example, an multi-municipal authority could operate two separate systems in two communities.
Assistance to assure that infrastructure lines and systems are planned rather than a response to crisis or regulatory orders -The Comprehensive Plan provides a base of information about:
+ Where growth (infrastructure extensions) is favored by the community.
Where the free market indicates desirable land could be enhanced by public water and sewer.
Where there are potential healthkafety problems or needed capacity expansions.
This mere knowledge allow communities to prepare for projects before a crisis. If the Comprehensive Plan is widely disseminated, the county can be the catalyst for real infrastructure improvements. Communiv Facilities Plan 64
0 Assistance to financingltechnical matters -Both the MCRPC and Penn-Northwest Development Corporation have able, experienced grant writers. Many municipalities and authorities cannot afford to maintain staff for these services.
Total quality management assistance (TQM) - Water and sewer systems are industrial processes which lend themselves to a quality-cost production approach (the products be processed potable water and clean sewage discharge). It is, thus, recommended that community facilities be the first application of a county-municipal TQM program. This will allow municipal operators to set goals -“no treated water loss” or “no hydraulic overloading” - and find ways to meet these goals in a cost-effective manner. This education program should be offered via local authorities and system operators and presented by other entities with such experience.
Rural preservation areas
Widespread extensions of public water and sewer to these areas would destroy the effort of the Land Use Plan to preserve current uses and features. Therefore, no such extensions are recommended. In fact, it is recommended that no grant/loan or other public subsidy be employed for such activities.
The exception to this may be cases where existing development needs public water or sewer to alleviate a health and safety problem. However, every means should be taken to ensure that this public investment meets this goal but prevent subsidizing sprawl.
Carefid planning can assure this will not happen. First must be a system design which will accept the minimum regulatory excess capacity. Line sizes should not permit numerous perpendicular or excessive parallel extensions. Second, some form of complimentary zoning must be utilized. ‘This may be difficult in light ofthe fact that lower densities will increase tap-in costs. Finally, some form of differential assessment, transfer of development rights. or conservation easements should be considered. Potential tools include:
0 Priority for Act 43 transfer of development rights - (Only applicable for Agricultural Security Areas - ASA) Where ASAs exist in townships, farms affected could be added, then given a priority ranking (with the cooperation of the Mercer County Agricultural Land Preservation Board).
0 Sale of a conservation easement/development rights in exchange for tap-in cost subsidy - This could be a CDBG project for income-eligible landowners.
0 Differential assessment - Pennsylvania law allows two forms of differential assessment Under Act 3 13, differential assessment is based upon the values of the land as agriculture (these are based on guidelines prepared by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture). However, because Mercer County’s assessment is very old, use value assessment could Community Faciliiies Plan 65
conceivably increase taxes. This would, thus, require carehl study before implementation. Act 5 15 is the less commonly used form of differential assessment. This represents a specific covenant between the county and individual landowners. Each party signs a ten-year covenant. The landowner agrees to use restrictions in exchange for a degree in assessment equal in value to the loss of development opportunities. Because this is case-by-case, the age of the countywide assessment is not important.
Growth target areas
If these areas are to be made very attractive to growth, there must be full infrastructure to support growth. However, as the attached map shows, there are approximately 14,700 acres of growth or revitalization areas currently underserved by public infrastructure. Complete water and sewer for these areas is a worthy goals, but it is not a realistic near term goal (complete infrastructure to all growth areas could easily exceed $100 million). Some prioritization is in order.
The consensus of the visioning process is that public investment in facilities should return public benefit in the form ofjob creation. Thus, the Community Facilities Plan gives high priority to meeting the needs of growth areas which have the best market potential for business development. With current market conditions, the most valuable sites are Interstate Interchanges, as identified in the Mercer CERP study. The three priority sites for community facilities projects are:
1st - Sewer service to the I-80/US 19 Mercer interchange 2nd - Public water service to the east side of the I-79PA 208 Springfield interchange 3rd - Complete water and sewer service for the 1-79AJS 62 Jackson interchange Project #l- The Mercer interchange -The main facility need at this interchange is for public sewer. There are two conceivable routes to connect this to the Mercer system. The first is directly south of Mercer Borough, following Route 19. However, this route would disrupt farmland and hasten conflicts in this wise use land bank. The second alternative would be to run a line from Mercer Borough to the minimum security State Correctional Institution (SCI), then to the interchange. SCI Mercer has periodic problems with its package plant and should welcome this opportunity. The facility would probably add 400 EDUs to the extension, underwriting some costs with the tap-in. Estimated cost for this project is $750,000.
0 Project #2 - The Springfield interchange - When the Grove City Factory Shops chose this location, a public sewer extension was made from Grove City Borough to the west side of 1-79. Water for the project was supplied by the Buhl Community Water Company. This small community system was established as a residential system to serve the village of Number Five Mine. At present, the Buhl system has marginal excess capacity and is closely monitoring e usage to be able to plan for future connections. There are, then, two options to serve Communiv Facilities Plan 66
potentially developable land on the east side of the interchange: a short expensive extension from the Buhl system or a long expensive extension from Grove City. The cost estimate for each option is over a half-million dollars (the BUM option is cheaper is a bore under 1-79 is not necessary). It is also important to note that conceptual site planning and some feasibility analysis for an industrial park on this side of the interchange has been completed. Full infrastructure could be the catalyst to make this reality.
Project #3 - The Jackson interchange - This 1-79 exit has seen some very recent industrial development activity with associated sewer extensions. At present, sewer from the Borough of Jackson Center has been extended to the east side of the interchange. However, the greatest need, at present, may be to serve the existing development at Lake Latonka. Residential development at this planned community is presently being stalled by the fact that remaining lots will not meet on-lot septic requirements. However, this community does have a public water system. Basically, some means needs to be developed to move sewer to the west and water service to the east. Roughly, $500,000 will bring sewer to the entrance of Lake Latonka. (Serving every home in the development will be considerably more, but the density should be sufficient to make this possible via assessments and tap-in fees. Approximately the same amount will extend Lake Latonka’s water to the newly-developing Jackson Commerce Park.)
This project will be complex because it will involve two municipalities, a private system, and even the Federal Highway Administration. However, it is worthwhile because the three jurisdictions involved have all the components of a fully fknctioning community. It is recommended that all three meet to discuss regionalization of operations and financing for both water and sewer service. Benefits of regionalization could include:
Simplify billing and fees for developers and residents
Assure fair representation by each jurisdiction
Gather the critical mass to make an expensive project possible
It would also facilitate the development of this area as a “new town” complete with jobs, a variety of housing choices, excellent highway access, and high quality of life.
These three projects were chosen as priorities because of their enormous market potential. The public investment here will have the best chance to be repaid in the form of good new jobs for Mercer Countians. However, there are other underserved areas in the growth sectors. For example, The village of Leesburg has a community water system, but no public sewer. Public sewer would increase the chances of this village being able to enjoy some growth which would not compromise its existing character and livability. Sewer service could come from Volant or the Springfield Interchange. (Volant would probably be the most cost-effective choice.) Again, this is simply an example of a small project which would have no major job creation impacts.
Communiv Facilities Plan 67
There are many more in Mercer County. How should such projects be prioritized? This is an especially important decision when it is considered that county CDBG funding will play a significant financial role. Therefore, an important tool is recommended for analyzing community facilities projects:
Planning consistency analysis for CDBG funding - At present, each CDBG project is rated independently. It is recommended that rating for projects with these funds be tied to the Comprehensive Plan. MCRF’C st& could develop an application which would give the applicant the opportunity to explain how a project would fulfill the Comprehensive Plan and contribute to livable communities.
Each factor should receive points which will give weight to their relative importance. This will relate funding for community facilities to the county planning process. Revitalization target areas
As mentioned in the Land Use Plan, many of the revitalization areas have made the historical investment in complete water and sewer service. However, these facilities are either aging or facing a customer base with fewer numbers and lagging income. Whatever the cause, this resource must not be allowed to dilapidate. Its replacement would be unafFordable. 0 What is needed is some means to increase capacity and facilitate practical extensions which would increase the user base. Many of these extensions will lie outside the boundaries of the municipality which actualfy owns the system. However, there is no reason public systems cannot mirror the economy, which places little emphasis on municipal boundaries. This also would give revitalization communities an important role to play as regional utility brokers. An excellent model for this approach exists in Mercer County, the Shenango Valley Water Company. Had this company confined its service to only the City of Sharon, it would probably now have an aging system with little prospect of new users. TQM assistance would be especially helpful in assuring cost-effective solutions to create solvent systems will the ability to receive new users.
The maintenance and expansion of community facilities systems in revitalization areas should become a county funding priority, especially when such projects meet other planning goals. It was suggested during the county visioning meetings that these areas be prioritized by setting aside a minimum percentage of CDBG funds for revitalization communities. However, this is practically somewhat difficult, as many revitalization communities do not participate frequently, and other, such as Farrell and Grove City, are direct entitlement recipients. However, it is recommended that revitalization projects receive priority, especially where they meet other planning goals (such as industrial job creation). Communiiy Faciliiies Plan 68 Wise use land banks
Wise Use Land Banks all represent the intervening land between growth areas or growth and revitalization areas. Yet, there was strong citizen consensus that these areas be treated differently. This wise use should include the infrastructure policy. Careful planning will be necessary to assure &development (citizens continually stated they did not want a replication of Cranberry Township). Therefore, it is recommended that no public funds be expended for infrastructure improvements in these areas until the individual corridor plans are complete. When complete, and any projects begin, a similar approach should be employed as recommended for rural preservation areas:
Limit line sizes Priority for purchase of development rightdconservation easements Appropriate zoning/Agricultural Security Areas Differential assessment covenants
Urbankuburban preservation areas
The diversity of these neighborhoods makes it difficult to generalize about community facilities. Some neighborhoods contain new housing with new infrastructure. Others contain Victorian-era housing with infrastructure dating to the origin of community systems.
The key policy is to see that all of these areas of consistency and adequately served to assure a continuation of the quality of life for neighborhood residents. Where maintenance or rehabilitation is needed, it should be in a cost-effective manner to avoid unnecessary fee increiises. This can often be done by not deferring maintenance needs. Local infrastructure financing program
Infrastructure has been cited throughout this Comprehensive Plan as a catalyst to new development in target growth areas and reinvestment in target revitalization areas. Infrastructure financing, however, is limited and growing even more limited in recent years. Federal and state programs providing funding have been reduced in number and in amounts of funding available.
Still, municipalities continue to rely heavily on such funding to make water, sewer, and other infrastructure improvements They cite lagging local incomes and inability to pay user fee increases.
Mercer County should study the development of a local infrastructure financing program, funded and operated by local sources. It would offer three distinct advantages:
0 Reduce dependence on decreasing and already overburdened federdstate funding programs. 0 Community Facilities Plan 69
0 Improve the time frame in which infrastructure improvements can be completed by avoiding time-consuming processes of review, approval, and administration associated with federal and state grants.
0 Relieve local projects of other administrative and regulatory burdens associated with federal and state grants.
Locally-funded programs have been established in other Pennsylvania counties. Funds were obtained via county-sponsored bond issues which in turn were loaned at low or no interest for local infrastructure projects. This approach is recommended in the 1991 Mercer County Strategic Plan. Mercer County provided $200,000 seed money for a Mercer County Infrastructure Revolving Loan Fund to spark water system expansion for the Grove City Factory Shops project in 1993, but the fund has not grown.
A public/private task force should study the matter and devise a strategy for expanding the Mercer County infrastructure fund. The county should consider a bond issue to generate additional funds although it will have to see measurable results of improved economies in jobs, income, and taxes to offset costs associated with the bond issue. Private financing institutions should be approached for financing participation, especially in response to incentives under the Community Reinvestment Act. Other sources and innovative partnerships should be pursued.
If implemented, priority for local infrastructure program funding should rest with projects which clearly demonstrate implementation of the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan.
~ Pw+&a&- .. Mercer County Comprehensive Plan Public Meeting Mercer County Comprehensive Plan Monday, September 30, 1996 - 7:OO PM - Mercer County Cooperative Extension Center
Persons attending
Jim Hogan, Jefferson Township Edmund Benton, Hermitage Plng. Commission Bob McGhee, Coolspring Township Robert B. Silverman, Hermitage Plng. Comm. Steve Tingley, Sandy Lake area Randy Coleman, Penn Power Don Thomas, Sharon School District Ann Coleman, Shenango Valley C of C Donna DeBonis, Sharon School District Russ Dawes, Hempfield Township Jo McCutcheon, Mercer Borough Council Gary Hittle, Hempfield Township Gail Habbyshaw, Greenville Record-Argus Ron Faull, Liberty Township Diane Lacey, citizen (Grove City) Russell S. Nickel, Jefferson Township Mary Bowlin, Grove City Chamber of Commerce Barbara L. Conroy, Springfield Township Becky Beinlich, Allied News Tom Johnston, French Creek Township Marcia Hirschmann, City of Hermitage Nellie Burkett, French Creek Township Jim Rollinson, Hermitage Planning Commission Harold Gwin, The Vindicator Albert Law, New Vernon Township Clinton Bishop, Sandy Creek Township Larry McAdams, Fredonia Borough Fred Houser, Stoneboro Borough Michele M. Barto, Springfield Township Floyd Tingley, Sandy Lake Township Linda Bollinger, West Middlesex Borough Art George, Salem Township David G. George, West Middlesex Borough David M. Chess, Salem Township Larry D. Robinson, W. Middlesex & Shenango Carol Maybee, Salem Township Kate Burke, Springfield Township Dick Mackell, Grove City Borough Steven Preston, M.C. Federation of Sportsmen Brian Shipley, Congressman English's office Tom Tulip, PA Economy League Denise Anthony, Senator Robbins office Larry Reichard, Penn-Northwest Dvlp. Corp. Alice Bradley, League of Women Voters Gary Hinkson, City of Hermitage Pat Woodings, Sharon City Bill Booth, West Salem Township Denny Puko, MCRPC Bill Morocco, FmU City Julie Slater, MCRPC Patty Meehan, Sharpsville Borough Dan Gracenin, MCRPC Dr. John Coupland, Hermitage Commissioner Beth Graham, MCRPC Sylvia Stull, Hermitage Commissioner John Buly, MCRF'C Joseph Augustine, Hermitage Commissioner Jeff Gilliland, MCRPC Intern Pat White, Hermitage Commissioner Rick Grossman, Graney, Grossman, Ray & Assoc
Presentation 8 comments
Jim Hogan, Chairman of the Mercer County Regional Planning Commission, welcomed all in attendance. Denny Puko, executive director of the commission, stated that the purpose of the meeting was to inform and obtain comments on the proposed Mercer County Comprehensive Plan. He introduced the commission officers, staff and consultant who have been coordinating work on the plan. He then outlined the basics of the plan including: - What a comprehensive plan is and is not. - The vast publidprivate participation process. - The vision statement with a list of ingredients for livable communities. - The overall policy promoting wealth-creating growth without sacrificing treasured values.
Rick Grossman, a partner with Graney, Grossman, Ray & Associates (project consultant), then outlined the plan’s land use strategy and implementation tools that may be used to achieve separate objectives for rural preservation areas, revitalition target areas, growth target areas, wise use land bank areas and urbdsuburban preservation areas.
Mer the presentations, Denny Puko gave a commentary in which he noted that the county is about to face serious development pressure. The county can succumb to suburbanization and what he described as a short-lived, self-defeating quest for quality of life, or the county can choose a moderate, targeted growth approach combined with reinvestment in existing communities or even development of B new “community”. The latter approach would yield the sustainable development and preservation of treasured quality of life values as outlined in the vision.
Questions and comments were then invited from those in attendance. Major among those were:
Jo McCutcheon suggested that brownfield development should be a priority to minimize need to impact farms via greenfield development. Mr. Puko noted that plan gives high priority to brownfield reuse, but greenfield development, carefully targeted to minimize growth impacts, is needed to achieve economic recovery goals. She also expressed concern about the poor availability and public knowledge of rural public transit. Dave George, a representative on the Mercer County Regional Council of Governments which runs a countywide transit system, said COG is working on better PR for the rural service.
Steven Preston stated that development should avoid wetland areas. Even if development builds around wetlands without encroaching, there is a negative impact on wildlife habitat. Mr. Puko noted that the county has extensive wetlands and the plan supports their value in rural preservation areas. Mr. Preston also expressed concern about the cleaning of Superfund sites as part of brownfield reuse. Lastly he asked if the plan is a step toward countywide zoning. Mr. Puko responded that countywide zoning is not recommended in the plan nor is it needed. Zoning needs to be greatly improved, but should remain local choice.
Kate Burke asked several questions about zoning and what could be done to make it work better and have more support in rural areas. Mr. Puko responded that zoning regulations should reflect actual community goals and not be rules for rules sake. They can be tighter in areas of development pressure and flexible in more rural areas. Rick Grossman added that zoning should be related to scale and density, i.e., less control for small-scale, low-density development and vice- versa. The plan will contain suggested new zoning concepts.
Randy Coleman and Edmund Benton both suggested that tax differential between commumties has much to do with a developer’s locational choice and should be studied for affects on growth and revitalization target areas. Tom Tulip commented that the state legislature has wrestled inconclusively with local tax reform to help address such issues. Mr. Coleman agreed with the assessment that there will be growth in Mercer County. 0 Tom Tulip complemented the plan's public participation process, calling it interactive, open and receptive. Tun Hogan agreed that the process was good although he couldn't appreciate why 'a more of the community did not attend the open meetings.
0 Dr. John Coupland stated that municipalities have different views of development - some want it and some do not. He and Pat White stated that Hermitage has wanted development but went through a planning process to gain control of it. Hermitage would be pleased to share what it has learned with other communities now facing development. Dr. Coupland added that the plan must take a hard look at why people and busimesses do not want to locate in some areas.
0 Russ Dawes commented that it is difficult to predict where development will occur. Years ago, Hempfield Township expected growth to occur on PA 58. Instead, growth occurred on PA 358.
After comments and discussion were concluded, Denny Puko explained that a public hearing will be held October 24 prior to asking the county commissioners to adopt the plan on November 7. He further explained that the plan will be a flexible document, receptive to change as new priorities develop and as local communities perform their own planning in partnership with the county plan.
There being no more comments, Mr. Puko thanked the participants and closed the meeting at 8:20 PM.
ResDectfidv submitted.
Dennis G. Puko, Executive Director, MCRF'C Public Meeting Mercer County Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, October 15, 1996 - 6:30 PM - MCRFC Office
Persons attending
Denny Puko, MCRFC
Presentation 8 comments
In the absence of any attendance, no meeting was conducted.
Respectfully submitted, QgaLhO. Dennis G. Puko, Executive Director, MCRPC Public Hearing Mercer County Comprehensive Plan Thursday, October 24, 1996 - 1O:OO AM - Mercer County Courthouse Assembly Room
Persons attending
Bob Robbins, State Senator Steve Tingley, Sandy Lake Borough Jim Rollinson, Hermitage City Fred Houser, Stoneboro Borough Jim Hogan, Jefferson Township Tom Tulip, PA Economy League Dale Deist, Sheakleyville Borough Tom Stanton, Wheatland Borough Russell Dawes, Hempfield Township Ray Foster, Wheatland Borough Robert L. McGhee, Coolspring Township Robert Kochems, Mercer/Springfield Township Roland Jacobs, French Creek Township Frank Gargiulo, Farrell City Alvin J. Stoker, French Creek Township Jo McCutcheon, Mercer Borough Ronald Fad, Liberty Township Lauri Galentine, Greenville Record-Argus Dick Mackell, Grove City Borough Mary Grzebieniak, The Vindicator Frank Laaks, Coolspring Township Richard R. Stevenson, Mercer Co. Commissioner Thomas Mattocks, Pine Township Cloyd E. Brenneman, Mercer Co. Commissioner Ed Bowman, Sandy Lake Borough Olivia Lazor, Mercer County Commissioner Freida Eakman, Mercer County Denny Puko, MCRPC Anne Pierotti, Greenville Borough Julie Slater, MCRPC Dory O’DOnnell, Hermitage City Dan Gracenin, MCRPC Alice Bradley, Hermitage City Beth Graham, MCRPC Pat Woodings, Sharon City John Buly, MCRPC
Presentation 8, comments
Commissioner Richard Stevenson opened the public hearing at 1O:OO AM. He stated that the purpose of the hearing was to take public comments on the proposed Mercer County Comprehensive Plan.
He asked Denny Puko, Executive Director of the Mercer County Regional Planning Commission, to describe the proposed plan. Mr. Puko described what a comprehensive plan is and noted that an adopted county plan is required by Pennsylvania law. Two key points were emphasized:
1. The plan is a “countywide” plan not the “county’s’’ plan. It was indeed crafted by the countywide community, not the county government and its planners.
2. The plan is advisory, not ordinance or law. It recognizes that local governments, agencies and the private sector are main players with which to work in partnership, not to control, in achieving the vision in the plan.
The comprehensive plan contains two phases - a Policy Plan and an Actions & Strategies Plan - which Mr. Puko presented at the hearing and briefly described.
Next, Mr. Stevenson invited comments from the audience. Several statements were given: 0 Tom Tulip of the Pennsylvania Economy League stated that PEL supports the plan and its vision for the future, especially in view of the great community input gained in its development.
0 Jo McCutcheon, councilwoman from Mercer Borough, commented that it is important that people keep enthusiasm for local control under the plan and that the general public should be more thoroughly informed of the plan’s recommendations. Mr. Puko noted such was intended.
0 Anne Pierotti of the League of Women Voters asked when the final plan will be available. Mr. Puko answered the first phase is printed and the second phase will be printed after and if adopted by the county commissioners.
0 Ed Bowman, Zoning Officer and resident of Sandy Lake Borough, commented that local communities are in for a change and this county plan is a good starting point for further local planning.
0 Mr. Stevenson echoed the key point that the plan is not a plan for county control, but that it is up to each individual community to modify its ordinances and do implementation activities as seen fit to achieve this shared vision.
0 Commissioner OliviaLazor stated that the prior board of commissioners and this board believed the plan needed to come from the grassroots. It was a monumental task to get direction from the communities and she commended the statffor its work. She also commended the effort to make sure community qualities are preserved yet the county can also grow.
0 Commissioner Gene Brenneman said he attended all the first phase regional meetings and heard a similar theme - desire for green, open space, but also jobs. There was much harmony in the input received. He was very impressed by the process and commended the prior board of commissioners, this board, the planning commission and the citizens of the county.
0 Tom Stanton, mayor of Wheatland Borough, said the plan lets Wheatland develop the kind oftown it wants, and also allows growth where needed in the county.
0 Pat Woodings of the League of Women Voters stated that the League has always been involved in land use issues and the plan is compatible with the League’s public involvement philosophy. She is also a member of the Mercer County Agland Preservation Board and noted compatibility with the board’s policy.
0 State Senator Bob Robbm commended the work of the planning commission and added that he was there to reinforce the state’s involvement in the directions the county wants to go.
There being no more comments, Mr. Stevenson thanked the participants and adjourned the public hearing at 10:25 AM.
Rewectfbllv submitted.
Dennis G. Puko, Executive Director, MCWC COM MI SSlON E RS' 0 FFlCE County of Mercer RICHARD R. STEVENSON, CHAIRMAN 103 Courthouse CLOYD E. BRENNEMAN (412) 662-3800 OLlVlA M. LAZOR Mercer, PA 16137 (412) 962-5711
RESOLUTION 96-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE MERCER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING "PLANNING FOR LIVABLE COMUNITIES, MERCER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN" IN ACCORD WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPALITIES PLANNING CODE, ACT 247 OF 1968 AS REENACTED AND AMENDED.
WHEREAS, the Mercer County Regional Planning Commission in cooperation with the entire Mercer County community and in accord with the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (Act 2247 of 1968 as reenacted and amended) has prepared a comprehensive plan for Mercer County entitled "Planning for Livable Communities, Mercer County Comprehensive Plan" and including a Policy Plan (Phase II); and
WHEREAS, the plan was developed with extensive public involvement including 20 public meetings throughout the county with 430+ participants, a countywide random and representative public opinion survey, and direct involvement with local governments, agencies and organizations; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held October 24, 1996, 1O:OO AM at the Mercer County Courthouse in which 36 persons attended and many supportive comments but no objections stated;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mercer County Board of Commissioners does hereby adopt "Planing for Livable Communities, Mercer County Comprehensive Plan" including the "Policy Plan (Phase I)" dated October 1995 and the "Actions & Strategies Plan (Phase II)" dated November 1996 as presented this day and including all maps, charts and textual matter therein, as the comprehensive plan for Mercer County in accord with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (Act 247 of 1968 as reenacted and amended). Page 2 Continued Resolution 96-34 November 7,1996
Resolved by the Mercer County Board of Commissioners this 7th day of November, 1946.
Mercer County Board of Commissioners &- td id&-%-- Richard R. Stevenson, Chairman Annual Action Plans
The Mercer County Comprehensive Plan must not be considered “completed” with the adoption of this document. The plan must follow through to implementaiion! Actions must continually be taken to advance proactively toward the vision of more livable communities set forth herein.
The Mercer County Regional Planning Commission, which played a lead and facilitating role in development of the plan, should play the same role in implementation. Its mission regarding implementation should be to promote actions which implement the plan, to assist municipalities and agencies where they have implementing authority, and to undertake actions of a countywide scope on the county’s behalf.
Each year the Mercer County Regional Planning Commission will propose an Annual Action Plan for adoption by the Mercer County Board of Commissioners. It will commit MCRPC and the county to a program of action aimed at plan implementation.
Each Annual Action Plan should:
0 Report on actions taken and progress achieved in the prior year.
0 Rate priorities for undertaking the various actions and implementing tools outlined in the plan. (Not all actions can be undertaken at once. Priorities will help determine what actions are taken in what time fiame based on the resources available.)
0 List those actions proposed to be undertaken in the corning year, the role proposed for MCRPC, the county, etc., and a schedule for beginning, ending, and intermediate milestones for each action.
Insert Annual Actjon PJans in binder following this page. Mercer County Comprehensive Plan
Annual Action Plan I997
Goals
The 1997 Annual Action Plan focuses on two primary goals:
0 Building partnerships with municipalities, agencies and organizations involved in community development, and the citizenry. Without acceptance and proactive support from these groups, the county cannot alone successfilly implement the Comprehensive Plan.
Beginning implementation of the plan by undertaking selected high-priority tools from the Planning Toolbox.
Work activities
In the first year of implementation of the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan adopted November 7, 1996 and in accord with the above goals, the following work activities will be undertaken:
What (Pa. # from Comp Plan) I I Who I When 1 Building partnerships (Pg. 41) -Develop MCRPC (Mercer 10131 - Complete a formal partnership program in which County Regional major outreach municipalities & agencies involved in Planning effort with all 48 community development are encouraged to Commission). municipalities. Have implement the Comprehensive Plan and have as many as possible opportunity for firther local planning input. partnerships in place.
Education 8 marketing (Pg. 42) - MCRPC 8 6/30 - Complete Develop a publicly-friendly brochure for wide consultant brochure and distribution. Develop a slide program & script (professional program. for public presentations. Use for outreach communications & effort in building partnerships. Seek grant marketing). fbnding for professional assistance.
Model zoning districts (Pg. 44,48,49, MCRPC 8 8/30-Complete 53) - Prepare new model zoning district consultant (GGR). work, offer for local regulations. use . c What (Pa. #from Comp Plan) I I Who I When 2
Community plans (Pg. 41) -Assist with MCRPC 8 Each plan has its local community plans which promote the communities DIUS own individual time a- livable communities concept at the local level, consultant assistance erne. including Jackson Center, Liberty, Springfield, where appropriate. Greenville/Hempfield, Sandy Lake & FarreU.
Local infrastructure financing program MCRPC &task 11/30 - Complete (Pg. 68) - Study alternatives for a locally force of local program design administered and financed inFrastructure development, utility, recommendation. fbnding program for water/sewer/road and community reps. projects important to plan implementation.
Livable communities index (Pg. 43) - MCRPC with la31 - Determine Explore feasibility of an annual report of reviews by feasibility, identify statistical measures to monitor community municipalities, measures and begin development progress and aid with communit~ agencies, etc. 1st report if OK'd. needs assessments.
Mercer County Redevelopment MCRPC, MCRA & 12/31 -Seek grant Authority (Pg. 50) - Identi@potential consultant. and, if approved, redevelopment projects & strategies. Seek begin plan. grant fbnding for consultant assistance.
Statelfederal grant assistance (Pg. 50) - MCRPC. Ongoing. Prepare grant applications for community improvement projects upon request or as identified in community outreach or planning.
Reviews - Uphoid plar~objcSives in reviews MCRPC. 0n g o in g . of subdivisions,rezoningq sewage facilities plans, transportation plans, grant applications, etc. Place renewed emphasis on reviews.
Approved by tho Mercer County Board of Commissioners FeLuary 13,1997.
Richard R Stevenson, Chairman
Cloyd YBrenneman
Olivia M.Lzor Mercer County Comprehensive Plan
~ ~ ~ ~~ Annual Action Plan I998
Evaluation of prior year’s activities
I Annual Action Plan 1997 I I Results & Progress Achieved I
Building partnerships MCRPC met with most of 48 municipalitiesto seek endorsement of the comprehensive plan and partnership in implementation. 43 of the 48 signed an endorsing partnership certificate.
Education B MCRPC was not granted DCED finding to develop professional marketing marketing materials, but did develop a low-cost brochure and conducted informational programs for most municipalities and a dozen community groups.
Model zoning districts Zoning districts were completed in draft.
Community plans MCRPC led successhl community planning efforts in Jackson Center, Liberty& Springfield. A planning/ zoning update was performed in Greenville and Findley.
Local infrastructure These two proposed actions were rolled into a new action called financing program, Strategy 1000. It is a multi-year effort to plan then, develop,lOOQ, Mercer County acres of new or reuse industrial property in the county over the Redevelopment next 10 years. Financing and redevelopment strategies will be Authority built into Strategy 1000. The planning work pf industrial site identification and analysis was begun in 1997.
Livable communities Work was initiated but not completed as planned in 1997 indicators
Statelfederal grant MCRPC submitted a dozen grant applications for community assistance improvement projects under several programs: CDBG, Community Revitalization, Keystone (recreation) & DEP Water System Regionalization. :I
Reviews A new program review process and committee was established at MCRPC to uphold county plan objectives in reviews of plans and projects submitted to MCRPC. The 1998 Annual Action Plan focuses on two primruy goals:
0 Continue the outreach and partnership effort with municipalities, agencies and organizations involved in community development, and the citizenry. This effort is invaluable given the comprehensive plan’s philosophy of promoting the long-term community vision via “willing choice” of the officials and citizenry rather than via “command and control.”
0 Continuing implementation of the plan by undertaking selected high-priority tools fiom the Planning Toolbox.
1998 work activities
1 What (pg. # from Comp Plan) J I Who I When 3 Building partnerships (Pg. 41) -Focus MCRPC (Mercer Ongoing partnership efforts (including continued use of County Regional the partnership certificate) on community Planning agencies, organizations & service groups. Commission).
Education 8 marketing (Pg. 42) -Refine MCRPC 3/30- Complete a slide program & script for public presenta- program & display. a tions. Develop a promotional display for set up at shows, fairs, etc.
Strategy 1000 (no page reference) -Finalize MCRPC 8 Penn- 4/30 - Complete priorities for industrial development Northwest site priorities & properties, prepare capital funding plan and Development funding plan, follow- submit to appropriate agencies, facilitate cow. up thereafter. implementation of high priority projects.
Community plans (Pg. 41) -Assist with MCRPC 8 Each plan has its local community plans which promote the communities own individual time livable communities concept at the local level, schedule. including Lakeview region, Mercer & West MiddlesedShenango.
Livable communities indicators (Pg. 43) MCRPC with 12/31 -Determine - Explore feasibility of an annual report of reviews by feasibility, identify statistical measures to monitor community municipalities, measures and begin development progress and aid with community agencies, etc. 1st report if OK’d. needs assessments. 0 I What (Pg. # from Comp Plan) I 1 Who 1 I When I
Statelfederal grant assistance (Pg. 50) - MCRPC. Ongoing. Prepare grant applications for community improvement projects upon request or as identified in community outreach or planning.
Local government leadership & MCRPC Ongoing cooperation initiatives (no page reference) - Promote via community plans, planning roundtables, public education, and new opportunities. Explore leadership development program opportunities via NWPFWDC and other sources.
Planning roundtables (Pg. 43) -Hold 5 MCRPC By 11/30 - Hold all regional roundtables and 1 countywide roundtables roundtable to continue public input in planning and entertain suggestions for plan revisions.
Reviews -Uphold plan objectives in reviews MCRPC. Ongoing. of subdivisions,rezonings,sewage facilities plans, transportation plans, grant applications, etc. Place renewed emphasis on reviews.
Approved by the Mercer County Board of Commissioners February 12,1998.
Richard R. Stevenson, Chairman
&d ZA/=-7M Cloy&. Brennem'an
Olivia M. Lazor -- Mercer County Comprehensive Plan
Annual Action Plan 1999
Evaluation of prior year’s activities IAnnual Action Plan 1998 1 [ Results & Progress Achieved 1 Building partnerships MCRPC focused on development of partnerships to implement key projects described below (see discussion there). MCRPC also focused on partnerships throughout the 8-county NW PA region and statewide to further Mercer County planning objectives. Key activities were the NW County Planners Summit, hWEconomic Development Summit, and KOZ Regional Task Force.
Education & MCRPC developed a promotional display including a cycling marketing Power Point slide show used at several public events.
Strategy 1000 MCRF’C & Penn-Northwest Development Corp. worked jointly to first identify priority sites to achieve 1000 acres of new or reuse industrial development in the next 10 years, then to begin facilitating development of those sites. Key follow-ups were initiation by Shenango Valley Industrial Development Corp. of the Shenango Valley Industrial Renaissance project and preparation of proposals for Keystone Opportunity Zone, transportation improvements, and Capital Budget proposal to aid the Renaissance project.
Community plans & MCRPC led successful community planning efforts in Mercer zoning and the Lakeview region. MCRPC also partnered with the City of Farrell, its planning consultant, and a variety of community groups to develop revitalization strategies for the proposed KOZ and adjacent areas. MCRPC also worked to near completion on zoning ordinance updates for Findley Twp. and Clark Borough, began updates for Hempfield Twp. and Sharon, and aided efforts in Springfield Twp. and Hermitage PA 18 corridor.
Livable communities MCRPC studied several national models where indicators are in indicators use, but work was not completed on Mercer County’s first report.
Planning roundtables Planning roundtables were not held IAnnual Action Plan 1998 I Results & Progress Achieved 1 Reviews MCRPC utilized a new program review process and committee to a uphold county plan objectives in reviews of plans and projects submitted to MCRPC. Twenty-four projects were reviewed.
Statelfederal grant MCRPC submitted a dozen grant applications for community assistance improvement projects under several programs: CDBG. HOME, Community Revitalization, Keystone (recreation) & Keystone Opportunity Zone
1999 Goals
The 1999 Annual Action Plan focuses on two primary goals:
- Continue key implementation efforts begun prior to 1999 but which are now firmly established as ongoing priorities: Strategy 1000, community planning, education & information, and grant assistance.
Undertake several new and large planning initiatives, some of which were not conceived originally in the county plan, but are now viewed as important to its implementation.
1999 work activities
What (Pg. # from Comp Plan)
Strategy 1000 (no page reference) - Implement KOZ (if approved), aid design & development of Legacy Commons (SVIDC Renaissance), and partner with Penn-hW to facilitate other site development.
Education & marketing (Pg. 42) -Provide MCRPC Ongoing public presentations, use the display at public events, develop an MCRPC web page, do informational programs for municipalities.
Community plans & zoning (Pg. 41) - MCRPC & Each project has its Complete zoning updates currently underway communities own individual time and provide further aid to planning efforts in schedule. Farrell& Springfield Twp..
Livable communities indicators (Pg. 43) MCRPC with 7/31 -Publish - Complete initial development of an annual reviews by initial report report of statistical measures to monitor municipalities, community livability & provide useful data. agencies, etc. What (Pg. # from Comp Plan) I Who When
Statelfederal grant assistance (pg. 50) - MCRPC. Ongoing. Prepare grant applications for community improvement projects upon request or as identified in community outreach or planning.
Mercer County Subdivison Ordinance MCRPC & Mercer 7/31 -Have update (no page reference) -Review County Commis- completed & regulations & make changes to keep current, sioners with broad adopted promote quality development, and reduce community input regulatory waste.
Mercer County GIS (no page reference) - MCRPC & inter- 12/31 -Have a Develop partnerships and a plan to create a ested public & plan, implementa- countywide geographic information system. private partners tion proposal & funding scenario completed
2000 Census (no page reference) - MCRPC & Ongoing Coordinate with the U.S. Census Bureau in Complete Count preparations for the upcoming census and Committee promote a complete & accurate count for Mercer County.
Planning roundtables (Pg. 43) -Hold 5 MCRPC By 9/30 - Hold all regional roundtables and 1 countywide roundtables roundtable to continue public input and entertain suggestions for plan revisions.
Reviews -Uphold plan objectives in MCRPC. Ongoing. reviews of subdivisions, rezoning, sewage facilities plans, transportation plans, grant applications, etc.
Approved by the Mercer County Board of Commissioners February 11,1999.
*d)- 7 Richard R. Stevenson, Chairman
rnCloyd gBrenneman