Prime Agricultural Land Use Discussion
Chronological
Notes from the Meeting:
Rod Humphrey – Chairman,
Introduced the Planning Commission members: Dick Decker, Jake Tanis, Dave Henning, Rod Humphrey, Monty Strouse (who is also a Supervisor), and Lucy Curran.
The
Planning Commission is a voluntary function.
We serve a 4-year term. The
objective of the meeting is to listen to the landowners’ ideas, comments,
and suggestions on the current Prime Ag Farmland zoning. Written comments are also welcome until the
Nov. 7 and can be sent to Potter Township Planning Commission 124 Short Road,
Spring Mills, 16875. Your verbal and
written input will be presented to the Potter Township Supervisors.
Please state your name and limit comments to 5 or 10 minutes. The landowners’ input is important to the Planning Commission – we need to hear from you. Be proactive and let the Supervisors know your concerns. Last meeting focused on the input from the large landowners (owning over 20 acres). In this meeting, comments from the entire public are welcome.
Dave Henning – Potter Township Planning Commission
member
From
the last meeting it was not evident that the audience was aware of the local
Comprehensive Plan and zoning. Therefore,
I’m going to briefly review the history of planning activities in
Carl Homan – Landowner
Can
you change zoning without going to the Zoning Hearing Board meeting?
Dave Henning – Potter Township Planning Commission
member
Absolutely,
that’s what we’re here for tonight.
Monty Strouse –
The Zoning Hearing Board is there
to appeal a decision from the Zoning Officer.
If the Zoning Hearing Board turns you down, your next course of action
is
Dick Decker – Secretary,
Reviewed Prime Ag Farming Land Use as it relates to 1) the current zoning, 2) the Penns Valley Comprehensive Plan, and 3) the Clean and Green requirements. The goal of this presentation is to create a baseline of understanding.
Existing Prime Ag zoning (light
green color on the
| Parcel
Size (Acres) |
Maximum
Number of Lots |
| 9 – 19 |
3 |
| 20 – 39 |
5 |
| 40 – 79 |
7 |
| 80 – 119 |
10 |
| 120 – 159 |
13 |
| 160 - 199 |
16 |
| 200+ |
20 + 1 per 50 acre >200 |
3) For calculating parcel size, any fraction of an acre is rounded off to the next lowest acre. 4) When possible use land less suited for agriculture. (The remaining portion of the tract shall be a single lot used for tilling, livestock, horticultural use, usual farm structures and single detached farm operator’s dwelling, conservation/open space, or park/recreation.) 5) The remaining portion must meet Prime Ag lot setbacks. 6) No subsequently subdivided parcels shall qualify for additional single dwellings. Later owners are bound to the original subdivision. 7) Each lot needs to be perk tested, have water needs met, and meet sewage requirements. Therefore, it can be difficult to meet these requirements on only a 1-acre lot.
The Penns Valley Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use Chapter, Section A) states that the Prime Ag land use designation is intended to protect agricultural soils and valuable farming operations and provide an unobtrusive approach to farms conducting farming operations. (These statements are consistent with our current zoning.) The fixed ratio of permitted residential density determined by local officials restricts development potential to as little as is politically acceptable, but consistent with the Clean and Green Law.
Clean and Green. Land can be separated under the Clean and Green law into two or more tracts, each of which must meet the qualified use of the program. If the qualified use changes, the owner must pay rollback taxes on the separated track and the original track if made within 7 years of entering the program. Roll-back taxes (the difference between taxes in paid in the Clean and Green program vs. those if not enrolled in the program) are based on the year taken out of the program, plus the 6 previous years at 6% interest. If greater than 7 years, rollback taxes only apply to the separated portion. When the spilt-off track meets the following criteria, roll-back taxes and interest are only due on the spit-off portion: 1) The track split-off is less that 2 acres annually, however, a maximum of the minimum lot size may be spilt of annually if local government requires 2 to 3 acre lots. 2) The track is used for agricultural purposes, agricultural or forest preserve, or for construction of a residential dwelling to be occupied by the person who owns the land is conveyed. 3) The total track split offs do not exceed the lesser of 10 acres or 10% of the entire track at the time it was enrolled.
Norm Lathbury – Ag Land Preservation Program Coordinator
Last meeting a question came up as to whether three-acre zoning would comply with Clean and Green. The answer is yes. You can split off 2-acres per year up to a maximum of 10 acres or 10% of the entire parcel, which ever is less. This rule is strictly enforced.
John Ishler – Landowner
Can you use a combination of A and B or do you have to use one or the other? When I spoke to the Zoning Officer, it seemed like you could use a combination.
Dick Decker – Secretary, Potter Township Planning Commission member
You have to use one or the other.
Dave Bierly – Landowner
You can’t take 2 acres in Prime Ag, can you? (Reply by Norm Lathbury: Yes, you can as I previously described.) If I would have known that, I would only have taken a 2-acre lot, instead of 3, and not paid the rollback tax.
Sally Tanis – Landowner
I’ve spoken to the Zoning Officer, and it’s my understanding with Clean and Green, you can take 10 acres or up to 10% of your land every year. Down the road that 10 acres can be split into 3 parcels. By doing that, if you get Supervisors that won’t let you cut off parcels, it’s already done. The farmers are worried about their right to do what they want to with their land. And if we have to go to the extreme of cutting off 10 acre every year, you’re causing them to chop up land that doesn’t necessarily need to be chopped up – resulting in the opposite of what you’ve set out to do. The majority of people in the community are not farmers. If it came to a vote, the farmer would lose. Keeping farmland should only be done through preservation -- not through zoning. We want to stay here and farm, but if we feel that are rights are being taken away, and we are paying for the privilege of other people enjoying green land, why should we stay?
Norm Lathbury – Ag Land Preservation Program Coordinator
Since 1981,
Jake Tanis
–
I’ve talked to farmers out there and they are not happy with that zoning. (Clapping.) There’s no farmer out there that doesn’t think that they’ve been taken on the deal. All the people that own 3 and 4 acres are the ones that voted for it and that’s why I’m telling you farmers to watch your backs.
Norm Lathbury – Ag Land Preservation Program Coordinator
In response to Jake, the people that were involved in this ordinance were farmers. Cecil Irvin told me about the meetings that all the farmers went to.
Sally Tanis - Landowner
Are those people in Ag Preservation? (Norm Lathbury answers yes.) That makes a big difference. They have already sold their development rights and that’s a choice they have made on their own. They are willing to make that choice and I am not. I am not willing to give up the ability to sell my farm if I need the money. I bought it, I paid for it, and for someone to come in and tell me what I can and can’t do with it is not the American way – it’s not fair.
Norm Lathbury – Ag Land Preservation Program Coordinator
There are only 12 farms in
Jim Shunk - Landowner
What’s the minimum acreage you can use to be in Clean and Green? (Norm Lathbury answers 10 acres.) If you have a $500,000 home on 10 acres, does Clean and Green affect the taxes?
John Ishler – Landowner
They just changed that rule. The 1 acre surrounding the house is taxed without consideration of Clean and Green. The other 9 acres are taxed based on Clean and Green. Sally Tanis made the comment that a 10-acre parcel split off in Clean and Green can later be subdivided into 3 parcels. I don’t think that’s right, is it?
Sally Tanis – Landowner
I spoke to the Zoning Officer. He said that once the 10-acres was split off, it would go under the current zoning.
Wade Wolf – Landowner
How many lots can you take off of 200 acres?
Dick Decker – Secretary, Potter Township Planning Commission member
If you choose choice B, on a 200 acre parcel, you could have 20 1-acre lots. The other 180 acres would have to stay in agriculture. You could subdivide the 180 into 20-acre lots, but they’d have to be used for agriculture, not houses. If you had any additional ground, you could add one parcel for every 50 acres.
John Ishler – Landowner
I have a house and a mobile home. Could I to deed them off into 2, 1-acre lots? And at the same time keep 20 acres set aside for another lot?
Dick
Decker – Secretary,
As long as you don’t exceed 10 acres or 10% I don’t think that you have to pay rollback taxes. And if you go through that 2, one-acre subdivision, you’d have an additional 8 one-acre lots.
Sally Tanis – Landowner
We subdivided 10 acres off of each of the 3 pieces of our farm. We did that without deeding the parcels. By not making the deed, they couldn’t charge us more taxes. In 1988, there was an ordinance that each farm could only have one house on it. Therefore, we could not build a second house without doing a major subdivision ($5,000). It’s ridiculous that a farmer has to go through this to keep the rights to our property. This is crazy.
Frank Downy - Landowner
How do we know what’s coming down the road if there is nothing on paper for us to look at? I can live with what we have now, but I can’t live with one house per 50 acres.
Jake Tanis – Potter Township Planning Commission member
That’s why we’re here tonight. We’re looking for you to give input to us. Now is the time to do it. Don’t look back 6 months from now and say I don’t like what happened.
Martin Melville – Landowner
The current zoning is not preserving
farms. I see the current zoning producing
a bunch of nice horse farms. It’s not
accomplishing what was intended. If you want to keep the open land, you need
to make it so that farmers can make a decent living. If the farmer can make more money selling off
lots, that’s what they’ll do. The current
zoning is ineffective, but I don’t know how to fix it. I have an inherent distrust of people who think
they are going to plan for me. It seems
un-American. It bugs me when people
move back to
Bill Heald – Landowner
I’ve observed that as rural areas
develop, farms become unsustainable through the cost of land. Farming is quickly industrializing – 20% of
the farms produce 80% of the food. Most
of the farms are supported by off-farm income, or it’s a miserable living. I have a cousin, close to
Rod Humphrey
– Chairman,
We appreciate your comments and are trying to get some idea on what your “hot buttons” are. The problem we have is trying to make sense of everything and to put it into a format that we can take to the Supervisors and that most of you can accept, which is pretty tough. We appreciate your comments on what you don’t like, but we also need your suggestions on how to change those things. Can we make this simpler so that everyone can understand it?
Sally Tanis – Landowner
Why should we be penalized because we have good land. My recommendation is to get rid of “no further subdivision shall be permitted.” Why do we have to have that? If we’re in Clean and Green, and we’re under those regulations, why do we need to be told that we can only subdivide once? How many people agree with that theory? (By show of hands, Unanimous.)
Unidentified male – Landowner
I’m not saying I don’t agree, but what percentage of farmland is in Clean and Green?
Norm Lathbury – Ag Land Preservation Program Coordinator
The vast majority.
Sally Tanis – Landowner
If you’re not in Clean and Green,
you’re not getting the benefits, so you shouldn’t be penalized again. I’m not saying that we should have zoning.
I don’t think that zoning should apply to us differently than anyone
else that has land that isn’t consider Prime Ag.
An example is the
Martin Melville – Landowner
Zoning is based on the capabilities of different land uses. Different rules apply to those zones because they have different capabilities. We need to come up with some type of consensus of what “fair” is. We have urbanites that move out to the country and want streetlights and sidewalks and we’re supposed to spread manure. It’s a big issue that’s happening all over the east coast. Simplifying the code is a great place to start. I’m 100% unfamiliar with the Penns Valley Comprehensive Plan and therefore I’m not in a good position to say what could be done better. I’d love to be, but I’m not yet.
Dennis Fallon - Landowner
We should look at changing or do away with the sliding scale. The scale penalizes those with more ground. If you’re looking at combining A and B, I think that we should simplify it by reducing the 3-acre parcels to 1.5-acre parcels to give you more flexibility when you cut off a piece. If anyone’s land is going to perk and is level enough, ours is. They are not going to do away with the rules to a great extent. Let try to simplify them and make them more intelligent.
Rod Humphrey
– Chairman,
Well said. That’s exactly what we’re looking for. Let’s see a show of hands on Dennis’s recommendations. Who can live with the sliding scale? No one can. That may be one point. The problem that we have as planners is trying to weight your thoughts with the previous surveys where people want the open space.
Wade Wolf - Landowner
Surveys are worthless. We have a tenant house and every time we’d get a survey, they’d get a survey. Their vote counts as much as mine even though they don’t own property. I’m comfortable with the current zoning. This zoning doesn’t just drop out of the sky. It’s been on the books since 1983. About every 5 years we have these meetings about making lot size bigger. I’d like to see the current zoning stay unchanged.
Bill Heald – Landowner
I’m not very comfortable with the current zoning and I’d like to see it change somewhat. If people want open land so much, why don’t they agree to purchase it in park land. Why put the imposition on us? If I were to die, my wife would inherit the farm and she’d want to sell off the land quickly. I’d like to see things less complicated so that she could do that. If the reverse were to happen, I would live there until the day I died. I don’t have children that want to come back to the farm.
John Ishler – Landowner
How many farms were developed by
the sliding scale? I don’t know of
any farm that was developed that way. I
recommend that the sliding scale be studied and see what might be better. I think that “no further subdivision” rule under
A and B is poorly written. No one here
knows exactly what it means. I would
recommend allowing a combination of A and B.
Monty Strouse – Potter Township Planning Commission member and Supervisor
Regarding the “no further subdivision” I think that was changed 4 or 5 years ago because Centre County Planning had a problem with developers buying 50 to 60 acres that had been subdivided off under A, and then come back 5 years later with another subdivision on that same piece of property and use B, so that they could use different criteria on subdividing. There was a lot of discrepancy as to what was going on and no one was keeping track.
Sally Tanis – Landowner
It’s all about keeping development
out of
John Ishler – Landowner
The Plan calls for concentrated
growth around town where public water and sewer are available. You can’t limit development to town. You need to make sure the farmers can develop
to a lesser extent. Transfer of development
rights is also mentioned in the Plan. We should explore that as a possible program
for
Bob Jacobs
– Director,
Transfer of development rights is
the same principle as Ag Preservation. Instead
of the state and county purchasing development rights, a developer or private
individual purchases development rights from a farm and transfers them to
another parcel within the municipality or the
Sally Tanis - Landowner
Does it have to be adopted by the municipality? (Bob Jacobs answers yes.) And then those rights are gone forever. With Ag Preservation, can’t you buy back the rights at a later time? (Norm Lathbury responds no. Ag Preservation is the same concept, there is no taking the rights back at a later time.)
Chris Beiler – Landowner
I agree with Wade in that I’m satisfied with the current zoning. I’m a retired dairy farmer and I’d like to pass it on to the next generation. The only thing that’s against our way of life is the high price of land. We need to derive income through other businesses (farm shops) to pay the taxes. The only hospitalization and retirement I have is my farm.
John Ishler – Landowner
If you sell the development rights,
you can sell the farm for far less than one with development rights. (Chris Beiler responds: If you look at
Dave Henning – Potter Township Planning Commission member
The common theme I’ve heard for
over 2 years is that the price of land is getting very expensive. And for those who are very sincere in trying
to maintain farming, it cost prohibitive to expand. As volunteers, we cannot bring in Enron’s or
the Gulf Oils into our area for industrial development. The only way that I can see to drive the value
of farmland down is to zone it at higher acreages. If we look at the
Daniel Stoltzfus – Landowner
Another consideration with Ag Preservation affecting the Amish is our need to house the elderly since we don’t have Social Security. We like to build on to a house for the elderly, which makes it a double dwelling. Would Ag Preservation restrict that?
Norm Lathbury – Ag Land Preservation Program Coordinator
The Penns Valley Comp Plan has provisions for that called accessory uses. So your situation would be allowed.
Ann Glazer – Landowner
I’m a small landowner. What’s the biggest problem with the current zoning? One of the reasons that you’re thinking of changing zoning is because it’s not doing what you wanted it to do. Would the 20-acre land rule solve the problem? What do we want the landscape to look like when we’re done?
Dave Henning – Potter Township Planning Commission member
From the surveys done for the 1983 Potter Township Comp Plan and the 2005 Penns Valley Comp Plan, it was clear that the community wants to preserve farmland. One of the recommendations from the consultants was that they’ve seen preservation work in other areas was to go with a larger acre requirement. The 20-acre recommendation was ultimately removed from the Comp Plan.
Bob Jacobs
– Director,
As far as what would work better than the 20-acre rule, every area does it differently. I think that we need to look at combinations of applications. The sliding scale achieves some of the goals of preserving farmland and allows the farmer to sell some lots off. There are only 1 or 2 examples in the township where the sliding scale has been used. Things to look at include revising the sliding scale, reducing the 3-acre rule to 2 acre to be consistent with Clean and Green. For transfer of development rights to work, you have to create the incentives by modifying zoning – particularly where you want to increase density (lower it).
John Holland – Landowner
I think the sliding scale is very onerous. If you have 9 acres, you can still have 3 lots. But if you have 90 acres, you can only split off 10 lots. I am also in the situation that if I were to die, my wife would want to sell the farm. And I would want to make that easier for her. The 20-acre rule only penalizes the landowner and doesn’t preserve farmland. And I also think the 2 acre lot size is much better than the 3. I’ve got 45 acres of rock and slope that is thrown in with my Prime Ag. I can’t farm it. How do I get that land out of Prime Ag?
Dick
Decker – Secretary,
As part of this process, we are looking at the zoning map. You should write a letter to the Supervisors making that request. We’re looking for the community’s input to make changes to the zoning map.
Lucy Curran – Potter Township Planning Commission member
We’ve been charged with making our zoning map more in line with the new Comp Plan. What we’re talking about here is making revisions on a much more detailed scale than the Comp Plan. Can we do that Bob?
Bob Jacobs
– Director,
You want to say away from picking one or two parcels in Prime Ag and changing the zoning. I don’t think you want to get into that precedent.
The
Rod Humphrey
– Chairman,
I’d like to get your input on whether development is good? For example, we just saw the development of one farm into 200 lots. What’s that going to do to our school district taxes? The average tax paid on those one-acre lots with a $150,000 home will be about $2,000 to $3,000. It costs about $12,000 to send each child to school. Some how we’re taking money out of our own pockets each time we start a new development. Nobody wants more people out here if our taxes are going to go up.
Sally Tanis – Landowner
Many people mistrust the powers that be because the consultant hired for the New Comp Plan (Harry Roth) said that the farmland belongs to everyone – not the people that own it. And it’s the township’s job to make sure it stays open. When those ideas are embraced by the people running the township, the farmers don’t trust your motives. You paid Harry Roth $60,000 for that type of input.
Jake Tanis – Potter Township Planning Commission member
I’ve had a lot of people ask me
about the park planned for the
Unidentified male – Landowner
How did S&A get the zoning changed on the Grove farm to 200 lots?
Allen Decker – Landowner
S&A didn’t get the zoning change. Tom Coleman and Garth Benton (the previous owners) had the zoning changed. They applied for a zoning change and waited over 3 years to get it accomplished. They sold out to S&A before the construction phase. There is more to the story, but I won’t say it here. It will all come out some day. It’s not pretty and it’s not on Coleman’s or Benton’s behalf.
Ralph Homan – Landowner
The various zones on the map are in distinct areas. The comment was made that you don’t want to break those up. For example, you don’t want to put a small yellow area in the light green. Is that correct?
Monty
Strouse –
It’s illegal to do that. It would be considered spot zoning.
Ralph Homan – Landowner
Would it be possible to get the zoning changed if you we’re adjacent to another zone?
Monty
Strouse –
You could request that, but it’s up to the Supervisors.
Wade Wolf – Landowner
Do we have to expand zoning districts by a certain percentage over time? That used to be required.
Monty
Strouse –
No, you don’t have to expand by certain percentages. You just have to provide an area for the designated zoning districts.
Melvin Dutrow – Landowner
Are there any limitations on how far our sewage treatment can be expanded? I think that in 10 to 15 years, Centre Hall and Boalsburg sewage will be tied together, and then there will be houses everywhere.
Monty
Strouse –
I can tell you that DEP would allow the sewage lines to be run to the Meadows.
Dave Henning – Potter Township Planning Commission member
The DEP wouldn’t approve that plan because of a consistency with land use. Extending of sewer lines have to be consistent with land use. In the Meadows case, the lines would have gone through Ag Preservation ground.
Rod Humphrey
– Chairman,
The next meeting is Nov. 8 meeting
at the