joint planning commissionelibrary.pacounties.org/documents/northampton_county/2626... ·...

JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION

I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN for

LEHIGH & NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES

The Lehigh Valley

Prepared By: Joint Planning Commission Lehigh-Northampton Counties Adopted: April 29, 1993

LEHIGH COUNTY

Adopted July 28, 1993

Lehigh County Executive

bavid K. Bausch

County Commissioners

Jeffrey A. Skinner, Chairman Jane S . Baker

Daniel G. Dougherty Martha E. Falk

Marcia R. Madison George P. Manakos

John F. McHugh Sterling H. Raber

Emrich M. Stellar, Jr.

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

Adopted July 15, 1993

Northampton County Executive

Gerald E. Seyfried

County Council

Glenn F. Reibman, Chairman Margaret L. Ferraro

Wayne A. Grube Ronald R. Heckman James A. Hemstreet John P. Luchansky

Duane E. Miller Ladd Siftar, Jr.

Luther C. Snyder

JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION LEHIGH-NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES

April 1993

Charles L. Fraust, Chair Luther R. Robb, Vice Chair

Stanley M. Lysek, Treasurer

*

Lucy H. Ackerman David K. Bausch Blair E. Bates Dorothy G. Blaney Elizabeth Buchmiller Dennis J. Cramsey James P. Creedon Joseph S. Daddona Carl F. DiCello Percy H. Dougherty Timothy J. Edinger

Raymond C. Geiger, Jr. John F. Giesen Thomas Goldsmith

I Francis X. Hackett , Eleanore M. Hayden

Ronald R. Heckman i' Michael C. Hefele

Charles Hughes

1

*

, * j * Ira J. Faro . *

* I

* Comprehensive Plan Update Committee

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. Dennis E. Klusaritz John L. Krajsa James F. Lancsek Terry J. Lee Ronald E. Leh Earl 8. Lynn George Manakos Frank W. Moyer Robert O'Neil Joan Rosenthal

* Rodney K. Schlauch Deborah A. Seiple Gerald Seyfried Kenneth Smith Geraldine Szakmeister Vicki Velopolcak Carol Weaver Craig Weintraub

* Michael N. Kaiser, AlCP * Frederic H. Brock, AlCP

*Geoffrey A. Reese, P.E. * Olev Taremtie, AlCP * Penn T. Clissold *Kevin J. Roggenbuck

' Michael S. Donchez Howard L. Kutzler Lynette E. Wilson Trent J. Sear Laura M. Young Peter F. Kremer Elaine A. Sales Gayle H. Turner

*June L. Doncsecz Lorraine M. Heiser

*Joseph A. Sandova * Wilmer R. Hunsicker, Jr.

Bonnie D. Sankovsky Charles W. Stopp

* Staff for this report

, *Joseph L. Gurinko

JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF

Executive Director Assistant Director Chief Planner Chief Planner Chief Planner Senior Planner Senior Planner Community Planner Community Planner Community Planner Environmental Planner Environmental Planner Transportation Planner Administrative Assistant Administrative Secretary Secretary Receptionist Drafting Supervisor Planning Technician Drafter I Solicitor

Joint Planning Commission Lehigh-Northampton Counties 1215) 2644544

1 I I I I I I I I I I I I P I I I I I

I I I I ;I 'I I 1

I B I I I I I I I I I I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ChaDter

INTRODUCTION 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FUTUREGROWTH:1990-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Regional Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Municipal Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employment Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 4 6

NATURALRESOURCEPROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Floodplains 7 Wetlands 7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Steep Slopes. CarbonateGeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Significant Natural Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

FARMLAND PRESERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

HOUSING 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LANDUSE. 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Patterns of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Retailuses 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Mass Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Railroads 47 Air Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Clean Air Act/Air Quality Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMUNITY FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Sewage Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Water Supply Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Stormwater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Solidwaste 64

66 Recreation and Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . County Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ENERGYCONSERVATION 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 HtSTORlC PRESERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'dl

I ChaDter

STATEMENT OF PLAN INTERRELATIONSHIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STATEMENT REGARDING PLAN RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS FOR

77

78

SUPPLEMENTAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 83

84 Appendix A - Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Appendix B - Lehigh Valley Highway Plan - Major Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 89 Appendix D - Joint Planning Commission Resolution 2-93

Appendix E - County of Northampton Resolution 33-93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 93 Appendix F - County of Lehith Resolution 93-34

ADJACENT COUNTIES AND LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix C - Plans and Other Reports Available from the Joint Planning Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES Table Pase

1 Municipal Population Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

-

2 Suggested Residential Densities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3 Percent Land Use By Category Lehigh and Northampton Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4 General Land Use Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

68 5

6

Projected Park and Open Space Acreage Needs - 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania Energy Use By Section 1960-1 989 (in Trillion Btu's) 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GraDh LIST OF GRAPHS

Paae

1 Net Migration By Decade Lehigh Valley, Lehigh Co., Northampton Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Lehigh Valley, Lehigh Co., Northampton Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Lehigh Valley/Official Population Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

USA, PA, Selected Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 Population Growth Forecast

3 Growth By Age Group 1990-201 0 4

4 Rates of Growth: 1980-1990 6

L 6 5 Employment Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I I I I

ii I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I

LIST OF MAPS

rn m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 . Regionalsetting

2 Areas Containing Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 Steep Slope and Carbonate Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4 Significant Natural Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5 Important FarmlandlAgricultural Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

17 6

21 7

8 Classification of Municipalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Areas Recommended for Farmland Preservation ...................... Major Industrial, Business and Office Areas .........................

9 General Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

10 Transportation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

11 Highway Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

12 Public Sanitary Sewer Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

13 Community Water Supply Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

14 Stormwater Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

15 Park and Open Space Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

iii ! ; ! < 1

ALLENTOWN-BETHLEHEM-EASTON AIRPORT, GOVERNMENT BUILDING 3411 AIRPORT ROAD

ALLENTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 181051098 (21 5) 264-4544

CHARLES L. FRAUST Chair

LUTHER R. ROBE V i Chair

STANLEY M. LYSEK Treasurer

MICHAEL N. KAISER Executive Director Dear Lehigh Valley Resident:

August 1993

The history of the Lehigh Valley shows how much we have grown. Projections show that this growth will continue. The Comprehensive Plan for Lehigh and Northumpton counties deals with how this growth is to be managed. Goals and objectives have been set to provide for &qwe housing, a strong economy, ample recreation opportunities, a clean environment and all of the other aspects of a quality life. The Plan provides a workable strategy for reaching these goals and objectives.

The Plan is a result of a long and exacting work program. During the preparation of the Plan, we were fortunate to have the input and guidance of many concerned people and organizations. Even when diflerences of opinion arose, the viewpoints were based on sincere convictions of making ourfirture as bright as it can be. The Plan has gathered and integrated the best ideas and concern of our citizens. We oper our deepest appreciation to each person who took time to help formulate this Plan.

Having been adopted by Lehigh County and Northmpton County, this Plan will not be a document set aside and forgotten. With the commitment of Lehigh and Northampton counties, their agencies and authorities including the Joint Planning Commission, local governments and the people of the Lehigh Valley, this Plan will be our guide into the twenty-jirst century. I anticipate that we will be able to look back and find that we created the best Lehigh Valley possible, by acting in conformance with the goals and policies of the Plan.

Sincerely yours, ,$

Charles L. Fraust, Chair

I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I

fNTRODUC TION

The Pennsvlvania Municioalities Plannina Code, Act 247 of 1968, P.L. 805, No. 247 as reenacted and amended, establishes the basic authority for planning in Pennsylvania. Section 301.4 of this Act mandates that counties prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan and that municipal comprehensive plans "be generally consistent with the adopted county comprehensive plan." This plan complies with State law.

This is not the first comprehensive plan for Lehigh and Northampton counties. In 1961, Lehigh and Northampton counties established the Joint Planning Commission for the purpose of developing a regional comprehensive plan. A Comorehensive Plan for Lehiah and Northamoton Counties. Pa. was published in May,l964. Since the publication of that plan there have been three major updates. The 1982 Plan was adopted by Lehigh County in 1984. To date, Northampton County government has not adopted a plan, though it has followed many recommendations of the Joint Planning Commission.

Since 1961, the Joint Planning Commission has maintained a professional staff to administer the comprehensive plan. Over the years, the JPC staff has managed an active planning program that covers a wide variety of topics including the following: environment and ecology, transportation, sewer, water, stormwater, energy conservation, parks and recreation, economic development, housing, municipal planning, zoning, subdivision regulations, codes enforcement, government management and many other topics. In addition, the Commission has helped create some of the primary implementation institutions in the region such as Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority, the Wildlands Conservancy (formerly the Lehigh Valley Conservancy), the Lehigh County Housing Authority, and the Northampton County Economic Development Corporation.

Many recommendations of this Comprehensive

Plan reflect ideas that have been presented in early editions. They have been refined by 30 years of planning experience in the Lehigh Valley. In the course of preparing this plan, the Joint Planning Commission has interviewed and met with local municipal officials, conducted a public opinion poll, held public meetings and public hearings as prescribed by law, and transmitted the draft plan to local jurisdictions for review and comment.

This document presents goals, policies and implementation strategies in 24 subject areas. Background studies and draft goals, policies and actions were proposed by JPC staff and reviewed by a special JPC committee before adoption by the full Commission. Background information has been condensed for this report in order to reduce its volume. Detailed background data and maps are available from the JPC.

The comprehensive plan deals mainly with the future physical environment of the Lehigh Valley between the present and year 201 0. The plan presents a balanced program of environmental, economic and developmental proposals. This recognizes the fact that the Lehigh Valley is a mixed rural and urban metropolitan area. The plan starts by describing basic assumptions about future growth. It then outlines proposals for environmental and agricultural preservation. Before recommending what to develop, it was first necessary to decide what to conserve. Sections on economic development and housing follow. The sections on agricultural preservation and economic development are more elaborate than in previous editions of this plan. Land use, transportation and county facilities traditionally constitute the core of the comprehensive plan. These sections detail measures that need to be taken to assure compatibi l i ty between preservation, development and infrastructure. Finally, the plan presents sections on historic preservation and energy conservation. Both are important conservation and developmental issues.

1

MAP 1

REGIONAL SETTING

II N Prepared by: Lehigh Valley Pknnlng Commission

I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I

FUTURE GROWTH: 7990-2070

This section documents JPC assumptions about future growth in the Lehigh Valley. Any forecast of future growth is somewhat speculative. There can be no guarantees that the Lehigh Valley and its parts will grow as indicated here. Despite the speculative nature of forecasts, it is still necessary to have some view of what the future may bring in order to initiate appropriate planning activities. The forecasts presented here are n o t recommendations for future growth by the JPC. They are merely the extension of past trends tempered by judgment on the part of the JPC staff. If these forecasts come about, they will present both problems and opportunities. Succeeding sections of the plan outline how to resolve some of the problems and capitalize on some of the opportunities.

REGIONAL POPULATION GROWTH

Future population growth in the Lehigh Valley will depend on migration. Based upon past experience, most of this growth will come from westward expansion of metropolitan areas in New Jersey and New York (see Map 1). Graph 1 shows net migration (people moving in minus people moving out) to the Lehigh Valley since the 1950s and a forecast of the future trend.

GRAPH 1 \

NET MIGRATION BY DECADE LEHIGH VALLEY, LEHIGH CO., NORTHAMPTON CO.

-C LEHIGH VALLEY

LEHlGH CO.

t NORTHAYPTONCO.

40000

30000

-100004 1

DECADE

Unless there are unexpected increases in family size or substantial decreases in deaths, natural increase in population is not expected to account for future population growth. Without migration, population will decline after the year 2000. Migration will depend largely on future economic growth in the Lehigh Valley and parts of New Jersey and New York.

Graph 2 shows the official JPC forecast of future population growth for Lehigh County, Northampton County and the Lehigh Valley as a whole. If past trends in migration, family size and deaths continue, the Lehigh Valley will grow by 13.5% between 1990 and 2010. Northampton County is expected to grow more than Lehigh County since it is located closer to the major source of future migration, i.e. New Jersey and New York. Northampton County is expected to grow 18.1 % compared with 9.5% in Lehigh County. The regional forecast indicates the maximum probable growth in the next 20 years. Deviations from the forecast are more likely to be lower than higher.

GRAPH 2 (

I

POPULATION GROWTH FORECASTS _- -_ LEHIGH VALLEY, LEHIGH CO.. NORTHAMPTON GO.

-+- LEHIGH VALLEY

-8- LEHlGH CO.

* NORTHAYPTON CO.

700000

e00000 - ---t

0

k==l 300000

200000 t I 1980 1000 2000 2010.

YEAR I

Between 1990 and 2010, most population growth will be people in their 40s and 50s (see Graph 3). This is the "baby boom" generation. There will be declines in the number of persons in their late 20s and 30s. Maturation of the

3

4

baby boom generation means a smaller housing market in the next 20 years. New household formations will be much smaller than when baby boomers were in their 20s and 30s. Growth in the labor force will also be less than in past decades. After 2010, the baby boomers will enter their 60s. The elderly population will grow rapidly during the period 2010 to 2030. This will cause substantial demand for elderly housing, services and facilities for the elderly during that period. Minority population growth rates vastly exceeded the total population growth rate in the 1980s. Population growth rates were highest for the Hispanic population. This group grew by 89% from 1980 to 1990. The 26,592 Hispanics represent nearly 5% of the 1990 two county population. The Black population increased by 37% in the 1980s. The 11,045 Blacks are 2% of the two county 1990 population. These growth rates contrast sharply with the overall 8% population growth during the decade. These minority groups are concentrated in the three cities. The three cities house 86% of the Hispanics and 89% of the Blacks. The growth of these minority groups and their current concentration emphasize the importance of housing opportunity and fair housing issues.

GRAPH 3

GROWTH BY AGE GROUP 1990-2010 LEHIGH VALLEYlOFFlCIAL POPULATION FORECAST ' so000

20000

I c

0 0 z

4

b 10000

2 0

2 B -10000 --

-20000

I ',

I

AGE GROUP I

The Lehigh Valley is a growing part of a state that is not experiencing population growth (see

Graph 4). Growth in the Lehigh Valley is more a function of its location and economic history than anything else. Nearly all of the growth counties in Pennsylvania border New Jersey, New York or Maryland. It is expected that this will continue to be the case over the next 20 years. Economic, cultural and geographic forces that shape growth at the statewide and regional levels are difficult to stimulate if more growth is desired and equally difficult to manage if less growth is desired.

Although states and regions have limited capacity to control growth, the authority of local municipalities is considerable. Local communities can shape the location of growth and influence the timing and amount of growth. They do this through zoning regulations, sewer and water extensions, road improvements and resource protection policies. To the extent that counties opt to participate in any of these activities, they can also participate in growth management, though at a lesser level than municipalities. In particular, counties can influence major sewer, water and highway projects that affect growth.

MU NlCl PAL PO PULATIO N GROWTH

It is expected that much of the future population growth will locate in suburban townships like Bethlehem, Hanover and Forks in Northampton County, and Lower Macungie and Upper Macungie in Lehigh County (see Table 1). Increasingly, rural townships will feel substantial growth pressure. In Northampton County increased growth pressure could come along the northern tier of rural townships - places like Lehigh, Moore and Upper Mt. Bethel, and in areas closer to the urban core like East Allen and Lower Nazareth. Rapid growth will occur in increasing amounts in Northampton County municipalities. In Lehigh County, North Whitehall, Lynn and Weisenberg townships could experience increased growth pressure. Many of these municipalities will be challenged to provide adequate sewer and water facilities, to improve roads, to conserve land and to keep agriculture. In order to cope with future growth pressures, most local municipalities will need to do far better planning

I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 8

I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I .

Mmicipality IC Alhurtis Allentown Bethlehem Catasauqua Coopersburg Coplay E m u s Fountain H i l l Hanover Heidelberg Lower Macungie Lower Milford Lowhi 11 Lynn Macungi e North Uhitehall Sa 1 i sbury Slatington South Uhi tehal l Upper Macungie Upper Milford Upper Saucon Uashington Ueisenberg Uhitehall 11 LEHIGH WUWTY TOTAL

Allen Bangor Bath Beth lehem Bethlehem Twp. Bushki 1 1 Chapman East Allen East Bangor Easton Forks Freemansburg G 1 endon Hanover Hellertown Leh i gh Lower M t . Bethel Lower Nazareth Lower Saucon Moore Nazareth North Catasauqua Northampton Palmer Pen Argyl Plainf ie ld Portland Roseto Stockertown Tatamy Upaer M t . Bethel Upper Nazareth Ua 1 nutpor t Washington West Easton Williams Ui [son

I\ NORTHAWPTOII CCUNTY TOTAL

REGIWAL TOTAL

WNICIPAL P

1970 Census

1,142 109.871 20;261 5,702 2,326 3,642 11,511 5 -384 1I217 1,532 8,814 2,189

2,047 1,414 6,819 11,285 4,687 13,967 4,390 3.992

1,002

7;954 3,732 1.737 18;323

255,300

1,856 5,425 1,829 52,065 9,067 3,387 191

2,737 905

29,411 3,748 1,681 642

5 , 434 6,615 6.086 2;531 2,091 6,246 3,791 5.815 2,941 8,389 12,684 3,668 4,288 61 2

1,538 753 891

3.343 3;605 1,942 3.037 1;123 3,282 8,441 2,270

214,360

469,660

TABLE 1 'ULATION FORE1

1980 census

1,428 103.758 19;865 6,711 2,595 3,130 11,001 4,805 2,223 2,691 12,958 2,865 1,356 2,733 1,899 8,820 12,259 4,277 15,919 7,446 5,013 9.635 Si152

21,538 2,272

272,349

2,465 5,006

50,554 12.094

1,953

4 ; 469 255

3,605 955

26,027 4.612 1 ;879 354

6.073 6;025 7,985 2,745 3,535 7.372 7,519

2,554 8,240 13,926 3,388 4,833 540

1,484 661 910

4.247

5,443

3;407 2,007 3.205 1 ; 033 3 , 843 7,564 2,651

225,418

497,767

STS

1990 census 1,415

105,090 18,867 6,662 2,599 3,267 11,157 4,637 2,243 3,250 16,871 3,269 1,602 3,220 2,597 10,827 13,401 4,678 18,261 8,757 6,304 9.775 61356 3 , 246 22,779

291,130

2,626 5,383 2.358 52;561 16,425 5,512 254

4,572 1,006 26,276 5,923 1,946 391

7,176 5,662 9,296 3,187 4,483 8,448 8,418 5.713 2;867 8,717 14,965 3,492 5,444 516

1,555 641 873

5,476 3.413 2;055

1.163 3,759

3 ; 982 7,830 2,741

247,105

538,235

2000 Proj . 1,527

105,014 18,682 6,572 2,740 3,201 11,274 4,510 2,616 3,937 19,797 3,839 1,979 4.181 2; 772 12,104 13,559 4,808 19.345 10;693 7,617 11.099 7; 028 3,976 23,994

306,864

3,072 5,653 2,577 52,961 18,711 6,551 258

6,013 1,037 26,667 7,463 2,152 400

8,652 5,772 10,390 4,154 5 , 836 9,980 9,961 6,000 2,917 9,159 16,128 3,317 6,256 487

1,654 620 872

7,177 3,529 2,253 4,484 1,194 4,747 7,513 2,702

269,265

576.129

2010 Proj.

1,609 104,691 18.519 6,494 2,841 3,143 11,335 4.401 2;917 4,483 22.103 4;279 2,284 4,996 2,898 13,059 13,665 4,898 20,203 12,277 8,678 12.130 7;518 4,562 24,877

318,860

3.501 5 I894 2,780

53 * 364 20,990 7,568 261

7,610 1,065 27,013 9,112 2,345 408

10,167 5,868 11,399 5,189 7,322 11,494 11,465 6,257 2.960 9; 554 17,361 3,170 7,093 463

1,743 602 871

9,007 3,629 2.437 Si197 1.221 5 ; 499 7,244 2,668

291 ,790

610,650

Source: Joint Planning Comnission Lehigh-Northampton Counties, May 1992.

5

6

and implementation of plans than they have in the past.

GRAPH 4

POPULATION GROWTH: 1980-1990 U.S.A., PA., SELECTED COUNTIES

*-

According t o public opinion surveys conducted by the JPC, Lehigh Valley residents are quite ambivalent about growth. The majority seems to favor a slower population growth rate than occurred during the 1980s. Consumption of farmland, increased traffic congestion and environmental degradation are all important concerns. On the other hand, many local residents support active efforts to bring new industry and commerce t o the Valley. Policy makers will be challenged to find ways to create a sound economy without ruining the living environment in the Valley. This plan recognizes the need for both a sound economy and a sound environment.

EMPLOYMENT GROWTH

Between 1990 and 2010, the JPC forecast a 16% increase in jobs in the Lehigh Valley. If ,

occurred at Bethlehem Steel, Mack Truck and other manufacturing concerns. Job increases came from insurance offices that moved to the Valley during this period.

Changes in the regional economic base have affected all facets of life in the Lehigh Valley. Overall income levels have shown little growth as high paying manufacturing jobs gave way to lower paying jobs in services. Occupation requirements and training needs changed as the predominant blue-collar work force of previous decades changed to a white-collar labor force dominated by administrative and clerical personnel. Old industrial plants located in the cities shut down all or part of their operations as new office structures were built in suburban locations. Land uses, travel patterns and infrastructure needs shifted accordingly. The planning issues addressed in subsequent parts of this plan reflect most of these changes. In the cities and some of the other older urban areas, problems of rehabilitating old sites for new development are major issues that need to be addressed. In many of the newer developed areas, problems of dealing with traffic congestion and provision of adequate sewer and water facilities have surfaced. Balancing the need for sound economic growth with environmental protection and provision of adequate facilities and services is a major challenge confronting all municipalities in the future. This plan strives to address these issues.

'

;

GRqPH 5

c EMPLOYMENT TRENDS

LEHIGH VALLEY 1970-2010 10TIL EUPLOIYENT

MANUFACTURING

-C SERVICES

TRADE

--C OTHER 1 300

I O trends over the last 20 years continue, most of these jobs will be in services and trade. Manufacturing industries are likely to continue to decline. Graph 5 illustrates these employment forecasts. The shift from 4 loo

manufacturing to services in the Lehigh Valley echoes the national trends. The shift is occurring somewhat more rapidly in the Lehigh

more dominant manufacturing base than the Nation. During the 1980s major job losses

- , g

0

0 1010 107s leeo 1986 1000 1PO5 2000 2001 2010

YEAR Valley because the area has historically had a ' I

I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I

NA TURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION

FLOODPLAINS

Floodplain areas absorb and store large amounts of water which is a source of aquifer recharge. Natural vegetation supported by floodplains helps trap sediment from upland surface runoff, stabilize stream banks and reduce soil erosion. Floodplains also provide shelter for wildlife and proper stream conditions for aquatic life. Many of the most scenic areas in Lehigh and Northampton counties are found within the floodplain of the Delaware River, Lehigh River, and larger streams such as the Little Lehigh Creek, Jordan Creek and Bushkill Creek (see Map 2).

Regulation of floodplains helps to reduce the threat to human life and property caused by periodic flooding. For regulatory purposes, a floodplain is defined by the 100-year or base flood which has a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in a given year.

The Pennsylvania Floodplain Management Act (Act .166 of 1978) requires municipalities identified as being flood-prone to enact floodplain regulations which, at a minimum, meet the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIPI . All 62 municipalities in Lehigh and Northampton counties participate in the program and have floodplain studies that were prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

appropriate within the floodway fringe if adequate floodproofing measures are taken. The redevelopment of vacant but formerly developed land is not recommended within the floodway.

Imdementation Strateaies

The JPC will provide model regulations covering floodplains.

Municipalities should adopt special zoning and subdivision regulations to prohibit or otherwise control development in the 100- year floodplain.

The JPC will maintain a set of the most up-to-date floodplain maps that have been prepared for the National Flood Insurance Program. In the absence of other data, maps of alluvial soils should be used to identify areas subject to flooding.

The JPC will assist property owners, lending institutions, businesses and others in determining what properties are subject to the regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program.

The JPC will promote and support park, greenway and other proposals that preserve floodplains for recreation and open space.

- Goal WETLANDS

To minimize flood damage.

Policies

0 Prohibit new buildings and structures in the 1 OO-year floodplain.

0 The reuse or substantial improvement of existing buildings or the redevelopment of vacant but formerly developed land is

Wetlands are unique environments that perform a variety of important physical and biological functions. They moderate stormwater runoff and downstream flood crests because they are natural water storage areas. Wetlands provide important habitat for many species of plant and animal life. Wetlands also help to maintain stream flow and groundwater recharge.

7 '-

There are problems associated with developing on wetland soils. Wetlands located in floodplains are often flooded. Draining or filling in of upland wetlands removes natural water storage which can add to stormwater runoff problems downstream. Wetland soils are easily compacted. This results in uneven settling of structures. Wetland soils with low permeability and high groundwater tables are not suitable for the installation of on-lot septic systems.

Lehigh and Northampton counties contain over 1,000 individual sites that can be classified as wetlands. Wetlands are found in every municipality, but the largest concentration by far occurs in Upper Mt. Bethel Township. The U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Map covering that area shows more than 300 individual wetlands. A sizeable concentration of wetlands occurs in Lynn Township, Lehigh County, and at several other locations along the base of Blue Mountain (see Map 2) .

- Goal

To protect the remaining wetlands in the Lehigh Valley.

Policies

During subdivision, land development and sewage facilities reviews, JPC staff will check to insure that sewage disposal systems and wetlands are adequately separated. Potential permit requirements of state and federal agencies and other comments relating to wetland protection will be noted.

During review of proposed local comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, or subdivision and land development ordinances, or amendments to any of these, the JPC will recommend defining and mapping of wetlands. Strategies for protection of wetlands and wetland buffers will be suggested.

Municipal comprehensive plans should include an identification of wetland areas. Municipalities should include provisions for the protection of significant wetlands in local zoning and subdivision ordinances.

The JPC recommends that municipalities, counties or conservancies acquire and manage wetlands that are identified as having special significance.

Preserve 100% permanent open space in all wetlands located in upland swamps, adjacent to floodplains, around lake and pond shore margins, and in bogs.

Manage county-owned wetlands to maintain and enhance their environmental, scenic, scientific and educational values.

0 The JPC will not become the arbitrator of what qualifies as a wetlands for regulation purposes.

STEEP SLOPES

Slopes with grades of 15% or over are steep. If disturbed, these areas can yield heavy sediment loads on streams. Very steep slopes, over 25% grade, produce heavy soil erosion and sediment loading.

Septic systems for on-lot sewage disposal are impractical to construct and maintain on very steep slopes because the downhill flow of the effluent is too rapid. Improperly treated effluent is likely to surface at the base of the slope, causing wet, contaminated seepage spots. If there is a layer of impervious material such as dense clay or rock under shallow soils, the effluent may surface on the slope and run

’ downhill unfiltered.

lmdementation Strateclies

The JPC will maintain copies of the National Wetlands Inventory Maps and other wetlands information for public use and plan reviews by staff.

JPC staff will improve and expand the inventory of wetlands as new information becomes available.

9

The steepest slopes and the greatest concentration of steep slopes are found on the Blue Mountain and South Mountain. There are sizeable areas of steep slope in townships along the northern and southern borders of Lehigh and Northampton counties. A notable characteristic of steep slope areas is that they are nearly all wooded. Very few steep slopes are used for cropland or pastures (see Map 3).

__. Goal

To minimize the adverse environmental impacts of steep slope development.

Policies

Future development is not recommended on slopes greater than 25%.

On slopes of 15% to 25%, large lots with low site coverage standards should be maintained and special erosion and storm drainage controls enforced. The JPC recommends a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre if public water and sewerage are available. A minimum lot size of three acres is recommended if an on-lot water supply or sewage system is used. In cities and other urban areas, infill development on steep slopes should be allowed in accord with the zoning ordinance if site design can eliminate or greatly reduce the negative environmental impacts of the project.

Implementation Strateaies

0 The JPC will provide model regulations that limit steep slope development.

0 Any conflicts with policies on steep slopes will be noted during JPC reviews of subdivisions and land developments.

0 Municipalities should adopt zoning and subdivision and land development regulations to control development on steep slopes.

CARBONATE GEOLOGY

In Lehigh and Northampton counties, 46 of the 62 municipalities are underlain entirely or in part by carbonate rock (see Map 3). These carbonate formations are located in the Lehigh Valley's urban core. They provide the primary raw material for the local cement industry and they lie under the most fertile soils.

Carbonate rock has the potential for sinkhole formations which are fairly common in the Lehigh Valley. When sinkholes occur in developed areas, they can cause severe property damage, injury and the loss of life, disruption of utilities and public services, and damage to roadways.

To minimize the hazards to development in areas where carbonate rock exists.

Policies

0 Developments should be designed to avoid problems related with sinkholes.

Municipalities with carbonate rock should develop sinkhole management programs.

Implementation Strateoies

JPC staff will assist municipalities by providing suggested subdivision and land development ordinance regulations for areas with carbonate rock.

Municipalities with carbonate rock should adopt special subdivision regulations to identify and mitigate risks in these areas.

The JPC will research and develop a prototype sinkhole management program for use by municipalities.

The JPC will maintain information on where sinkholes and other land forms associated with carbonate rock exist.

10

WOODLANDS

Woodlands are valued for many reasons. They provide recreational opportunities for nature study, hunting, hiking, horseback riding and scenic views. Woodlands can be used for firewood harvesting, commercial timbering, and as land use buffers and boundaries. Many species of birds depend on large, unbroken wooded tracts for survival. Woodlands also mitigate environmental stress by reducing stormwater runoff, filtering groundwater recharge, control l ing erosion and sedimentation, moderating local micro-climates and purifying air. Since many woodlands are located on other environmentally sensitive areas such as steep slopes and floodplains, it adds another important reason for them to be protected. The largest tracts of unbroken woodland are on Blue Mountain and South Mountain. Other sizeable wooded areas include Shochary Ridge in Lynn Township, some of the larger hills in the area from Upper Milford Township to Williams Township, and much of the northern part of Upper Mt. Bethel Township. Scattered woodlots of various size are found throughout the region (see Map 4).

- Goal

To protect and manage the region's woodland resources.

Policies

Woodlands t h a t have important environmental significance should be protected or preserved.

0 When development is planned for wooded tracts, site design and development should maximize preservation of trees.

Landowners should improve their woodlands by taking advantage of the Cooperative Forest Management Program offered by the State Bureau of Forestry This includes having a forest management plan prepared by a professional forester if logging is intended.

lmdementation Strateaies

Municipalities should adopt zoning and subdivision regulations to control tree removal and the indiscriminate cutting of trees during subdivision and land development activities.

Important woodlands such as those on South Mountain and Blue Mountain should be acquired by conservancies or local government.

During review of local comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision and land development ordinances, JPC staff will recommend woodland protection policies and standards, as needed.

The JPC will provide model regulations to control logging and the cutting of trees.

SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES

Lehigh and Northampton counties have significant natural features that are worthy of protection. Significant natural features include rare plant communities, critical wildlife habitats and outstanding geologic features. Some areas such as Bake Oven Knob in Heidelberg Township and Hexenkopf Rock in Williams Township are large, well-known features that are easily identified. Many of the outstanding geological features fall into this category. At the opposite end of the recognition scale are small, obscure sites with rare plant communities. These can be as little as one acre or less. Many have not been discovered or at least not publicized to any extent.

Nearly all known significant natural areas have other resource characteristics or development limitations. Hexenkopf Rock and Bake Oven Knob, for example, are wooded and have very steep slopes. Bear Swamp in Upper Mt. Bethel Township is noted for its rare plants and as a home of the endangered bog turtle. It is also wooded and a wetland. Some of our critical wildlife habitats coincide with floodplains of the Delaware and Lehigh rivers or the large, unbroken woodlands on Blue Mountain and South Mountain (see Map 4).

12

ImDlementation Strateaies

To protect significant natural features including 0

spec131 geologic formations, rare plant communities and critical wildlife habitats.

Policies 0

Identify significant natural areas based on State, Federal and local agency listing of species and sites of special significance.

Preserve the most significant natural areas as open space. 0

Manage county-owned significant natural areas to maintain the health and quality of the site and to regulate public access.

Include the. most significant natural areas in the Regional Recreation and Open Space Plan.

0

Local governments or conservancies should acquire significant natural areas that are not already protected.

The JPC will collaborate with other groups such as the Wildlands Conservancy in seeking funding for a regionwide Natural Areas Inventory to be undertaken by The Nature Conservancy or some other group with similar professional competence.

During subdivision and land development reviews, JPC staff will comment on potential impacts of proposals if they involve known significant natural features.

During review of municipal comprehensive plans, the JPC will encourage officials to include significant natural features in local resource inventories. . The JPC will recommend policies for protecting these sites through performance zoning or public or private acquisition and management.

14

FARMLAND PRESERVA TION

Lehigh and Northampton counties have some of the best farmland in Pennsylvania. It is a resource that is threatened by the demand for new houses, businesses and industry. Farmland in the two counties declined by about 48.4 square miles between 1978 and 1987. Most was converted to residential use.

Map 5 on page 16 shows the location of important farmland. The largest concentration of important farmland is found in the central part of the Lehigh Valley, from Lower Macungie and Upper Macungie townships in Lehigh County to Lower Mount Bethel Township in Northampton County. As can be seen from Map 5, much of this farmland has been converted to urban uses.

Most Lehigh Valley residents think that preserving farmland is important. In 1988 the JPC conducted a voter attitude survey that contained several questions on farmland preservation. An overwhelming majority, 81.6%, favored preserving as much farmland as possible. On November 3, 1987, Pennsylvania voters approved a ballot referendum that authorized a $1 00 million bond issue designed to help slow the loss of farmland through the purchase of development rights. In Lehigh and Northampton counties, 72.4% of the persons who voted favored the bond issue.

Farmland preservation efforts in this region have been somewhat limited to this date. Effective agricultural zoning exists in only four townships (see Map 5) . All are located in Lehigh County. Agricultural security areas have been created in 14 townships (as of August 1990). While Lehigh County has an active development rights purchase program, purchase of development rights is off to a slow start in Northampton County.

Eligible landowners in both counties can get tax relief through the Pennsylvania Farmland and Forest Land Assessment Act, Act 31 9 of 1974. Act 319 provides for land devoted to

agricultural or forest use to be assessed at the value it has for that use rather than at development value. Many landowners have taken advantage of this program.

The JPC believes farmland can and should be preserved when the following conditions exist: (1 1 there is a concentration of prime farmland or soils of statewide importance; (2) local government has made a commitment to strong agricultural zoning; and (3) Agricultural Security Areas have been created.

Most of Heidelberg and Lynn should be preserved for farming. These are the only townships where all three features noted above exist. Much of Lower Milford Township and Weisenberg Township, and parts of North Whitehall, Upper and Lower Macungie, Upper Milford and Upper Saucon also should be devoted to farming (see Map 6) .

Strong agricultural zoning does not exist in Northampton County. Nevertheless, there are areas in the County where farmland preservation should be encouraged. Some of the best soils in the region occur in the area from Allen Township to the Delaware River at Riverton, Lower Mt. Bethel Township. Much of this area is not needed for future urban development and should be preserved for farming. There are sizeable areas in Moore, East Allen, Plainfield, Washington and Upper Mt. Bethel where farming should remain as the primary land use. South of the Lehigh River, the Stouts Valley in Williams Township should remain in farming.

- Goal

To preserve farmland in Lehigh and Northamp ton counties.

Policies

Support special techniques such as effective agricultural zoning, agricultural

15

security areas, purchase of agricultural easements and the Act 319 tax relief program in areas where farming is the recommended land use.

Promote compact development and higher densities in designated urban areas to reduce development pressure in rural areas.

Discourage the extension of central water and sewer services and new roads into areas where farming is the recommended land use.

Discourage preservation techniques such as agricultural zoning, agricultural security areas and the purchase of agricultural easements in areas where urban development is recommended.

Encourage farm-related business in areas where farming is recommended.

In areas recommended for farming, agricultural uses should be protected from residential development and non-farm activities that interfere with normal farming practices.

Imdementation Stratesies

0 JPC staff will advise the Agricultural Lands Preservation Boards of each county on matters pertaining to this plan.

0 1

0

0

0

0

0

The JPC will support effective agricultural zoning such as the type used in Heidelberg and Lynn townships. Aid will be offered to townships that want to enact similar zoning to protect areas that the regional plan recommends for farmland preservation.

During subdivision and land development reviews, JPC staff will identify any conflicts with areas recommended for farming on the regional comprehensive plan map.

During utility and transportation reviews JPC staff will identify conflicts with existing Agricultural Security Areas and areas recommended for farming on the regional comprehensive plan map.

During updating or review of local comprehensive plans, staf f w i l l recommend mapping of important farmland, Agricultural Security Areas, and farmland where agricultural easements have been purchased.

Consideration will be given to amending the Regional Comprehensive Plan Map to add "agricultural preservation" areas where actions a t the local level make farming the recommended use and if farming is consistent with other policies of this plan.

Agricultural Land Preservation Boards in each county should preserve farmland consistent with the policies of this plan.

18

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Employment will continue to grow in the Lehigh Valley during the next twenty years. If this growth follows the pattern of the past twenty years, residents can expect continuing transition from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy. Most new jobs will come from services, finance and insurance, transportation and public utilities, and retail trade. Continued decline is likely in manufacturing.

Change in the economic base will have an impact on the lives of Lehigh Valley citizens and on counties. As the local economy becomes less dependent upon manufacturing and more like the national economy, cyclical fluctuation may become less severe. This may mean lower levels of unemployment relative to the nation. On the other hand, lower dependence upon manufacturing may also mean lower paying jobs. Many individuals and institutions believe job diversity is important, but would prefer to attract manufacturing jobs with high wage levels.

The economic benefits of change have not been shared by all segments of society. In the latest year for which statistics are available, the average unemployment rate for minorities was nearly two and one-half times the overall unemployment rate. (Minorities are defined as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans). The overall 1989 unemployment rate was 4.2%. For minorities, the rate was 10.0%. Provision of adequate jobs for minorities is a present and future challenge.

Instances of inadequate infrastructure in specific areas considered for economic development have impeded economic development efforts in the Lehigh Valley. Inadequate roads, inadequate sewage treatment plant capacity, lack of sewer interceptors, water service and inappropriate zoning have stymied some economic development proposals. Typically, sites have some of the needed infrastructure, but not all.

Programs to provide the needed infrastructure have been undertaken. However, additional efforts are needed.

As business needs change, companies move from one facility to another. Vacancies result if new tenants are not found. This occurs both in the mature business areas of the cities and boroughs and also in the suburban industrial and business parks. The reuse of the buildings and sites is complicated by the need for on-site improvements, the difficulties of converting buildings designed for specialized uses, or liabilities for environmental cleanup. The reuse of these sites has required additional investment and targeted marketing. It is a problem that is likely to grow in the future.

The Joint Planning Commission has conducted an inventory of space for industry (including manufacturing, wholesaling, warehousing and office space). There are 25,378 acres of land zoned for industry in the Lehigh Valley. After subtracting the land that is already developed, environmentally unsuitable and inadequately served by infrastructure, about 7,000 acres of zoned land is suitable for future industry. JPC forecasts indicate that about 3,000 acres are needed between 1990 and 2010. Assuming that at least some of the 7,000 acres are available for sale, there will be sufficient land for most future industrial needs.

Lehigh County is in a relatively strong position when it comes to available industrial land with public water and sewerage and good highway access. Upper Macungie Township, with over 2,000 acres, has an abundance of vacant industrially-zoned land. This land has public water and sewerage, good highway access and is fairly level. Upper Saucon Township has about 640 acres of vacant land zoned for office, research and industry.

Northampton County has numerous industrial sites with excellent potential. Certain infrastructure improvements need to be made

19

to reach that potential. One-thousand acres of industrially-zoned land in eastern Bethlehem Township will be attractive for industry when the Route 33 extension is built. Industrial areas in northern Bethlehem Township and Lower Nazareth Township will require sewer and water improvements. Industrial sites in northern Palmer Township and central Forks Township are now served with sewer and water. Various road improvements may be necessary in the future to assure good access.

Map 7 shows areas that are recommended for industry, business and off ice. Enterprise zones are geographic areas where various regulatory and tax constraints are reduced or removed and business incentives are provided to stimulate economic activity. Bethlehem and Easton have approved enterprise zones. The proposed enterprise zone for Allentown had not received final approval as of July 1992. The major existing and potential industrial areas include large industrial parks and areas where most new industrial and office development is expected to occur. These sites either have public water and sewerage at present or can be tied into such systems in the foreseeable future.

Map 7 also shows other industrial zones that are located in areas recommended for urban development by this Comprehensive Plan (see Map 9). These sites are currently zoned for industry. Some are very small and most are developed. A few industrial zones lie outside the area recommended for urban development by this plan. They are not supported by the Joint Planning Commission and are not shown on Map 7.

To maximize economic opportunities for residents, provide adequate incomes for residents, produce needed goods and services, and create an adequate tax base for financing needed government services.

Policies

0 Promote a diverse regional economy which offers stability during periods of downturns in the national economic cycle.

-


Reduce the economic dependency on nationally and internationally declining business activities by promoting business activities in growth sectors.

Promote retention and expansion of businesses, including manufacturing, with average and above-average wages. Little effort should be expended on businesses with below-average wages.

To provide accessible employment opportunities to all social and economic groups, major new employment areas should be accessible via public transportation.

Preserve farming as an economic activity especially in the parts of the region where agricultural preservation is recommended. Businesses and industries needed to support farming should be encouraged.

Economic development agencies should establish goals and strategies that will aid in the attraction of desirable industries. Businesses in growth sectors that provide average or above-average wages should be targeted.

The JPC will use review powers to support major employment sites accessible to all social and economic groups. Inaccessible sites will not be supported.

The JPC will promote coordination between employment site developers and Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority (LANTA) through the review process.

The JPC will use the implementation strategies under the farmland protection policies to promote farming as an economic activity.

To expand business activity by making the Lehigh Valley an attractive area to locate and grow.

20

I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I E 1 1 I I -1

Policies

0 Retain and promote the expansion of current businesses and employers. Adequate sites should be made available for the expansion or relocation of existing businesses and employers.

0 Provide the following infrastructure and utility services:

- Well-maintained roads with adequate capacity; - An airport with adequate facilities and connections; - High quality rail service with nearby industrial sites;

- Adequate water supply and distribution systems; - Sewage treatment and interceptor systems with adequate capacity;

- Electr ical, na tura l gas and telecommunications systems that provide quality, low-cost service.

0 A variety of employment areas should be available to serve the needs of expanding or new employers.

- Areas should be available for industrial uses that need special buffering and isolation because of the nature of their operations. (These areas should also conform to the environmental policies of this plan.) Industrial and business parks should be available for businesses seeking such an environment.

- Industries and businesses that can reuse vacant buildings and sites should be encouraged to do so by economic development agencies.

-

0 High technology businesses should be recruited. These enterprises should be targeted to ' take advantage of the programs and expertise of educational institutions and businesses in the region.

0 Educational and training programs should be supplied to give expanding or new employers a suitable workforce and to provide for the specialized needs of

minority groups.

0 The use of federal and state programs that promote economic development should be maximized when consistent with the goals of this plan.

0 Promote tourism activities that relate to the unique physical, historic and cultural features of the Lehigh Valley.

lmelementation Strateaies

The preparation of the sites for committed prospective users should be assisted and enabled by economic development agencies and governmental bodies.

Economic development agencies should help developers to assemble land for business parks in locations where proper zoning and infrastructure are available.

Economic development agencies and governmental bodies should give top priority to retaining and expanding existing businesses.

The JPC will provide available data needed for economic development.

The Lehigh Valley Transportation Study (LVTS) planning process should support roadway improvements needed for business development consistent with the policies of this plan.

Municipalities and the counties should support infrastructure improvements needed for business development consistent with the policies of this plan.

The JPC will work with economic development agencies to identify appropriate areas for new developments and sites for industries that need special buffering and sites suitable for reuse.

JPC reviews will support grant proposals that promote economic development consistent with the policies of this plan.

The JPC will advocate workable legislation

22

which enables the fair share of off-site infrastructure costs to be financed by the developer. Once workable legislation is in place, municipalities will be encouraged to use it to help finance needed off-site improvements.

- Goal

To locate future employment in areas where the comprehensive plan policies indicate that urban growth is appropriate.

Policies

0 Employment growth is recommended in areas:

- - with adequate highway capacity; - - that are environmentally suitable.

where public sewer and water service are available;

that are close to major concentrations of urban development;

0 Areas that are served or can be served by LANTA are favored for employment growth.

Transportation and utility policies should be coordinated to promote employment growth in areas desired for overall urban development, but not in areas not desired for urban development.


JPC reviews will support zoning ordinances and development proposals consistent with the above criteria. Zoning ordinances and development proposals inconsistent with the above criteria will not be supported.

Municipal zoning ordinances should be modified to add or eliminate industrial zones in accord with the above criteria.

- Goal

To strengthen the empfo yment and tax revenue bases of cities and boroughs where the land is largely devefoped.

Policies

Existing vacant buildings and sites should be redeveloped and reused to the maximum extent possible.

0 Existing buildings and sites should be made competitive by undertaking needed infrastructure and environmental improvements.

Public sector efforts to influence the amount of business or industrial growth

I should give highest priority to assisting economically and financially depressed communities and population groups with high rates of unemployment.


Economic development agencies should give priority t o the reuse and redevelopment of existing vacant sites where possible.. .

0 The JPC will support infrastructure proposals needed to make existing buildings and sites useable.

Economic development agencies should give highest priority to assisting economically and financially depressed communities and population groups.

- Goal

To accomplish economic development efforts in an effective, eHcient manner.

Policies

Coordination and cooperation should be emphasized among the governmental bodies, agencies and organizations involved in job training, economic development and economic planning.


0 The JPC will encourage municipalities and agencies to create cooperative forums that will facilitate coordinated action.

23

HOUSING

Providing adequate housing has been national policy since 1949 when the United States Housing Act was enacted. Despite four decades of programs and funding, the fundamental goal of providing decent and affordable housing to each family remains unmet. In the Lehigh Valley, more progress has been made in the area of providing decent housing than in the area of providing affordable housing. Slums have been razed. Unsafe housing has been upgraded. Overcrowding is less common. Regulations assure that new housing meets minimum livability standards.

Less progress has been made in the affordability area. Most of the attention on housing issues needs to be directed to affordability issues. The affordability issue is of particular relevance to the Lehigh Valley because of the rapidly escalating housing costs. The median value of new single family detached houses, twins, townhouses and condominiums doubled between 1984 and 1989. The prices of the existing housing stock have also risen, The median sales prices of used housing doubled between 1980 and 1988. Apartment rent increases have also been substantial, although less than housing value increases. Average rents increased from $265 in 1980 to $478 in 1989, an increase of 80%. Incomes have not increased correspondingly with the rising housing costs. Median family incomes have risen 38% between 1979 and 1988 in the Lehigh Valley. This has led to a greater need for creating subsidized or otherwise affordable housing.

Other than market forces which have driven the housing prices upward, several other factors explain the lack of affordable housing. First, most private builders have not built affordable housing because they have found it more lucrative to meet the heavy demand for higher cost housing. Second, many municipalities have set up barriers through their zoning ordinances and other regulations which inhibit the construction of affordable housing.

Third, the elimination of most Federal funding programs has left public agencies and non- profit organizations without much of the needed financial resources. The following recommendations are intended to address these issues.

- Goal

To provide an adequate supply of affordable housing which meets the needs of all income and social groups.

Policies

The private sector should meet this goal to t h e grea tes t ex ten t poss ib le . Governmental and non-profit entities should meet the housing needs not met by the private sector.

Municipalities should regulate only to the extent necessary to assure legitimate health, safety and welfare objectives. Standards greater than those needed to reach these objectives should not be enacted because they will unnecessarily raise housing costs.

The public sector should continue infrastructure investments in areas recommended for development. The investments will assure the availability of sites for new housing.

The particular needs of disadvantaged segments of the population should be addressed. These segments include the handicapped, the elderly, the mentally ill, minority groups, households with a female head and one-person households.

An open housing market should be encouraged. The market should be free from discrimination based on sex, race, age, national origin, familial status or handicap. The strict enforcement of fair

4

~

I I I

I I i 1. I I I 1 I I I I I I I

m

housing laws should be used in achieving this policy.

Innovative residential development techniques such as planned residential developments (PRD) and clustering should be used to reduce site development costs. Builders of PRD and cluster subdivisions should orient their marketing techniques to all income groups.

Prefabricated components should be used to reduce housing production costs.

Uniform, up-to-date building codes should be used to simplify a builder's operation by eliminating the need to adapt to varying municipal building codes and allow the use of prefabricated components.

Local financial institutions should deal more fully with regional housing finance needs through the continued financial support of housing development corporations and the loan pool for financing the construction of rental housing for the low and moderate income people. A cooperative effort by local financial institutions in providing mortgage financing for moderate income families for new and older housing units should be undertaken. The existing housing development corporations should work 0

throughout the two-county area.

Mobile homes, sectional homes and modular homes installed on permanent foundations should be allowed in the same districts and with the same requirements as other single family detached dwellings.

0


0 Municipalities should revise land development ordinances to eliminate 0

provisions which unnecessarily increase costs of constructing new housing. Specifically, this can be addressed in the following ways: 0

- Municipalities should use JPC suggested ordinances dealing with subdivisions, mobile homes and

planned residential developments. - Municipal i t ies should fo l low

suggested zoning standards for residential uses as contained in the JPC Zonina Guide.

- Municipalities should adopt zoning ordinances in accord with the range of minimum lot sizes and densities shown in Table 2.

- Municipalities should adopt building and housing codes which are reasonably based on protecting the public health, safety and general welfare, and which do not contain provisions solely to increase the luxury of dwelling units. Use of nationally prepared model codes is recommended as one way of accomplishing this. The location of new residential areas should be consistent with the overall goals and policies of the regional comprehensive plan. Residential zones should be located in areas recommended for urban development in the comprehensive plan. Many of these areas are capable of supporting high density development without substantial public or private investment in new services and infrastructure.

-

The JPC will encourage the adoption of PRD provisions and the use of PRD design, in areas recommended for urban and suburban residential uses.

The JPC will support the efforts of area housing authorities, social service agencies, non-profit organizations and housing development corporations when such efforts are consistent with the policies of this plan.

JPC reviews will recommend against excessive standards that will unnecessarily raise housing costs.

JPC reviews of land use regulations and comprehensive plans will advocate densities consistent with Table 2 and the mobile home/modular home policies of this element.

25

I Midrise @ 30 unitslac. I Garden Apartments @ 20 unitslac. I

“C

Single Family Detached @ 7 unitdac. I Single Family Detached @ 4 unitslac. I

Housing Type

High or Mid-Rise Apartments

Range of Densities

15-50

Garden Apartments

Townhouses, Condominiums

Duplexes, Twins

'Density ranges are presented in this table to reflect the diversity of existing urban areas in the Lehigh Valley. In any specific community, there will probably be a need for more than one residential zone since certain areas will be more appropriate for high density development than others. Not all dwelling unit types are appropriate in alt areas.

8-20

8-1 5

6-1 2

The JPC will update its model ordinances as needed to reflect current technology, issues and ideas.

The JPC supports the provisions of the Americans w i th Disabilities Act, particularly as they apply to the planning programs proposed by the Commission.

Single Family Detached

Planned Residential Development

To provide housing in a wide choice of locations which maximize the social and economic opportunities for everyone.

~~

4-7

4-1 2

Policies

Low and moderate income housing should be located with convenient access to job opportunities. Over-concentrations of low and moderate income housing in any one area of a jurisdiction should be avoided. New low and moderate housing should be located in stable income neighborhoods where social and economic integration is possible. The continued use of the Section 8 rental assistance and voucher programs is encouraged because these programs allow for social and economic integration and geographic diversity.

To promote economic and social The use of residential development forms integration, residential communities should such as the planned residential include a variety and mix of housing types development which allow for a mix of and values. housing types in an integrated pattern

Choice of housing type and location should be expanded in accord with the following Affordable housing should be located principals:

should be encouraged.

convenient to major employment areas.

27

lmolementation Strateaies

Municipalities should provide for the basic forms of housing defined by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). These are: single-family and two- family dwellings, a reasonable range of multi-family dwellings in various arrangements, mobile homes and mobile home parks.

JPC reviews will support plans, ordinances and projects consistent with these policies. Changes will be recommended for plans, ordinances and projects which are not consistent.

The JPC will encourage the adoption of PRD provisions and the use of PRD designs in areas recommended for urban and suburban residential uses.

The JPC will encourage municipalities to adopt joint municipal zoning ordinances. Through these ordinances, municipalities will be able to meet their obligation for providing all of the required basic forms of housing. This action would be appropriate when a municipality's land use characteristics, or infrastructure capabilities indicate that provision for certain housing types may not be appropriate. For example, municipalities which lack public sewer and water service would not be appropriate locations for high density forms of housing.

To promote and maintain suitable living environments and housing.

Policies

0 Old neighborhoods with substantial amounts of older housing and structures that require Upgrading should be revitalized by cooperative efforts of public and private institutions.

Adequate government services should support neighborhood rehabilitation programs. Rehabilitation programs should

be combined w i th governmental responsibility for neighborhood-wide revitalization. The scattered demolition of unusable units must be undertaken to provide this type of decent living environment.

0 Neighborhoods should be protected from adverse impacts including environment impacts. Such impacts include noise, air pollution, visual blight, offensive odors, glare and vibrations.

lmalementation Strateaies

Financial institutions should be responsive to strategies of reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods. Financial institutions and existing housing development corporations should cooperate in increasing the availability of mortgage financing funds within these older areas. The effort can aid in adapting the terms of such financing to the needs of the people interested in purchasing homes in the area.

Municipalities should make use of federal and state grant programs to accomplish housing rehabilitation. Specifically, communities should use the Community Development Block Grant programs, federal housing programs for rehabilitation of existing housing and neighborhood improvement programs administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs.

Municipalities should establish thorough and workable housing code enforcement programs to improve areas with substantial amounts of older housing. The upgrading of buildings with code violations should be a primary objective of such programs. Financial support for the improvements should include both private and public sector sources.

Municipalities should promote increased home ownership as part of neighborhood revitalization program strategies.

28

To promote the orderly development of new we//-pl8nned residential environments.

Policies

0 Encourage new residential neighborhoods in the areas recommended for urban development in the Comprehensive Plan.

0 Developments should be located and timed to make maximum use of existing and future investments in services such as central sewer and water facilities, adequate public roads and transportation systems, shopping facilities, police and fire protection, recreational opportunities, schools and social services.

Encourage medium and high density res iden t ia l deve lopmen t wi th in recommended residential areas to make the high quality services and accessibility to facilities available to many persons.

Encourage the utilization of innovative residential development techniques such as planned residential development and cluster development to provide high quality residential living environments and minimize the impact of development upon the natural environment of the site.

New residential development should be prohibited in areas where identified noises exceed accepted standards, unless the impacts can be remedied by construction, site planning or other techniques.


0 Municipalities should plan and budget for the orderly development of services, facilities and utilities as part of an overall capital improvements program in order to provide suitable areas for new residential growth.

JPC reviews will support housing proposals in areas recommended for residential development.

0 JPC reviews will consider noise in assessing the suitability of a site for residential development.

0 The JPC will support legislation which requires the coordination of development with the availability of adequate infrastructure.

The JPC will encourage the adoption of cluster and PRD provisions and the use of cluster and PRD designs, where it would be consistent with the policies of this Plan.

0 The JPC will advocate workable legislation which enables the fair share of off-site infrastructure impact costs to be financed by the residential developer. Once workable legislation is in place, municipalities will be encouraged to use it t o help finance needed off-site improvements.

29

LAND USE

1982

17.8 1.2 2.3 1.1 7.4

1.6 5.2

63.4

GENERAL PATTERNS The other five categories of structurally developed land uses occupy less land in aggregate than do residential uses. Further, they make up a relatively small share of the growth in land use. The loss of agricultural land is largely due to residential expansion.

OF DEVELOPMENT

Land uses have changed as the Lehigh Valley continues to grow. Table 3 compares land use bv catesorv for the two counties for 1972,

1990

20.5 1.4 2.4 1.2 7.6

1.6 6.8

58.5

~~~~~~~~~~~

TABLE 3 PERCENT LAND USE BY CATEGORY

LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES

Land Use

1982, 1990 and 2010.

Source: Joint Planning Commission.

Residential Commercial Industrial Wholesale and Warehousing Transportation, Communication

Public/Quasi-Public Parks and Recreation Agriculture and Vacant

and Utilities

Total

I Year

More than half of the land in the two counties continues to be in agricultural and vacant uses. However, these uses have declined .steadily since 1972. They made up 68% of the land uses in 1972, but only 58.5% of the land uses in 1990. If land continues to be converted a t the rate of the past twenty years, agriculture and vacant land will be less than 50% by 201 0.

Residential uses have expanded from 14.9% of the land use in 1972 to 20.5% of the land use in 1990. By 2010, residential land uses will comprise 26.8% of the region. Residential development accounts for about 80% of the land converted from farmland to uses other than park and recreation.

1972

14.9 1 .o 2.0 1 .o 7.3

1.5 4.4

68.0

7.9

48.0

100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0

The growth in lands in park and recreation uses from 1972 to 1990 was second only to the increase in residential land uses. Acquisition of open space for parks is one means that has been used to offset the loss of farmland in the region.

Most of the increase in structurally developed land uses happened in the rural townships. (see Map 8). Of the 15,243 acres converted from 1982 to 1990, 57% occured in rural townships; 37% occurred in suburban townships; and 6% of the land converted was located in cities and boroughs.

While 57% of the land converted to development was in rural townships, only 30%

30

of the new housing was built there. The cities and boroughs accounted for 30% of new housing, but only 6% of the land converted. Even the share of land converted (37%) in suburban townships was less than the percentage of new housing built there (42%). These figures illustrate how low densities that prevail in rural areas affect land consumption. From a land conservation perspective, low density rural development is not very efficient. It fuels the conversion of agricultural land to residential uses and inflates rural land prices beyond their value for agricultural purposes. Nevertheless, there is obviously a substantial market demand for low density rural land in the Lehigh Valley.

Most rural development is served by on-site septic systems. This accounts for about 30% of the approved lots in the Lehigh Valley. About 70% of the lots are served by public sewers which are available in the cities, most of the boroughs and many of the urbanizing portions of suburban townships. Public sewers help to shape land development patterns in the Lehigh Valley. All other things being equal, most people prefer development sites served with such utilities. Availability of public sewers enables higher density development. It has been JPC policy to support higher density and substantial development in areas served by public sewer. While this is a weak growth guidance system, it seems to work for about 70% of the lots even though development densities are frequently too low in sewered areas and too high in non-sewered areas.

The land use plan reaches across many elements of the comprehensive plan and demands that they be tied together in an integrated and cohesive manner. Following is a review of the major interrelationships:

Land use patterns relate to automobile travel. Dispersed development patterns require long single-purpose trips. Compact development patterns facilitate shorter, more convenient trips. Mass transit facilities cannot economically serve dispersed development.

0 Dispersed low density development wastes energy. Dispersed development

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

requires a greater number of long trips which also increases energy consumption. Detached dwellings require more energy to heat and cool than attached dwellings of the same size.

Utility services can be provided most cheaply by using sewer and water lines that are already in place. lnfill development, shor t incrementa l expansions to adjacent areas and higher densities can assure efficient use of existing utilities and cost-effective expansion.

Large lot development consumes more farmland than high density development. Dispersed urbanization creates pockets of residential land that increase speculative pressure on farmland. Incompatibility of non-farm and farm operations accelerate the farmland conversion process.

Malfunctioning on-lot sewage disposal systems built on marginal soils at excessive densities cause ground water and surface pollution.

Water quality and runoff can be adversely affected by excessive development on steep slopes, woodlands and wetlands.

Good locations for expansion of industry and business generally require access to good roads, adequate public water and sewer, nearby labor force, easily prepared sites and suitable neighbors.

Low densities where public water and sewer services are available increase housing costs by increasing the per unit cost of site preparation and infrastructure. Low densities also limit the diversity of housing.

Due to local reliance upon real estate taxes, land use types and patterns of development produce tax windfalls for some municipalities and decline for others. Aging physical plants, concentration of poverty and neighborhood decline are most evident in the older urban areas.

32

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), mandates the preparation of comprehensive plans by counties and mandates that the comprehensive plans include a land use element. However, counties are provided few direct means by which to implement these plans. The most direct implementation tool of land use plans is the zoning ordinance. Although the MPC authorizes counties to adopt zoning ordinances, it further provides that the adoption of a municipal zoning ordinance pre- empts the county ordinance. Municipal comprehensive planning is not mandated. Zoning may be adopted without benefit of a comprehensive plan. Even when comprehensive plans exist, zoning ordinances are not required to be consistent with those plans. In Lehigh and Northampton counties, 60 of the 62 municipalities have adopted zoning ordinances.

The major purpose of the county land use plan is to provide a general framework for development that will be implemented through local comprehensive plans and zoning. The Pa. Municipalities Planning Code requires that municipal comprehensive plans be generally consistent with the county plan. This means that county plans should have some Overriding concept of goals and policies that can give form to the aggregate of local plans. To accomplish this end, five broad categories of land use are depicted on Map 9 and described in Table 4.

TO provide a county framework to guide overall land use patterns iindhtensity of development.

Policies

0 Advocate consistent approaches for natural resource protection issues that are common to local municipalities.

Support sharing of responsibility and in terdependency be tween loca l municipalities in the siting of locally undesirable land uses.

Advocate consistent municipal land use and growth management policies to achieve infrastructure improvements and goals.

Support compatible land uses and land use intensities where local municipalities have adjoining borders.

Advocate land use techniques that achieve land and energy conservation goals of this plan.

Maximize compatibility and consistency of county and municipal plans.

Integrate residential areas, shopping facilities and workplaces so that they are conveniently located and accessible to each other.


The JPC will use its review authority under the Pa. Municipalities Planning Code to make recommendations relevant to the above policies and other provisions of the land use section.

Consistent with the availability of staff, the JPC will provide technical planning services to local municipalities.

The JPC will continue to prepare data, technical studies and model regulations to assist local communities in dealing with land use problems.

The State should pass legislation that assigns a more potent role to counties in managing growth and assuming compatible and consistent planning policies throughout the Lehigh Valley.

Municipalities should expend more effort to develop land use policies and regulations that are compatible with their neighbors.

33

FARMLAND ~~~

Objective To protect farmland and to promote farming as an economic activity. (See Farmland Preservation section for detail.)

Recommended Land Uses

~~~~~

Recommended Densities

Agriculture Businesses related to

Parkdopen Space Uses Housing related to Agriculture Housing not related to

agriculture on a very limited scale

Agriculture

Maximum density of 1 unit per acre for all uses except housing not related to agriculture

For housing not related to agriculture, a minimum lot size of 30,000 sq.fk. with no more than 10% of the tract in non-agricultural uses.

Recommended Sewer and Water Systems

On-lot systems Central systems in connection

with cluster development for housing not related to agriculture.

TABLE 4 GENERAL LAND USE CAI

NATURAL RESOURCES

To protect sensitive natural features, particularly flood plains and steep slopes from inappropriate development. (See Natural Resource Protection section for detail.)

ParWOpen Space Uses Woodlands Single family detached housing

Pastureland in steep slope areas

Maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 3 acres in steep slope areas with on-lot utilities. Maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per acre in steep slope areas'with public utilities.

No development in very steep slope or flood plain areas.

On-lot systems

W R I E S

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

To provide development opportunities consistent in the context of rural land use patterns and capabilities.

Housing - (single family detached dwellings)

Agriculture Businesses related to

RecreationlOpen Space Uses Mining or public uses needing

buffers (like quarries, sanitary landfills and power plants)

Industry, businesses, stores, offices and community facilities which by their nature require a rural location or are designed to mainly serve the surrounding rural area

Maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per acre.

Agriculture

On-lot systems Central systems for public uses

requiring a rural setting

URBAN DEVEulmMENT

To provide areas where development can occur, coordinated with the provision of infrastructure. To meet the needs for development sites.

Housing - (single family detached dwellings, twins, townhouses,

condominiums, apartments and mobile home parks) Industries Warehousing, Wholesaling Stores, Businesses Offices Community Facilities Transportation Facilities Recreation Facilities Parkdopen Space Crop farming

Density ranges (per acre) with public utilities of: Single family detached 4-7 Twins 6-12 Townhouses, Condominiums

Apartments 8-50 Planned Residential

Developments 4-12 No separate density standard

for non-residential uses Maximum density of 1 unit

per acre with on-lot utilities

Public sewer and community

8-15

water systems

- Goal

To eliminate or minimize urban encroachment on areas recommended for natural resource protection and farmland preservation.

Policies and ImDlemeritation Strateaies

See chapters on Natural Resource Protection and Agricultural Preservation.

- Goal

To provide suHcient economic deve/opment land reserves with accessibifity to major highways, public sewer and water.

Policies

0 Support. economic development areas shown on Map 7.

0 Support revitalization of old industrial sites.

0 Plan and program improvement of roads, railroads, sewers and water supplies to areas designated f o r industr ia l development

0 Discourage incompatible land uses in areas designated for economic development.

(See also other economic development policies stated in the Economic Development section of this plan.)


0 The JPC will continue to collaborate with local governments, economic development entities and State agencies in the implementation of projects that will p rov ide adequate i n f ras t ruc tu re improvements to old industrial sites and sites designated in this plan.

0 State and local economic development agencies need to assign higher priority and develop better programs to revitalize and rehabilitate old industrial sites.

To steer most future growth and development to areas designated for urban development.

Policies

Areas designated for urban growth should receive highest priority for funding of projects that will increase the capacity of highways, public sewers and community water supplies.

Make efficient and cost-effective use of highway, sewer and water systems that are already in place.

Public infrastructure improvements should be made concurrently with all new development.

Oppose development in locations that will not be concurrently provided with adequate transportation, sewer and water.

Increase residential densities in areas with adequate infrastructure (see Table 2).

Advoca te compact , con t i guous development patterns rather than dispersed patterns.

ImDlementation Strateqies

0 PennDOT, PaDER and other state agencies that program and expend funds for infrastructure should assure that highest priority is assigned t o capacity improvement projects in areas designated for urban growth.

Municipalities should assure that local growth policies are consistent with the County plan and that their internal growth management policies are consistent. Zoning ordinances should be consistent with land use policies in the comprehensive plan; the comprehensive plan should be consistent with the Act 537 plan; and, capital improvements should be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

, 36

0 Municipalities need to assure that necessary infrastructure is bui l t concurrently with new development. The State should empower local municipalities to make such assurances through State grants and loans, local budgets and impact fees paid by private developers.

- Goal

To retain the rural character of rural areas.

Policies

0 Support only low intensity uses of land in rural locations.

0 Discourage extensive development of rural areas by advocating major infrastructure capacity improvements elsewhere.

Advocate effective environmental controls on rural sewage disposal.

0 Oppose development of major institutions and employment centers in areas designated for rural or agricultural uses.

0 Encourage increased transition of rural areas to farmland preservation districts rather than urban districts.


Municipalities should review local zoning ordinances to remove as permitted uses those land uses that are incompatible with rural or agricultural development.

Municipalities should assure that their Act 537 plans are compatible with the municipal comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance.

Rural municipalities, particularly those in Northampton County, should pursue more rigorous agricultural toning than now prevails.

Northampton County should become more active in the purchase of development rights under Pennsylvania agricultural preservation legislation.

0 The JPC will use its review capacity to oppose local planning and zoning changes that will further reduce rural areas. The Commission will also oppose the use of Federal and State grant and loan programs to subsidize development that is inappropriate in rural areas.

0 State agencies should not support facilities or infrastructure that is inappropriate in rural areas.

RETAIL USES

Major changes in shopping patterns occurred in the 1960s and 1970s when numerous shopping centers were built. The dominance of downtown shopping areas decreased as buyers flocked to the Whitehall Mall, the Lehigh Valley Mall and other shopping centers. The downtowns sought to counter this trend with improvements like the Hamilton Mall and the Broad Street Plaza.

The prominence of shopping centers, established in the 1960s and 1970% continued in the 1980s. Retail sales in the three cities dropped slightly between 1977 and 1987 from 47.7% of the two county total to 43.1%. Even within the cities, most of the retail sales are in shopping centers or along automobile- oriented commercial strips. By 1982, only 14% of retail sales in Allentown occurred in the central business district. In Bethlehem, only 7% occurred in the central business district. In Easton, 29% occurred in the central business district. Today, Allentown is the only city in the Lehigh Valley that sees its downtown as a regional retailing center. Easton and Bethlehem have worked to establish market niches for their downtowns, based on specialty shopping and tourism. Many borough central business districts are small but stable. Recent retail growth in boroughs such as Emmaus, Northampton and Coopersburg has taken place in shopping centers on the edge of town.

The two counties have many shopping facilities and a substantial amount of space dedicated to shopping. This space totals about 7,500,000 square feet. It is only part of the total retailing

37

space. It does not include the space in the downtowns of the cities and boroughs, the space in shopping centers smaller than 60,000 square feet, and smaller freestanding stores.

The siting of future shopping areas must deal with changing public and governmental opinions. In the past, proposals for shopping centers were greeted with enthusiasm, or at least neutrally. Shopping centers were widely desired because of the tax revenues they generated, the jobs they supplied and the added convenience in shopping they provided. The 1980s saw a change in this attitude. Nearly every sizeable shopping center proposal or rezoning application to allow such a use has been opposed by nearby residents. Often, the municipal government joins in the opposition. More than any other single issue, the opposition focuses on the traffic implications of the shopping center. Other issues include localized neighborhood and visual impacts.

While shopping centers have many serious impacts on the surrounding environment, they are not big consumers of land a t the regional scale. As shown in Table 3, commercial uses in total occupy less than 2% of total land in the Lehigh Valley. Their percentage of the total has grown only modestly in the past twenty years. Compared to low density residential development, they have consumed a minor fraction of the undeveloped land resource in the valley. Commercial uses have followed rather than led the population to the suburbs. Accordingly, the JPC advocates goals and policies that address the impacts of commercial uses and shopping centers rather than siting particular locations for development of these facilities.

- Goal

To provide an adequate choice o f shopping opportunities at convenient locations.

Policies

0 Commercial development should be sited in urban and suburban areas which meet the following criteria:

- Public sewage disposal and community water supply should be available.

- The affected nearby roads should have adequate capacity to handle the traffic.

- Safe access should be available. - The location should be convenient for

the intended customers. - The development should meet the

environmental policies of this plan.

Also, the availability of transit service by LANTA is desirable.

0 Commercial development should be allowed in rural areas to serve the needs of the rural community for convenience goods and services. This development should meet the following additional criteria:

- Adequate on-lot sewage disposal and water supply should be available.

- The affected nearby roads should have adequate capacity to handle the traffic.

- Safe access to the site should be available.

- The development should meet the environmental policies of this plan.


JPC review comments on retail proposals will measure them by the impact they have on criteria stated in these policies.

JPC reviews of zoning ordinances and land use plans will promote consistency with criteria stated in these policies. JPC prepared zoning ordinances and land use plans will promote consistency with the policies.

Municipalities should not zone for retail uses in areas that cannot meet the criteria stated in these policies.

38

- Goal

To protect areas from the negative impacts of stores and shopping centers.

0 The siting and layout of shopping centers should be sensitive to the presence of adjacent residential areas. The visual impact on the residential areas should be minimized.

Policies Implementation Strateaies

Municipalities should establish design guidelines for stores and shopping centers to protect nearby residential areas and to provide a visually pleasing experience for the commercial area. Sign regulations, architectural controls, buffering of nearby uses and parking lot landscaping should be considered.

The off-site traffic impacts of the shopping center should be minimized. The developer should fund the portion of the needed improvements attributable to the development.

Driveway entrances should be arranged to minimize the disruption to the traffic flow of arterial and collector roads.

Sub-regional, regional and super-regional shopping centers should be sited in areas near interchanges with expressways or along major arterials. The use of collector and local roads as access to these centers should be minimized.

Municipalities should adopt design guidelines and design review processes to control retail uses, including shopping centers.

The JPC will research and prepare model provisions for design guidelines.

JPC review comments on retail proposals will measure them by these policies.

JPC reviews of zoning ordinances and land use plans will promote siting criteria consistent with these policies. JPC proposed zoning ordinances and land use plans will promote consistency with the policies.

The JPC will advocate workable legislation which enables the fair share of off-site infrastructure impact costs to be financed by the store/shopping center developer. Once workable legislation is in place, municipalities will be encouraged to use it to help finance needed off-site improvements.

39

TRANSPORTA TfON

HIGH WAYS

Most Lehigh Valley residents are enjoying unprecedented mobility. More choices in shopping, work and other destinations are available than ever before. About 90% of the travel to 'these destinations is by private automobile. Extensive use of the private automobile is enabled by the availability o f affordable gasoline and a good road network. Major highways in this network are shown on Map 10.

Since the 196Os, changing growth patterns have altered the nature of traffic flow and congestion problems in the Lehigh Valley. The location of residential development, shopping centers and employment centers in suburban areas has created a suburb-to-suburb travel orientation. Traffic congestion has migrated to the suburbs with the development.

Traffic on Lehigh Valley roadways has increased. Between 1980 and 1990, it is estimated that total daily trips increased from 1.54 million to 1.7 million. Passenger car registrations in the two counties increased from 268,893 in 1980 to 322,168 in 1990, an increase of 20%. The number of licensed drivers in the two counties increased from 341,539 in 1984 to 374,372 in 1990, an increase of 10% in six years.

The capacity of the road network has not kept pace with the increase in travel demand and expectations of Lehigh Valley residents. Although the highway system in the Lehigh Valley functions well overall, some roads become congested during morning and afternoon peak hours of traffic. These brief periods of congestion are sometimes caused or worsened by road construction projects that restrict traffic flow. With the exception of the 1-78 project, the road network as it existed in 1970 is required to carry the increased traffic of 1990. New highway construction has been constrained by the lack of adequate state and

federal funding. Excluding the interstate highway program, maintenance projects have received more funding than capacity improvement projects.

The transportation planning program conducted by the Joint Planning Commission in conjunction with the Lehigh Valley Transportation Study (LVTS) prioritizes and programs highway improvements. Map 11 shows major high priority highway projects in the 1992 version of the highway plan. These projects are listed in Appendix 6. Higher priority is given to projects that stretch the available state and federal money with financing from other sources.

Highway planners are required to balance the need to build roads and the need to protect other public interests. A number of Federal and State laws regulate highway construction relative to environmental features, historic structures, agricultural operations, and displacement of homes and businesses. These laws require that highways minimize and mitigate environment damage and disruption to communities. They also require lengthy and expensive planning and design studies that slow the highway construction process.

in some 'instances transportation management strategies may reduce peak hour traffic and make more efficient use of existing highway capacity. Numerous strategies are available, including mass transit, carpooling and staggered work hours. The JPC implemented a carpool program and park-and-ride program during the early 1980s. However, response to the program was poor. In 1988, the JPC tried to implement a staggered work hour program in the ABE Airport area, but received little interest from major employers. Based on experience here and in other metropolitan areas, transportation management strategies appear to be best suited as a supplement to projects that add capacity by adding lanes to existing highways or building bypass roads.

40

Providing good access to development is another highway planning challenge. Good access is necessary to attract business in areas designated for economic development. It is also important to existing industrial parks and central business districts to maintain movement of goods and accessibility to workers and consumers. Finally, good access is necessary in residential areas for smooth traffic flow and convenience to work, shopping and other trip destinations.

To provide a safe, well-maintained road network that facilitates the movement of tra ftic.

0 Plan and program highway and bridge projects that improve safety and reduce congestion.

0 Upgrade unsafe roads and intersections with substandard design and confusing traffic patterns to current design standards.

The JPC will annually update the Lehigh Valley Highway Plan and recommend it to the Lehigh Valley Transportation Study for approval.

The JPC will recommend that the State Transportation Commission include all high priori ty projects in Lehigh and Northampton counties as part of their biennial update of the State's 12 Year Capital Improvement Program.

The State Transportation Commission should include projects recommended by the JPC and the Lehigh Valley Transportation Study in the 12 Year Capital Improvement Program.

Municipal i t ies should include a t ranspor tat ion element i n their comprehensive plans. A t the minimum, the transportation element should include a plan for an adequate system of collector and arterial roads.

To provide good access to major traffic generators and planned development.

Rehabilitate or replace deficient bridges. Policies

0 Construct incomplete links in the arterial road system.

0 The system of collector and arterial roads should be upgraded and expanded to cope with increasing traffic.


The JPC will review PennDOT safety data and assist in identifying intersections and corridors with a high accident rate.

0 In concert with PennDOT, the JPC will identify and prioritize congested corridors and intersections.

0 PennDOT should construct projects that will solve safety problems and increase mobility.

Coordinate development with the availability of road capacity and public transit service.

0 Plan, program and build highway capacity improvements in areas recommended. for urban development w i th in th is comprehensive plan.


The JPC will promote land use planning and land use ordinances which coordinate development with the availability of road capacity and public transit service.

Municipalities should assure that the land use and transportation elements of local plans are coordinated.

43

44

The JPC will recommend in reviews that development which causes or aggravates congestion not be built unless the impact can be mitigated.

Municipalities should adopt policies and procedures for transportation impact studies based on the JPC model.

The JPC will review and comment on developments creating 1,500 average daily trips and more. The JPC will also review and comment on developments impacting congested roadways.

Developers should prepare traffic studies for all proposals expected to impact congested roadways or generate 1,500 or more average daily trips.

The JPC will encourage the improvement of Pennsylvania impact fee legislation.

- Goal

To construct highway and bridge improvements that are compatible with the built and natural environments.

Policies

0 Major highway and bridge projects should be studied, designed and constructed in accordance with the most recent environmental regulations.

Through traffic should be diverted away from existing residential settlements to the degree that alternatives are technically and financially feasible.

0

.

0 Hydrocarbon emissions from automobiles should be reduced so the Lehigh Valley can comply with the ozone standards in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.


The JPC will review and comment on major road improvements and alignments, as appropriate, to insure consistency with environmental goals and policies in this plan.

0 The JPC will support proposed road improvements that are least intrusive on existing residential settlements.

0 As appropriate, the JPC will participate in environmental and design studies associated with major projects.

To promote economy and e ficienc y in highway planning, design and function.

Preserve arterial roads for their through traffic carrying function by reducing on- street parking and curb cuts for driveways.

Travel demand on existing facilities should be met to the greatest degree possible with low cost improvements through the Safety and Mobility Initiative.

Wherever feasible, transportation management strategies should be implemented to reduce peak hour travel demand.

The average trip length should be minimized through compact land use patterns and mixed use developments.

Adequate financing mechanisms should exist to pay for needed improvements and maintenance.


0 Where feasible, municipalities and PennDOT should eliminate on-street parking on congested arterial roads and minimize direct access to arterial roads.

0 The JPC will encourage appropriate consideration for public transit, bicycles and pedestrians in reviewing highway plans.

0 The JPC- will evaluate transportation management strategies to determine their effectiveness in reducing peak hour travel demand.

Where appropriate, the JPC will promote carpooling, staggered work hours, public transit and other transportation management techniques to reduce peak hour travel demand and reduce energy consumption. Local business should support such activities.

The JPC will promote a compact land use pattern and mixed use developments that generate shorter trips.

The Federal, State and local governments should provide adequate funds to pay for needed construction and maintenance.

Developers should finance roadway improvements proportionate to the traffic impact of the development.

PennDOT and other agencies of the State and Federal government should carefully review procedures for Environmental Impact Studies to determine ways to reduce the time and cost involved in such studies without sacrificing quality.

auto trips increased 10%. Transit trips are less than 1 % of total trips.

Most area residents do not consider using mass transit because it cannot match the private automobile for convenience. Further, the continued residential, retail and employment development in suburban and rural locations has spread trip destinations over a wider area. This makes efficient transit service difficult.

Since 1972, transit service in the two counties has been provided by or under the auspices of the Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority (LANTA) . Currently, LANTA operates 69 buses on 15 fixed routes that make up the Metro System. The system concentrates service in the cities and other urban areas. The 1992 LANTA Service Area is shown on Map 10.

In 1988 LANTA established Metro Plus as a brokerage system which provides enhanced services for the elderly and disabled. By contacting Metro Plus, the elderly and disabled can receive customized curb-to-curb service aboard lift-equipped vehicles.

MASS TRANSIT

Transit service is essential for providing mobility for people who do not own cars (whether for financial or other reasons), the elderly and the handicapped. Loss of transit service by these people would directly translate into reduced mobility. A portion of mass transit ridership consists of people who choose transit over the use of the private car.

Mass transit use has numerous other potential benefits to society. The potential benefits of mass transit use as compared to individual auto use include improved air quality, more efficient use of road capacity, reduced parking needs, reduced congestion and energy conservation. Still, mass transit plays a small role in the Lehigh Valley's transportation picture. Between 1980 and 1989, transit ridership declined from 5,474,000 trips to 4,294,000 trips. This decline occurred in a period when

Inter-city bus service is available to numerous destinations. The most extensive service is provided to Philadelphia and New York City. Service in each of these markets is provided by several unsubsidized privately-owned bus operators. One subsidized route serves the Lehigh Valley. This is the Philadelphia-Scranton route operated by Greyhound Lines. It stops in Easton.

A July 1990 study of inter-city ground transportation was performed by Barton- Aschman Associates. The study found that no major service improvements are needed in the Lehigh Valley to New York corridor. The study identified problems with the location, quality of the waiting areas, the availability of parking, and facilities for bus loading a t several of the terminals. The study recommended added parking lots a t the Wescosville and LVlP terminals, improvements to bus-loading areas and parking in Allentown and Easton, and the replacement of the Bethlehem terminal.

45

- Goal

To provide adequate mobility for the elderly, the handicapped, the poor and those who do not own an automobile.

Policies

Provide convenient and reliable fixed-route service between higher density residential areas, major employment concentrations, important shopping areas, key government facilities, medical facilities and other activity areas.

Provide coordinated specialized public transportation for people who cannot use conventional bus services.

Shopping, workplace, government and housing facilities designed for the transit dependent should be sited at locations where transit service exists or is feasible.

Mass transit facilities should meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

lmdementation Stratesies

0 JPC review of site plans and subdivisions should advocate easy, safe and convenient facilities for potential transit users.

0 LANTA should continue to provide mass transit service in the Lehigh Valley. It should be supplemented with private service as feasible. The JPC should assist LANTA in implementing these policies.

- Goal

To provide an alternative to the single- occupancy vehicle in order to meet community objectives of reduced air pollution, energy savings, efficient road use and reduced congestion.

Policies

0 Fixed route transit service should be provided only in those areas where service

is financially feasible through operating revenues and necessary subsidies.

Fixed route service outside the LANTA Market Area should be considered if the market demand cannot be met by paratransit means.

Fixed route service scheduling and routing should be regularly evaluated and adjusted as needed to produce efficient and market responsive service.

Mass transit equipment and facilities should be replaced and upgraded as needed to provide safe, reliable and cost- efficient service.

Privatization of mass transit service should be considered when such service is provided at equivalent service levels with lesser public subsidies.

Major shopping and employment facilities should locate where transit service exists or is feasible.

Site plans should include features that make the use of mass transit easy, safe and convenient.

Higher density housing and employment facilities should be developed along transit service routes. In the LANTA Market Area, a minimum density of five dwelling units per acre should be developed.

lmdementation Stratesies

0 The JPC should promote higher density residential, employment, shopping and activity centers where transit service exists or is feasible, provided the area meets the other policies of this plan.

0 The JPC should prepare model site planning guidelines supporting mass transit use. The guidelines should, for example, provide for safe traffic movements for vehicles as they serve sites and minimize the walking distance between the transit stop and the building entrance.

46

I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I

0 JPC review of site plans and subdivisions should advocate easy, safe and convenient facilities for potential transit users.

To have a sufticimt supply of convenient inter- city public ground transportation available to popular destinations such as Philadelphia and New York.

Policies

0 This service should be met through unsubsidized privately-owned bus operators, t o the degree possible.

New, publicly subsidized service should not be established unless established unsubsidized bus operators are unwilling or unable to supply a sufficient convenient service.

0 Adequate and convenient terminals should be available for inter-city buses.


0 The JPC will monitor inter-city transportation. Further study will occur if the monitoring reveals problems.

0 The JPC will advocate and support the upgrading of inter-city bus terminals as recommended in the Earton-Aschman Associates study.

RAILROADS

Railroads remain a significant part of the transportation system. Good rail service is essential for the siting of numerous types of businesses. However, railroads no longer play the dominant force in the movement of goods. According to PennDOT, rail freight traffic in Pennsylvania has declined for many years. The decline stems from the greater use of trucks and other modes of transportation and a shift in the economy which deemphasizes the types of industries best served by railroads.

In this era when rail service to many communities is declining or threatened, the Lehigh Valley remains in a relatively strong position. Primary freight service is provided by Conrail. The railroad's main line from Newark, New Jersey to Harrisburg passes through the two counties. This line is one of the busiest in the state. A secondary main line extends north from Allentown to the Scranton area. Numerous branch lines provide Conrail service to shippers. The most prominent of these lines are the Cement Secondary which serves the Forks Industrial Area, and the Catasauqua and Fogelsville which serves the Iron Run Industrial Area. The Allentown classification yard is one of the ten major yards in Conrail's system. Intermodal service has been improved by the construction of an intermodal terminal in Salisbury Township. Other freight rail service is provided by the Delaware and Hudson Railway. Major rail facilities are shown on Map 10.

Several line abandonments occurred in the 1980s. Most abandonments did not result in the loss of service to existing customers. State programs are available to partially subsidize operations and improvement costs along threatened lines.

Rail abandonments create unique opportunities for the reuse of the right-of-way, when the land does not revert to the adjoining landowners. The relatively flat, linear nature of the rights-of- way often makes their retention and reuse advantageous. Some Lehigh Valley municipalities have acquired abandoned rights- of-way for recreation uses. Rights-of-way are well suited for hiking trails and bicycle paths.

No commuter or inter-city passenger service is available in the two counties. Most recently, service to Newark/New York was provided from Phillipsburg, NJ by New Jersey Transit. Service ended in 1983. Service to Philadelphia was provided from Allentown and 'Bethlehem by t h e Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA). This service ended in 1981. These service terminations resulted from unacceptable levels of financial losses caused by low ridership. The JPC and LANTA' engaged Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. to study the need for expanded public

47

transportation to New York/New Jersey. The 1990 study concludes that no major service improvements, including the restoration of rail service, are needed. Private, unsubsidized bus operators provide adequate service to the New York City area. Barton-Aschman further concluded that the reintroduction of passenger rail service to Philadelphia would be difficult to justify because of "the small size and less- specialized employment opportunities in Philadelphia compared to New York, and the more extensive roadway" available.

- Goal

To have dependable freight rail service available to existing and potential incoming businesses.

Policies

0 Provide competitive rail freight service through private capital investment in rail facilities.

0 Public investment in acquiring, upgrading or operating lines proposed for abandonment should be limited to those instances where the investment is cost- effective relative t o employment opportunities and tax revenues.

Land near rail lines which meets the Comprehensive Plan's criteria for industrial siting should be designated for industrial uses.


0 The JPC will recommend that county agencies considering public investments in rail service apply the criterion set in the policy.

JPC reviews of zoning, ordinances will advocate industrial uses for rail-served sites, when the sites meet the criteria of this plan for such uses.

- Goal

To meet recreation, transportation and utility needs by acquiring or retaining abandoned rail rights-of-way.

Policies

Rail r igh ts -o f -way proposed f o r abandonment should be acquired if analysis shows that they are desirable for recreation, road right-of-way, utility right- of-way or other uses.

Rail rights-of-way should be preserved for. future rail reuse if analysis shows that the reestablishment of future service could be advantageous.

IrnDlementation Strateaies

0 The JPC will review and make recommendations about rail abandonments based on the above policies.

0 Municipalities and/or the counties should acquire rail rights-of-way needed for recreation or transportation purposes.

To have a sufficient supply of convenient inter- city pubk ground transportation available to popular destinations such as Philadelphia and New York.

Policies

This service should be met through unsubsidized privately-owned carriers to the degree possible.

0 Publicly subsidized service should not be established unless unsubsidized operators are unwilling or unable to supply a sufficient convenient service.


0 The JPC will support proposals for subsidized passenger rail service only if a need for the service is established, if present carriers are unable to meet the need, and if rail service is as cost-efficient as other modes.

0 The JPC will support the inclusion of the Lehigh Valley in intercity high-speed rail line feasibility studies.

40

I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1

AIR TRANSPORTATION

Lehigh and Northampton counties are well served by air passenger carrier, air cargo and general aviation service. The Allentown- Bethlehem-Easton International Airport (AB€ Airport) provides a full range of passenger, general aviation, and air cargo services. In addition t o ABE Airport, large international airports in Philadelphia and the New York City area are within a two-hour drive of the region. General aviation aircraft can also use Queen City Airport in Allentown, Braden Airport in Forks Township, Slatington Airport, and the Flying "M" Aerodrome in Heidelberg Township,

The ABE International Airport is operated by the Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority. It occupies a 1,000 acre site. The primary runway is 7,601 feet long and 150 feet wide. The crosswind runway is 5,790 feet long and 150 feet wide. ABE Airport has a tri-level passenger terminal building that was opened in 1975. The major issues facing ABE Airport in the next decade involve improving air service and expanding airside and landside facilities while working with local, state and federal government to achieve compatible off-airport land use in the noise impact area.

Between 1972 and 1992, total movements at ABE increased from year to 933,582. During the operations (take-offs and from 111,674 to

service will remain at the ABE airport +ring the 20-year planning period of 1 989-2009. Passenger activity is projected to grow significantly. Most of the increased passenger activity in the 1990s will be accommodated by the emerging larger narrow-body airhaft fleet and an increased number of flights bj/ regional

I

jet and turboprop aircraft. I The draft ABE Airport Master Pian Study presents four airfield concepts for meeting airfield capacity needs for the perjod 1989- 2009. The concept recommended by the consukant is the most conservative and can be implemented on the existing airport property. It calls for a 2,400-foot extension to the main

I

runway and the construction of a runway parallel to the main runway with a 700-foot separation distance to the north.

The Airport Authority received partial approval of its Noise Compatibility Program from the Federal Aviation Administration in November 1992. Elements of the Noise Compatibility Program include land acquisitionhelocation, soundproofing, acquisition of avigation easements, zoning overlay districts, comprehensive plan revisions, real estate disclosure, revision of building codes and environmental impact review procedures.

Queen Citv Municioal Airoort is owned and operated by the city of Allentown. The airport is located on a 201.3 acre tract in southwest Allentown, adjacent to 1-78 and Lehigh Street. The airport's primary runway is 3,940 feet long and 80 feet wide, and is oriented in an east- northeast/west-southwest direction. The crosswind runway is 3,380 feet long and 80 feet wide. Queen City Municipal Airport serves as a general aviation airport for private aircraft. A Master Plan Study was submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration for review in November 1992.

Braden's AirDort is located on a 72.8 acre tract in northern Forks Township, just east of Tatamy. This general aviation airport has a paved runway that is 1,950-feet long and 50- feet wide. Braden's Airport is privately owned.

Slatinaton Airport is a general aviation airport that is located on a 56.5 acre tract along the Lehigh River in Slatington. The airport has a 2,500-foot north-south runway (2,000 feet are paved) that is 30-feet wide. Slatington airport is privately owned.

The Flvinn "M" Aerodrome is located at the base of Blue Mountain in northern Heidelberg Township. The airport is privately owned. It has an east-west oriented grass landing strip that is 2,375 feet long and 100 feet wide.

- Goal

To have air passenger carrier, air cargo and generalaviation services that meet the needs of present and future Lehigh Valley residents and businesses.

49 I

Policies

The ABE Airport should serve as the region's air passenger carrier, corporate aviation and air cargo airport. All other airports should serve general aviation and specific corporate aviation needs.

ABE Airport should continue to be developed to service existing and forecast demand for scheduled and non-scheduled air carrier services, corporate aviation and air cargo in an adequate, safe and efficient manner.

The JPC prefers that all future runway expansions at the ABE International Airport should be limited to the main airport property that is bounded by Airport Road on the east, Race Street on the north, and LVlP #3 on the south. Any proposed expansion beyond these limits should be based on demonstrated need and designed to minimize impact on adjoining land uses and the environment in concert with affected municipalities.

Local highway access to the ABE Airport should be improved as necessary on the basis of continuous evaluation of access needs in connection with the ABE Airport Master Plan and in conjunction with the Airport's relationship to the surrounding industrial parks and future development of airport property located contiguous to industrial park uses.

1

lmdementation Strategies

0 Lehigh and Northampton counties should continue to support the improvement and expansion of the ABE Airport to meet existing and future demand. Any expansion should be environmentally sound and acceptable to the surrounding municipalities.

0 Planned improvements a t ABE Airport should be based on the airport's role in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), the airport's role in the Pennsylvania Airport System Plan, and in

accordance with the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan and Master Plan.

0 Lehigh and Northampton counties and the Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority should support local highway projects that improve access to ABE Airport.

0 The Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority should conduct a Regional Aviation System Plan to identify methods to preserve system capacity, particularly privately-owned general aviation airports, and further coordinate the relationship between ABE and outlying general aviation airports.

- Goal

To maximize the compatibility of ABE Airport operations and nearby land uses.

Policies

0

0 '

0

0

Future development in the ABE Airport area should be compatible with existing and projected air traffic operations.

Remedial and preventive measures such as land acquisition, relocation, zoning overlay d is t r ic ts , environmental review, soundproofing, revised building codes, real estate disclosure and easement acquisition should be used as needed to promote compatibility with existing and future ABE operations.

Encroachment of airport operations on existing residential areas should be minimized. New residential development should not encroach on ABE.

Airport operations should seek to minimize the noise impacts on existing developed areas as much as possible without compromising safety.


0 ABE Airport personnel and the five municipalities that are impacted by airport operations should work to revise local zoning ordinances where needed.

50

I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I D t 1 I I I I

I 1 I I I 8 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I

0 The Airport Authority and surrounding municipalities should work together to ensure compatibility of Airport and local plans.

0 During reviews of local comprehensive plans, toning ordinances, or subdivision and land development ordinances, JPC staff will note if there are any conflicts between the local land use regulation and the Airport Master Plan Noise Exposure Map and other appropriate airport plans and studies. The Airport Authority will be notified whenever conflicts are identified.

CLEAN AIR ACT/ AIR QUALITY COMPLIANCE

Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970. This Act was amended in 1977 and, most recently, in 1990. The Act contained National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for three measures of air quality: ozone, carbon monoxide and particulate matter. The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) set 1982 as the deadline for urban areas to meet NAAQS. Areas which could not meet the standards by 1982 were designated as non- attainment areas and given an extension to 1987 to meet the standard. The Lehigh Valley was able to meet all pollution standards except ozone. Therefore, the Lehigh Valley was designated as an ozone non-attainment area.

Ozone is formed by a chemical reaction between volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen and sunlight. Because a high percentage of volatile organic compounds comes from tailpipe emissions, a plan to reduce mobile source emissions was required. The responsibility for developing that plan was placed on the Joint Planning Commission in conjunction w i th t h e Lehigh Val ley Transportation Study (LVTS). The resulting plan had two main strategies to reduce tailpipe emissions. The first, under the auspices of PennDOT, was an automobile inspection and maintenance (VM) program designed to have vehicles burn fuel more efficiently thereby reducing emissions. The second strategy dealt with the development and implementation of

transportation control measures such as carpooling and ridesharing, elimination of four- way stop controlled intersections, coordination of traffic signal timing and increased transit usage. The 1982 Air Qualitv/TransDortation - Plan became part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). It was submitted to €PA in 1982 and subsequently approved.

The implementation of the I/M Program and most of the transportation control measures did not result in meeting the standard. Therefore, in the 1990 CAAA, the Lehigh Valley was categorized as a "marginal" non-attainment area, the least severe of non-attainment categories. The Lehigh Valley is required to meet the NAAQS by November 15,1993. The JPC and LVTS will again be involved in developing the Lehigh Valley portion of the SIP. This process will include another review of transportation control measures and recommendations of appropriate strategies to reduce emissions. Attainment is defined as no more than three ozone exceedances over a three-year period. If the NAAQS for ozone is not attained by November 15, 1993, the Lehigh Valley will automatically be designated as a "moderate" non-attainment area, the next highest classification in terms of severity. The effects of this are two-fold. First, highway funds could be withheld from the Lehigh Valley. Secondly, more stringent requirements to attain the NAAQS are mandated. The requirements include development of a plan to reduce volatile organic compounds by 15% over a six-year period and the implementation of a gasoline vapor recovery system at Lehigh Valley gasoline stations.

Point source emissions are also addressed in the 1990 CAAA. They are administered by the Pa. Department of Environmental Resources. The standards for point source permits are as follows. Any new or modified industry which has the potential to emit 50 tons of volatile organic compounds per year or 100 tons of oxides of nitrogen per year must offset existing emissions at a 1.1 5-to-1 ratio to obtain a permit. If the Lehigh Valley does not meet NAAQS for ozone by November 15, 1993, the offset ratio could increase to 2-to-l . This could have a negative impact on the economic development picture in the Lehigh Valley,

51

particularly for the types of industries which are likely to emit levels of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen which exceed the threshold.

- Goal

To ensure that air quality in the Lehigh Valley meets the National Ambient Air Quafity Standards for ozone.

Policies

Highway improvements projects which have a negative impact on air quality should not be programmed (as mandated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1 990).

Transportation control measures such as carpooling and encouraging increased transit usage should be implemented, where feasible, to reduce vehicle miles travelled and emissions.

The average trip length and number of trips should be minimized through compact land use patterns and mixed use developments.

The LVTS should plan and program road improvements which reduce congestion.

New development should be located in areas with available road capacity, thereby reducing the creation of new areas of congestion.


~

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 The JPC and LVTS will develop the Lehigh Valley portion of the State Implementation Plan. The Plan will evaluate ways to reduce emissions by implementing transportation control measures.

Local businesses should implement the policies of the transportation plan to reduce reliance upon the single occupant vehicle and reduce congestion.

Developers and existing businesses should consider transit service, carpooling and vanpooling to meet mobility needs.

The JPC will promote a compact land use pattern and mixed use developments that generate shorter and fewer trips.

The JPC will identify and prioritize congested corridors and intersections. Programming of improvements to relieve congestion will be pursued according to priorities established.

The JPC will support highway construction projects and transportation management strategies that reduce emissions.

The JPC will utilize the computerized highway model and air quality software to assess air quality impacts of major highway improvements.

The JPC will perform an analysis of the LVTS Transportation lmmovement Proclram and Long Range Plan to ensure conformity of highway improvements with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

Municipalities should adopt land use plans and ordinances which coordinate development with the availability of road capacity and public transit service.

The JPC staff will provide an annual status report on Lehigh Valley ozone exceedances to the JPC as the information becomes available.

52

I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I

m

~-

COMMUNITY FA CIUTIES

SEWAGE DISPOSAL

Sewage facility planning includes federal, state, regional and local levels of government through many pieces of legislation. The primary state legislation for the protection of water quality is the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law. To execute this law, the Pa. Department of Environmental Resources (DER) has been granted the power t o write, adopt and enforce regulations. The Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act of 1966 (as amended), more commonly called "Act 537," is the primary law controlling individual and community sewage disposal systems. Act 537 requires municipalities to submit official sewage facilities plans to the DER for approval. These plans show the current and future needs of the municipality and assess wastewater facility choices to solve these needs. They are reviewed by appropriate planning agencies, including a county planning agency, to determine consistency with land use goals and policies.

The Joint Planning Commission has maintained a long range plan for sewage disposal in Lehigh and Northampton counties since 1967. This plan is updated every 10 years with supplements every two years. In addition, the location of major public sewer facilities is considered a key factor in the management of growth in the Lehigh Valley. Approximately 70% of all approved building lots during the 1981 to 1990 period were served by public sewers.

Building new sewage collection and treatment facilities involves substantial planning, engineering and construction costs. Most Federal funding was eliminated by the Water Quality Act of 1987. The Pennsylvania General Assembly passed PENNVEST's financing package for clean water projects on February 24, 1988. It provides low interest loans and grant assistance to local communities for financing sewerage and water projects.

Projects are prioritized for funding by the PENNVEST Board based on health, safety, environmental and economic development factors. The PENNVEST loan program reflects financial need by using a formula to generate a set interest rate for each applicant within the range of 1% to 6%. Even with PENNVEST, sewage projects are currently funded predominantly with local funds. Within the two counties, Catasauqua Borough (water), Lower Saucon Township (sewer) and Northampton Borough (sewer) have had projects funded through the program.

There are currently 13 municipal and 25 private non-industrial sewage treatment facilities in the two-county region (see Map 12). Since 1987, nine of the region's 13 public facilities were expanded or had their treatment process improved. Currently, the Bethlehem sewage treatment facility is the municipal facility with the most immediate need for additional treatment capacity. However, many municipalities within the two counties need to examine their sewage treatment needs, particularly the need for future allocation. Addressing these needs requires a revised Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan. Based on 1989 information, 40 of the 62 municipal Act 537 plans in the region are at least 10 years old and 15 municipalities had three years or less of available treatment capacity or allocation. Act 537 requires municipalities to review their official plans at 5-year intervals and revise, as necessary.

- Goal

To provide environmentally sound sewage disposal for all persons.

Policies

Tested primary and replacement absorption areas should be required for each lot proposed for on-site sewage disposal.

53

I

I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I I . I

a 0 Maintain an adequate up-to-date Official

Sewage Plan consistent with Act 537 - the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act of 1966.

0 Areas with malfunctioning on-lot sewage disposal systems should be provided with adequate sewage disposal. These areas should be subjected to a detailed problem assessment and solution analysis that identifies the most cost-effective long-term option for solving the verified problems. Alternatives such as rehabilitating existing on-lot systems or building systems to serve small clusters of homes should be considered first.

Implementation Strateoies

The JPC will prepare an update to the 1979 Sewage Facilities Plan.

JPC staff will research policies of other Pennsylvania counties regarding sewage facilities. JPC staff will evaluate possible additional sewage disposal policy areas (e.g. individual home treatment systems, preferred choices between available disposal techniques).

JPC staff will consider preparation of brochures concerning on-site sewage system maintenance and other sewage disposal issues. JPC staff will evaluate holding seminars for realtors, developers, municipalities and others regarding sewage facilities planning.

DER and municipalities should require a primary and replacement tested absorption area for lots proposed for on-lot sewage disposal.

Municipalities should monitor the performance of all sewage disposal facilities within their borders and take corrective measures, as appropriate.

The JPC will support the sewage facilities policies through MPC, Act 537 and other project reviews.

Municipalities should update their Act 537 Official Plans, as prescribed by law. Municipal Official Sewage Plans should clearly specify the method(s1 of sewage disposal proposed throughout the municipality and an implementation schedule for any proposed municipal actions. Municipalities with areas using on-site sewage disposal should maintain an educational program for users of on-site sewage systems. Municipalities should implement measures to ensure the proper long-term operation and maintenance of all sewage disposal systems within their borders (e.9. adoption of ordinance provisions to maintain on-lot sewage disposal systems). Municipal plans should be coordinated with the sewage disposal plansheeds of adjacent municipalities.

- Goal

To coordinate economical, efficient sewage disposal with existing and future development.

Policies

Urban development should locate in areas where the public sewer system can accept additional growth, either a t present or through limited expansion and upgrading. consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for urban development.

Urban development should be discouraged in areas where it can only be served by on- site sewage disposal systems or new central sewage facilities. Existing excess capacity in central sewage treatment plants may be used for development.

Public system treatment plant expansions and relief interceptors should be constructed to accommodate new development that occurs consistent with this Comprehensive Plan. The timing and sizing of these facilities should be consistent with the sewage flow projections included in the JPC Sewer and Water Plan.

55

In areas where the Comprehensive Plan recommends urban development, but where public sewers are not yet available, lot sizes smaller than one acre served by on-site sewage disposal should be allowed if the project is consistent with the municipal Act 537 Plan and if a viable financing commitment exists. A tested primary absorption area should be provided for each lot and a capped sewer system should be installed. The capped sewer system should be connected to the public system when available.

Rural development should be served by on- lot sewage disposal facilities except where local zoning allows "clustering" to preserve open space or farmland using central sewage disposal facilities. Central sewage treatment and disposal may also be acceptable for recreational, institutional or other public uses that by necessity require a rural location.

In areas recommended for urban development, interim central sewage facilities should be allowed if properly installed and maintained, and if the development can be connected to public sewers within five years.

Development that creates non-domestic waste to be discharged to public sewage systems should generate waste that is compatible with the municipal treatment plant process. Compatibility should be ensured by conducting a rigorous waste analysis and providing pretreatment as necessary.

If, after an evaluation of alternatives, it is determined that a conventional sewage system is the best solution to an existing sewage disposal problem, then the capacity of the new system should be determined as follows:

- If the provision of sewers means the area would be recommended for urban deve lopmen t i n t h e Comprehensive Plan, the system should be designed to serve additional

urban development areas supported by an updated Comprehensive Plan analysis.

- I f t he area would not be recommended for development in the Comprehensive Plan, even with sewers, the system should be designed to serve only the existing development.


The JPC will 'prepare an update to the 1979 Sewage Facilities Plan.

Municipalities should maintain an up-to- date Official Sewage Plan consistent with Act 537 - the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act of 1966. Municipal Official Sewage Plans should be compatible with the municipal Comprehensive Plan, should clearly specify the methodls) of sewage disposal proposed throughout the municipality and should specify an implementation schedule for any proposed municipal actions. Municipalities with areas using on-site sewage disposal should maintain an educational program for users of on-site sewage systems. Municipalities should implement measures to ensure the proper long-term operation and maintenance of all sewage disposal systems within their borders. Municipal plans should be coordinated with the sewage disposal plansheeds of adjacent municipalities.

JPC staff will investigate possibilities for municipal adoption of the JPC Sewage Facilities Plan and reimbursement through Act 537 Program,

The Pa. Department of Environmental Resources and municipalities should disapprove applications for new or expanded central sewage facilities to serve urban land uses in areas not recommended for urban development.

The JPC will support the sewage facilities policies through MPC, Act 537 and other project reviews.

56

I 1 I U 1 I 1 I I I I

I I I 1 I I 8

a

WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES

The JPC has a long range water supply plan. The latest and most complete version of this Plan was prepared in 1979. It contains the detailed water policies that are the basis of JPC project reviews. The primary purpose of the plan is to guide water supply decisions for the region. The availability of public water has been a factor influencing the location of urban development within the two counties. During the 1980s approximately 70% of all approved building lots were served by public water.

The JPC Water SUDD~V and Sewaae Facilities Plan 1992 SUDD lement documents 21 public water systems in the two counties with their own source(s1 of supply. Two private companies, Blue Mountain Consolidated and Penn-American are much larger than the other private systems and serve several municipalities. Many of these suppliers serve multiple municipalities (see Map 13 for Existing Water Service).

Providing service to existing and future customers in an adequate and cost-effective way often requires agreements between municipalities. The agreements may be for routine water service or may include provisions to deal with emergencies caused by drought or po l lu t ion . M o s t ad jacent wa te r systems/municipalities have water supply agreements to govern service areas, allocations and emergencies. However, several situations still exist where there are no agreements or inadequate existing agreements. A number of communities will need better agreements to meet future water needs.

The JPC compiled data on privately-owned water companies in the Water SUDDIV and Sewaae Facilities Plan 1992 Sumlement. There are 32 privately-owned water systems serving subdivisions, institutions, etc. and 40 privately-owned water systems serving mobile home parks. These systems are quite fragmented. Adding them to a regional system is often difficult, expensive and at public cost.

Coordination of community water system development with comprehensive land use planning is essential for assuring long-term,

reliable water supplies. Water demand projections for community water systems help identify needed improvements to source yield, filtration capacity and treated storage volume. Based on 1979 system data, 13 of the 26 major water suppliers required at least one of these improvements. Water supply sources and land use also need to be matched to prevent pollution of supplies. Water supply pollution experienced by Cherryville in Lehigh Township, Whitehall Township Authority, Emmaus Borough Authority, Lehigh County Authority and Catasauqua Borough attest to the critical link between land use and water supply. Loss of supply at the Spring Lake Village water company in East Allen Township emphasizes the need to develop measures to assure adequate long-term management of central water facilities.

Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1974 with the goal to provide safe drinking water to all persons served by community water suppliers. In 1986, Congress amended the SDWA to increase the number of pollutants covered and to mandate the filtration of surface water sources. The amendments also mandated state wellhead protection programs to protect water supply sources. The State Department of Environmental Resources (DER) enforces the community water supplier requirements of the SDWA.

The cost for providing water will increase with the enforcement of the SDWA amendments. Large community water systems, through economies of scale and diverse customer bases, should have less trouble meeting the new standards. However, the new pollutant regulation could have serious impact on small water systems. Many small water system owners do not have the knowledge or money to meet the new requirements. The result could be many existing small water systems being abandoned if not obtained by capable suppliers. Within Lehigh and Northampton counties, 73 private water systems and eight public systems fall into the small water system group. A means for preserving existing small systems and assuring the formation of viable new systems needs to be established regionally and statewide.

57

I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I

Preservation of water resources is a major priority of the regional water supply plan. Pollution and/or waste of potable water are problems facing many municipalities. Based on 1982 data, 40% of the community water suppliers in the two counties had at least 20% of their water pumped unaccounted for due to leakage and non-metering. In the Lehigh Valley, water of adequate quality is usually available to meet current demands. However, this abundant supply could be wasted or destroyed without careful county and local planning. Municipalities need to develop contingency plans, establish emergency interconnections with other systems and develop water source protection programs to assure a safe, reliable supply.

The JPC conducted a major wellhead protection project in 1991 A 9 9 2 and participated in a joint project with Lehigh County Authority (LCA) and Upper Macungie Township in 1990/1991. The latter project involved drafting municipal ordinance provisions for protecting community water supply wells within the township based on technical criteria developed by LCA. The JPC Wellhead Protection Demonstration Proiect, December 1992, provided an evaluation of the protection of community water supply groundwater sources for the two county region. A major goal of the project was to develop a regional blueprint for wellhead protection to promote consistency between future efforts conducted by local municipalities and water suppliers. A system was developed for the project to prepare regional assessments of pollution vulnerability based on natural features. An updated ordinance was created to identify standards for water source protection tied to the defined wellhead protection areas. With siting restrictions for certain contaminant activities as the exception, the goal of the ordinance is to reinforce existing Federal and State regulation of contaminant activities rather than create extensive new local requirements. Contaminant activities covered by the ordinance include industrial/commerciaI land uses, sewage disposal, agricultural activities, waste disposal facilities, storage tanks, injection wells, sewage sludge land application, sinkholes and stormwater quality. The report also documents non-ordinance initiatives (e.9.

groundwater monitoring, education) for municipalities and water suppliers to supplement the ordinance provisions.

- Goal

70 provide a safe, reliable water supply for all persons.

Policies

0 The quality of existing ground and surface water should be protected. Discharges into surface waters from municipal and private treatment plants, industrial users and agriculture should meet existing water quality regulations. Discharge of contaminants to groundwater should be minimized through enforcement of Federal and State regulations. Local regulations should protect critical recharge areas surrounding groundwater supplies through land use controls. Additional local initiatives should supplement the land use controls to enhance groundwater source protection. Groundwater recharge should be encouraged to preserve the groundwater resource.

Areas experiencing problems with existing on-site or central water supply should be provided with adequate water service. The existing community water supply should be extended to serve these areas if it is determined to be the most cost- effective solution to the problem. Problems include contaminated water supply or inadequate water quantity and should be well documented. New or upgraded central water supply facilities should be provided if extension of the existing community water supply is not feasible.

Central water facilities should be designed, constructed, and managed to provide long- term adequate water supply.

0 Existing central water systems should be operated and managed in accord with DER public water system standards. Improvements necessary to meet these standards should be implemented by the

59

central water suppliers. "Improvements" include physical facilities, operation and management improvements whether accomplished by the existing owner or through ownership transfer. Decisions regarding ownership transfer should be made based upon meeting the above performance standard independent of ownership type (public versus private).


The JPC will prepare an update to the JPC Water Supply Plan.

JPC staff will research policies of other Pennsylvania counties regarding water supply facilities and evaluate possible additional policy areas regarding interbasin transfer of water and individual well permitting.

JPC staff will evaluate possibilities for preparation of water supply brochures for general bi-county distribution 1e.g. water conservation, individual well water quality testing, groundwater source protection).

Wate r supp l i e rs s h o u l d make improvements to their water systems to meet the requirements of the current Federal and State Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

Municipalities and water suppliers should implement water conservation programs for both the system and individual users.

Municipalities should adopt performance standards for the design, construction, location and maintenance of individual water supply wells.

Municipalities and water suppliers should implement water source protection programs. Key elements should include:

- delineation of critical recharge areas surrounding groundwater sources;

- adoption and enforcement of ordinance provisions to ensure compatibility of land use with

- Goal

groundwater protection within delineated critical recharge areas;

- groundwater quality monitoring surrounding water supply sources;

- inventory of contaminant activities surrounding groundwater supply sources;

- coordination with EPA and DER regarding enforcement of permitting, registration or emergency planning requirements for contaminant activities;

- creation of agreements with the county conservation districts for routine inspection of agricultural conservation plans and land d e v e l o p m e n t e r o s i o n a n d sedimentation plans within delineated critical recharge areas.

County conservation districts should requi re combined eros ion and sedimentation, nutrient and pesticide management components in agricultural conservation plans within delineated critical recharge areas.

Water suppliers should provide contingency plans to ensure adequate water supply during drought or pollution emergencies. Such contingency plans should include varied sources of supply, interconnections between systems, emergency water transfer agreements and water conservation provisions.

The JPC will support the water supply facilities policies through MPC, Act 537, DRBC, PUC and other project reviews.

To coordinate economical, efficient water service with existing and future development.

Policies

0 Urban development should locate where the existing community water system can accept additional growth, either a t present or through limited expansion and upgrading, in areas where the

60

I 1 1 I I I I c I 1 I 1 1 8 I I I I I

Comprehensive Plan recommends urban development.

Urban development, regardless of water supply type, should be discouraged in areas not recommended for urban development in the Comprehensive Plan.

In areas where on-site sewage disposal systems will be used for more than five years, the availability of a central water system should not be used as a basis for permitting urban development.

A safe and reliable community water supply should be available in areas designated by this Plan for urban development. Safe, reliable service includes providing for current demands with adequate reserve and pressure for fire flow. Community water supplies should also provide for future demands through, a t minimum, the year 201 0.

Community water supply sources, treated storage and filtration plant capacities should be expanded to accommodate new development that occurs consistent with this Comprehensive Plan. The timing and sizing of these facilities should be consistent with the water demand forecasts included in the JPC Sewer and Water Plan.

Provision of water supply should be accomplished as efficiently and economically as possible. Maximum use should be made of the existing community water systems to more efficiently use present investments and minimize future investments in water supply facilities. Areas recommended f o r urban development in the Comprehensive Plan should be served with water by an existing community water system. Should service be available from multiple community water systems, service should be provided in the most cost-effective manner which also avoids duplication of service.

Solutions to existing water supply problems located i n areas no t recommended for develoDment in this

Comprehensive Plan should not be designed to accommodate substantial new urban growth.

0 In areas recommended for urban development, interim central water facilities should be allowed only if designed, at minimum, to meet DER public water system standards, if properly installed and maintained, if the development is connected to the existing community water system when available and if the expected need for centralized facilities is no longer than five years.

lmctlementation Strateaies

The JPC will prepare an update to the Water Supply Plan.

JPC staff will research other Pennsylvania county policies regarding water supply facilities and evaluate possible additional water policy areas.

JPC staff will investigate possibilities for municipal adoption of JPC Water Supply Plan or otherwise encourage municipalities to adopt a water supply plan as part of the municipal Comprehensive Plan.

Municipalities and water suppliers should prepare or update water supply agreements with adjacent municipalities to provide service consistent with the urban development recommendations of this Plan.

JPC staff will research anticipated future relationship between urban development and water supply considering Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act that require additional contaminant removal from drinking water.

The JPC will update the Privatelv-Owned Water SUDD~Y Svstems report and the ProDosed Ordinance for Centralized Water Svstems.

Municipalities should adopt ordinance provisions to regulate new private central water facilities.

61

The DER and municipalities should not approve applications for new or expanded centralized water facilities to serve urban land uses in areas not recommended for urban development in this Plan.

The JPC will support the water supply facilities policies through MPC, Act 537, DRBC, PUC and other project reviews.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Within Pennsylvania, stormwater management decisions are made by developers and municipalities through the subdivision and land development process. The weakness of this approach is that stormwater runoff rarely conforms to municipal boundaries. Adequate planning cannot be done on a parcel-by-parcel, mun ic ipa l i t y -by -mun ic ipa l i t y bas is . Compounding the problem has been that stormwater law was a patchwork of court decisions based upon two conflicting legal doctrines. The civil law doctrine typically protected downstream landowners from uncontrolled upstream development. The common enemy doctrine typically supported the rights of upland owners to modify drainage patterns and placed an obligation on downstream landowners to protect themselves. These distinctions have been blurred through the courts with numerous exceptions to the typical interpretations. Lack of a clear legal guidance and sufficient hydrologic information have hampered the ability of municipalities to make sound stormwater management decisions.

In 1978, the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed the Stormwater Management Act, Act 167 of 1978, which clarified both the technical and legal elements of stormwater management decisions. Act 167 requires counties to prepare stormwater management plans on a watershed-by-watershed basis. The plans must be developed in consultation with the affected municipalities. Standards for control of runoff from new development are a required component of each plan and are based on a detailed hydrologic assessment. A key objective of each plan is to coordinate the stormwater management decisions of the

watershed municipalities. Implementation of each plan is through mandatory municipal adoption of ordinance provisions consistent with the plan.

Within Lehigh and Northampton counties, the Joint Planning Commission prepares plans on behalf of both counties. The State has designated sixteen watersheds for study within the region. DER staff has taken two of those watersheds - direct drainage areas of the Lehigh River and Delaware River - and incorporated them into adjacent watersheds. Therefore, fourteen watersheds require Act 167 studies. Map 14 displays the status of Act 167 planning in the Lehigh Valley in 1992.

All of the JPC stormwater planning to-date has dealt solely with runoff quantity and does not deal with runoff quality implications. New regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency became effective December 17, 1990. They require many municipalities and industries to obtain water quality permits for stormwater discharges. Municipalities with populations greater than 100,000 (e.g. Allentown) need to obtain permits for all stormwater discharges. Municipal facilities such as maintenance garages, sewage treatment plants (greater than 1 MGD) and landfills are classified as industrial and require permits regardless of municipal population. The compliance schedule varies by discharge category, but by May 1993 all regulated activities are to be governed by a comprehensive control program. The stormwater permitting regulations may have significant impacts on the Act 167 Stormwater Planning Program. The two are not directly related through regulation, but the Act 167 process presents an opportunity to integrate them locally.

Plans prepared under the Stormwater Management Act will not resolve all drainage issues. A key goal of the planning process is to maintain existing peak runoff rates throughout a watershed as land development continues to take place. This process does not solve existing flooding problems although it should prevent these problems from getting worse. Correction of existing flooding problems is the responsibility of the municipalities.

62

Goal

To manage the rate, volume and quality of storm runoff for protection of public safety and wMare, property and the envihnment.

Policies

New development should be designed with respect for natural drainage patterns to avoid future storm drainage problems.

To assure preservation of adequate areas for carrying storm runoff, structures should not be developed in natural swales identified in the JPC report entitled Reaional Storm Drainaae Plan (1 975).

Open channels may be constructed where a natural swale, as identified in the R I , inhibits reasonable use of a property. Open channels should follow the course and grade of the existing swale and should be designed to minimize erosion.

In watersheds governed by an approved stormwater management plan under Act 167 of 1978, stormwater controls should be provided to meet the performance standards specified in the plan. Stormwater detention should not be used in the specified Provisional No Detention areas of these watersheds so long as public safety and welfare are protected.

In watersheds not governed by an approved stormwater management plan, the municipality, in consultation with the municipal engineer, should determine the appropriateness of stormwater detention for new development.

0 Lehigh and Northampton counties should continue their commitment to preparation of stormwater management plans under Act 167 of 1978.

0 Municipalities should implement the provisions of approved stormwater management plans through timely

adoption of ordinances and diligent enforcement of runoff control criteria.

Municipalities should prepare engineering studies and develop capital improvement programs to solve their existing drainage problems as identified in the stormwater management plans and the regional storm drainage plan.

JPC staff will research the EPA stormwater permitting regulations to identify impacts on the Act 167 process.

JPC staff will compile an inventory of facilities regulated under the EPA stormwater permitting process.

JPC staff will investigate the need for incorporating runoff quality considerations (non-storm sewer) into the Act 167 process through new plans or updates to existing plans.

JPC staff will conduct detailed reviews of the storm drainage component of subdivisions and land developments for consistency with adopted stormwater management plans. JPC staff will monitor the compliance of subdivisions and land developments w i t h s tormwater management plan requirements and report periodically to the JPC.

JPC staff will evaluate the need for training seminars for engineers (municipal and private) regarding proper application of the performance standards contained in adopted stormwater management plans and make recommendations to the JPC based on s taf f ing and budget considerations.

The JPC will evaluate the feasibility of creat ing a regional stormwater infrastructure plan that will provide solutions to existing flooding problems.

SOLID WASTE

A solid waste disposal crisis occurred in many parts of Pennsylvania in the late 1980s.

64

Substandard landfills closed. Fierce public opposition and a strengthened permitting process made the siting of new facilities difficult. Disposal costs doubled and tripled. A t times, it was hard to find any facility to accept wastes. In response to this situation, a new solid waste management law was passed. The Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling and Waste Reduction Act of 1988 (Act 101 grants powers and duties to counties and municipalities relating to solid waste management. Counties are responsible for the preparation and implementation of a municipal waste management plan. The plan must contractually assure the existence of waste disposal capacity for a ten-year period. Municipalities may opt out of a county plan i f they have their own plan. Municipalities with a population greater than 5,000 and a population density of 300 or more persons per square mile are required to have a curbside collection recycling program.

Lehigh and Northampton counties have each prepared a solid waste plan to meet the Act 101 requirements. The county plans do not cover the City of Bethlehem. The City opted out of the county plans by preparing and adopting its own plan. These plans have been approved by DER. The Northampton County Municipal Waste Management Plan directs municipal waste to the Grand Central Sanitary Landfill and the Chrin Brothers Sanitary Landfill. The Lehigh County Solid Waste Management Plan directs municipal waste to the Chrin Brothers Sanitary Landfill, the Lehigh Valley Recycling Transfer Station (and then to the Keystone Sanitary Landfill in Dunmore, PA), and to the Christman Sanitation Transfer Station (and then to the Community Refuse Limited Landfill in Franklin County, PA). Bethlehem's Municipal Solid Waste Plan directs its municipal waste to the City's own sanitary landfill. Each of the three solid waste plans seeks to reduce the amount of solid waste needing disposal by promoting recycling. Recycling programs are part of each of these plans. The plans assure disposal capacity for a ten-year period.

The Act 101 plans do not cover residual (industrial) wastes. The companies producing the waste are responsible for their disposal.

Some companies like Bethlehem Steel have an on-site residual waste landfill. Other companies dispose of their waste a t municipal waste landfills. Specific DER approval is required for residual waste disposal a t municipal waste landfills.

Improperly managed solid waste facilities can create numerous problems such as: ground water pollution, surface water pollution, air pollution, odors, noise, off-site litter, disease and vectors. DER is charged with enforcing rules and regulations to prevent these problems. The rules and regulations cover the design and operation of solid waste facilities through a permit process. The permit process allows the host municipality and the host county to review and comment on the permit applications. Lehigh and Northampton counties have designated the JPC to handle host county reviews. However, the JPC is neither staffed nor funded to do technical reviews of solid waste issues. Local governments retain a degree of control over facility siting standards.

Disposal of sewage sludge is also regulated by the DER solid waste requirements. Land disposal, land reclamation and agricultural utilization of sewage sludge are the three available options for disposal. Agricultural utilization differs from the other disposal types in that the amount of sludge disposed is limited by crop and soil capabilities. The JPC performs a review of sludge disposal applications on behalf of the counties. The JPC review function is to identify any relevant Comprehensive Plan issues and to coordinate the review by the county conservation district. Technical review to determine compliance with state regulations is the responsibiity of DER. Local regulations also retain a degree of control over the siting of sludge disposal activities.

- Goal

To assure environmentally responsible and economical waste disposal. .

Policies

0 Solid waste disposal should be in accord with the Northampton County Municipal Waste Plan or the Lehigh County Solid

65

I


The counties should assure adequate waste disposal through timely updates to the solid waste plans.

The JPC will review solid waste facility permit applications solely against the plans and policies of this Comprehensive Plan, not against technical criteria or other considerations.

The DER should administer the solid waste permit process in a fair and timely fashion, and conduct an aggressive inspection and enforcement program.

The JPC will coordinate the county level review of sewage sludge disposal applications with the county conservation ~

Waste Management Plan. (These plans, as updated, are incorporated by reference in this Comprehensive Plan.)

RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE

Residents of . the Lehigh Valley have grown accustomed to high quality local and county parks. Allentown, Bethlehem and a number of smaller municipalities have long been committed to parks. Lehigh and Northampton counties started major county-wide programs in the late 1960s in response to recommendations

I

66

made by the JPC. The counties and the JPC have been actively involved in park planning, acquisition and development ever since. The park and open space goals presented here are based on a JPC document entitled Reaional Recreation and Open %ace Plan and detailed plans prepared for each county. These proposals are summarized on Map 15.

The amount of land in parks and other recreation in the Lehigh Valley has increased substantially since the JPC completed the first recreation and open space plan for the Lehigh Valley. Between 1970 and 1990, outdoor recreation acreage in the two counties increased by 10,367 acres, or about 51 %. The greatest increase was in Northampton County - 73.2%. The increase in Lehigh County was about 35%. The amount of parkland owned by the two counties increased by 1,914 acres, or 130%, during the 20-year period. Municipal parkland grew 1,814 acres, or 50%, between 1970 and 1990. The remaining increase in acreage was largely due to acquisition by the Wildlands Conservancy and the State and the Federal government. Most of the recommendations of the 1971 Recreation and Open Space Plan have been fulfilled.

One measure of a region's park and open space system is the acres per 1,000 population standard. The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) suggests that a core park system should have 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed open space per 1,000 population. This is local, close-to-home space that includes mini-parks, neighborhood. parks and playgrounds, and community parks. In addition, the NRPA recommends there be another 15 to 20 acres per 1,000 population in r e g i o n a l s p a c e w h i c h i n c l u d e s regionallmetropolitan parks and regional park reserves.

Table 5 gives projected 201 0 acreage needs for local, close-to-home space and regional space. In the aggregate, both counties have enough local, close-to-home space to meet minimum NRPA guidelines for the next 20 years. Both counties had 7.4 acres per 1,000 persons in 1990. If the top of the NRPA guideline is used, the region will need another 2,522 acres of local, close-to-home space by the year 201 0.

TABLE 5 PROJECTED PARK AND OPEN SPACE ACREAGE NEEDS - 201 0"'

Existing Projected Additional Acreage Need Acres Needed

REGION 1990 2010 by 2010

Local, Close-to-Home Space 3,974 3,722 none'21

Regional Space 4,217 8,925 4,708

LEHIGH COUNTY

Local, Close-to-Home Space 2,149 1,953 noneU1


NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

Local, Close-to-Home Space 1,825 1,769 nonet2'


'"Acreage needs are measured by the National Recreation and Park Association suggested minimum guideline of 6.25 acredl ,000 persons for local, close-to-home space and 15.0 acredl ,000 persons for regional space.

"'There is enough acreage to meet the NRPA suggested minimum guideline in the aggregate. However, not every municipality meets the minimum guideline of 6.25 acredl ,000 residents. There are some municipalities that have no local, close-to-home space.

In 1990 the two-county area had 4,2 17 acres 0

in regional parks. Table 5 shows that both counties were below the NRPA minimum suggested guideline of 15 acres of regional space per 1,000 persons. The two-county area

by the year 2010 to meet the minimum NRPA suggested guideline.

- Goal

To provide and maintain adequate space and faci7ities to meet the recreation needs of Lehigh Valley residents.

Policies

0 The counties and municipalities should meet minimum National Recreation and Park Association suggested guidelines for park space and recreation facilities.

will need another 4,708 acres of regional parks 0

0

0

Current recreation activity trends and local demographics should be used when planning for new recreation facilities and programs.

The counties should acquire the following types of parks: large community parks, regional parks, regional park reserves, linear parks and conservancy areas.

Avoid parkland acquisitions that are inaccessible, limited in use potential, or are tied up with legal restrictions or informal understandings with former or neighboring property owners on use of the land.

Municipalities should be responsible for providing mini-parks, neighborhood parks and playgrounds, and community parks.

68

I I I I

I I I I I 1 I I R I I I I 1

n

0 High priority should be given to acquiring parkland and open space along rivers and major streams.

The needs of the handicapped should be considered in any recreation and open space planning.

0 Recreation facilities at schools should be available to the public whenever possible.

0 Quasi-public organizations and the private sector should provide special use recreation facilities such as golf courses, camp grounds and ski areas.

0 Lehigh and Northampton counties should follow the recommendations of the park plans the JPC prepared for each county. They should be updated every four years.

0 The JPC should cooperate wi th government agencies and other organizations to improve recreation opportunities in the two-county area.

- Goal

To preserve open space and important natural areas.

Policies lmdementation Strateaies

Municipalities should prepare and implement park and recreation plans.

Municipalities should require the dedication of land or money for parks as a condition for subdivision or land development approval as provided in the PA Municipalities Planning Code.

The counties and municipalities should cooperate in acquiring, developing and maintaining parks and other outdoor recreation facilities.

The counties and municipalities should encourage private sector participation in the acquisition and development of park and recreation areas.

The counties and municipalities should commit the financial resources and efforts needed to maintain existing recreation facilities.

The counties and municipalities should take advantage of any grant programs for park acquisition, development or maintenance.

The JPC Regional Recreation and Open Space Plan should be updated.

JPC staff should maintain and update the inventory of parks and other outdoor recreation facilities that was done in 1989.

Important natural areas should be preserved as part of parks and open space areas whenever possible.

Public and private partnerships should be used whenever possible to preserve open space and important natural areas.

0 Promote the preservation and creation of open space and cultural features in the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal National Heritage Corridor and the Delaware River Greenway.

lmalementation Stratesies

Lands shown as potential open space acquisition areas in the JPC report South Mountain and the county park plans should be acquired by the counties, municipalities or Wildlands Conservancy.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission should continue to add land to the State Game Lands along the Blue Mountain.

Support conservation groups such as The Wildlands Conservancy in their efforts to acquire open space and important natural areas if the efforts are consistent with other policies of this plan.

The two counties should fund a regionwide Natural Areas Inventory to be undertaken by The Nature Conservancy.

69

0 The JPC should work with the various government agencies and other organizations that are interested in preserving open space and important natural areas.

COUNTY FACl LIT1 ES

Lehiah Countv

Administrative Facifities

Lehigh County's administrative, human services and judicial functions are carried out at twelve locations. All of the County-owned and leased space is in Allentown, excepting the offices at the Agricultural Center in South Whitehall Township. A space study performed by Wallace & Watson Associates in 1989 projected the future needs for office space. In 1994, 186,070 square feet of space will be needed. By 2000, 201,035 square feet will be needed. The current space falls short of the needs in both years 1994 and 2000. The Lehigh County Administration is considering options for best meeting the needs.

Cedarbrook

Lehigh County provides three levels of nursing care at Cedarbrook and at the Fountain Hill Annex. Located in South Whitehall Township, Cedarbrook has 624 beds. The Fountain Hill Annex, in Fountain Hill, has 197 beds. The two facilities total 821 beds. Both facilities offer skilled, heavy intermediate, and intermediate care. An expansion project for Cedarbrook is planned, subject to the availability of Federal or state financing. The new wing would allow the reconfiguration of 56 beds currently in a ward arrangement to a semi-private arrangement. The wing would also include 60 beds of additional capacity.

Lehiqh Countv Museum

Besides the Haines Mill Museum, the Lockridge Furnace Museum and the Saylor Cement Museum, which were covered in the Recreation and Open Space Section of this plan, Lehigh

County has a fourth museum, the Lehigh County Museum. It is located in the Old Courthouse in Allentown. The Lehigh County Historical Society operates the museum on behalf of the County under a purchase of services agreement. Improvements at the museum are included in the County's Capital Improvements Program.

PrisonsKorrec tions

Lehigh County is completing a major expansion of its prisons/corrections facilities in response to the past capacity shortfalls. The present capacity of the facilities is 714 beds. The county prison in Allentown has 242 beds. The Salisbury Interim Corrections Facility on the former Bethlehem Fabricators property in Salisbury Township has 296 beds. The Women's Corrections Facility is in South Whitehall Township. It has 56 beds. Work release prisoners are housed at the Men's Community Corrections Center and the Women's Community Corrections Center.

The expansion of the county prison involves two phases. The first phase will provide 786 beds upon completion in 1992. The 1994 completion of the second phase will provide a total of 1,057 beds. Also in 1992, the Women's Correction Facility will be converted into an 18-bed Juvenile Detention Center. At this writing, the future use of the Salisbury Interim Corrections Facility, after the completion of the Phase 1 County Prison expansion, is undecided.

NorthamDton Countv

Administrative Facilities

Northampton County's administrative facilities are contained in the five county-owned buildings. The county courthouse makes up almost two-thirds of this space. Three other buildings in Easton also provide space. The only administrative space outside of Easton is at the Gracedale complex in Upper Nazareth Township.

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has prepared a space study which shows the

70

need for more space than is currently available. The largest need for more space will come from the court system. In response to this finding, the County has created a working committee which is exploring how the need for more space can be best met.

Gracedale

Northampton County provides health care by operating Gracedale. Three levels of nursing care are provided at the Upper Nazareth Township facility. There are 790 beds for skilled, heavy intermediate and intermediate care. There are no expansion plans.

Prison

Northampton County has also faced a need to expand the county prison, which is located in Easton. A three phase project is being used to upgrade the prison at its present location. The first phase was completed in 1984. The second phase was completed in 1987. The current capacity of the prison is 350 beds. The last phase of the expansion is currently underway. When it is completed in 1993, the prison will have a capacity of 600 beds.

- Goal

To provide adequate physical facilities for county services and employees.

Policies

0 County buildings and facilities should be upgraded and expanded to meet identified needs.

0 Adequate financing should be provided for capital improvements.

0 County buildings and facilities should be located in accord with the policies of this plan and in areas recommended for urban development in this plan, unless the facility requires a rural location.

Lehiah County Actions

0 Complete the expansion of the county prison.

Convert the Women's Correction Center to a Juvenile Detention Center.

Add a wing to Cedarbrook, subject to the availability of finances.

Develop and implement a plan to meet its administrative, human services and judicial space needs.

Develop a plan for the best use of the Salisbury Interim Corrections Facility.

Update the space studies as needed.

Continue to use the Capital Improvements Program process to plan for and provide o r d e r l y f i n a n c i n g f o r n e e d e d improvements.

Seek Federal and State funding to finance needed improvements.

NorthamDton Countv Actions

Complete the expansion of the county prison.

0 Develop and implement a plan to meet its administrative, human services and judicial space needs.

0 Update the space studies as needed.

Continue to use the capital improvements program to plan for and provide orderly financing for needed improvements.

0 Seek Federal and State funding to finance needed improvements.

Imdementation Strateaies

0 The JPC will review and comment on the Lehigh County Capital Improvements Program and the Northampton County Capital Improvements Program.

0 The JPC will assist the counties in planning for the facilities upon request.

The JPC will review land development plans for proposed county buildings and facilities, relative to the policies of this Plan. . - .. I

71

72

Sector

Commercial

Residential

Industrial

Transportation

TOTAL

ENERGY CONSERVATiON

Year

1960 1970 1980 1989

31 1.5 378.7 440.5 532.8

662.5 830.8 867.0 866.9

1,701.1 2,131.1 1,778.8 1,373.8

535.7 71 7.8 a i 7.7 81 6.3

3,210.8 4,058.4 3,899.0 3,589.8

Table 6 shows that Pennsylvania energy use peaked in 1970. Since that time energy use has dropped 11.5%. The decreasing energy needs of industry, which has accompanied the decline of manufacturing in the State, is responsible for the overall decline in energy use. Industrial energy use has declined by 35.5% since 1970. Direct use of coal by industry has declined correspondingly. Although industrial energy use no longer accounts for more than half of all energy use, it remains the single largest segment at 38%. The largest increase in energy use since 1970 has come with commercial use. This increase reflects the growth in commercial facilities. Residential energy use and transportation energy use have stayed stable in the last nine years while the number of houses and trips have increased. This trend can be attributed to greater energy efficiency and conservation.

Our lifestyle relies on the abundant availability of energy to heat our homes, power our businesses and fuel our vehicles. Several facts suggest that limiting energy use is prudent.

- Energy use can have negative environmental impacts from its initial extraction through the disposal of leftover wastes.

- Energy use is costly. The annual energy bill in the Lehigh Valley is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion. This cost largely benefits non-local economies that produce petroleum and coal.

The need to save energy should be considered with the knowledge that much energy is used inefficiently or wasted. Some causes of inefficient energy use are relevant to issues in this Plan:

- A low-density, dispersed development pattern which results in more trips and longer trips;

- Traffic congestion which results in non- productive fuel use during delays; and

- The dominance of detached buildings. Attached buildings require less heating energy per square foot than detached dwellings. The most energy efficient densities occupy a middle ground between

- The supply of fossil fuels, our primary high rises and low density development. energy source, is finite.

Source: State Energy Data Report: Energy Information Administration.

Other factors also weigh against efficient energy use. These factors include:

- The lack of knowledge about the availability of unbiased information regarding low-cost energy saving measures;

- The lack of commitment to energy conservation by governmental entities; and

- The non-enforcement of the provisions of Pen n s y I van i a' s E n erg y Conservation Act of 1980 for residential construction.

Bu i I d i n g

Fortunately, energy waste can be reduced. Cuts in energy use can be accomplished by numerous means which are both cost-effective and do not necessitate difficult lifestyle adjustments.

- Goal

To promote energy conservation and to minimize energy waste.

Policies

Promote a compact development pattern which allows fewer and shorter trips.

Support development densities as recommended in the Housing section of this Dlan.

Expand use of mass transit and ridesharing . Mixed use developments should be used to allow fewer and shorter trips.

Roadways marked by traffic congestion should be improved to reduce delays.

Development and building design should be sited and designed to maximize energy efficiency.

Inform the public about cost-effective ways of cutting energy waste and costs.

0 The use of cost-effective, safe and environmentally sound renewable energy resources, such as solar power, should be encouraged.

0 Energy conservation codes should be enforced for all building types.

0 The counties, school districts and local governments should implement energy use reduction programs to cut costs and increase energy efficiency.

Imdementation Straterries

In carrying out i ts planning review responsibilities, the JPC will promote compact development patterns, encourage mixed use developments where appropr iate and suppor t home occupations.

The JPC will advocate transportation policies that reduce reliance upon the single occupancy vehicle and reduce congestion.

The JPC will advocate development and building design consistent with the JPC report, "Energy Conservation Supplement to the Zoning Guide: Zoning Issues for Lehigh Valley Municipalities."

Subject to funding availability, the JPC will continue to operate the Pennsylvania Energy Center to inform the public about wise energy use and identify cost-effective ways of saving energy.

The JPC will advocate the adoption and implementation of building codes featuring energy conservation.

The JPC will encourage the enforcement of the Pennsylvania Building Energy Conservation Act of 1980 for residential buildings.

73

HISTORIC PRESERVA TION

Lehigh and Northampton counties have a wealth of historic buildings, structures, sites and districts that are found throughout the region. These resources increase our understanding and appreciation of our local heritage and improve the quality of life. Many significant historical features are of value to the local economy because they are tourist attractions.

Many projects now require an analysis of historic resources before they can proceed. Under state and federal law, it is the responsibility of state and federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on all historic and prehistoric sites, districts, buildings and structures eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The federal legal mandates include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Executive Order 11 593, and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. State legal mandates include the Environmental Rights Amendment, Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Const i tut ion, and the Pennsylvania Historic Preservation Act of 1978. Agencies must meet their responsibilities to identify all eligible resources that may be affected by their actions. Often this requires a survey to identify significant historic resources,

The presence of historic sites sets a greater burden on government actions than on private ones. If a site is on the National Register of Historic Places or is eligible for National Register listing, Federal and State agencies must show there is no feasible and prudent alternative to avoiding the feature before it can be eliminated. Private property owners do not have to comply with federal and state mandates regarding National Register properties.

Many important historic features are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. As of January 1992, the National Register list

included 40 listings in Lehigh County and 40 in Northampton County. These 80 listings include historic districts which, in turn, contain many important historic features. The list of properties on the National Register of Historic Places has more than doubled since 1970. Nevertheless, there are many other historic features in the Lehigh Valley that can qualify for National Register listing.

There have been a number of major efforts since 1970 to identify and survey the remaining historic resources in Lehigh and Northampton counties. Some communities prepared very good history studies for the 1 976 bicentennial celebration. Another important effort in the 1970s involved a major study of the Lehigh Canal by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service titled Lehiah Canal - an HCRS Proiect ReDort.

The Northampton County Historical and Genealogical Society is conducting a comprehensive historic resources survey of Northampton County. The goal of the survey is to inventory areas of the county that are outside the city of Bethlehem and the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal corridor. Surveys are underway in the townships of Hanover, Williams, Forks, Palmer, Washington and Lower Mt. Bethel, and in the borough of Bangor. In Lehigh County, the only communities in which comprehensive historic resource surveys have been done are Allentown, Catasauqua and Coopersburg.

The Joint Planning Commission published a report in 1963 titled Historv of the Lehiqh Vallev Reaion. The report dealt with important events and persons and not the identification of historic sites and structures. In 1970 the Commission completed a report titled Historic Structures and Sites. That document is part of a seven-report series for the regional recreation and open space plan. It contains an inventory of the most important historic structures,

74

The Lehigh Canal w a s built by Josiah White and Erskine Hazard in 1827-29 so canal boats could transport coal and timber from Mauch Chunk (Jim Thorpe) to markets in Lehigh and Northampton counties and Philadelphia. Today, the Lehigh Canal is an important historic feature that offers many recreation opportunities, This picture shows the " Josiah White," a muie-drawn canal boat that operates on a restored section of the Lehigh Canal in Hugh Moore Park, Easton.

Photo by William Curnow of The Express-Times

75

buildings and sites that had been identified as of 1970. The report also includes general policy recommendations and recommendations for specific historic buildings and structures. ' Most of the recommendations of the report have been accomplished, thanks to both public and private efforts.

The Joint Planning Commission believes that the preservation of historical resources is important. Historical preservation fulfills a variety of needs that range from a heightened awareness of our past to economic opportunities made possible by tourism. Continued efforts are needed to insure that our most important historic resources are preserved so they can be enjoyed by future generations of Lehigh Valley residents and visitors.

- Goal

To preserve the most important historic buildings, structures and sites in Lehigh and Northampton counties.

Policies

Historic buildings that have educational importance or value as tourist attractions should be given a high priority in restoration programs.

Restoration programs should evaluate a full range of possibilities from minimal efforts that stabilize ruins to full restoration projects.

0 Historic buildings that can be restored and used by the private sector should be given a high priority in restoration programs.

0 Park acquisitions should include important historical features whenever possible.

'Joint Planning Commission, Lehigh- Northampton Counties, Regional Recreation and Open Space Plan Report No. 3, Historic Sites and Structures (Lehigh Valley, PA, May 19701, pp. 87-92.

0 Historic sites should be marked and publicized so the maximum number of Lehigh Valley residents and tourists can enjoy them.

Highway projects and other public infrastructure improvements should avoid significant features that are listed, or are eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places, unless reasonable alternatives are not available.

Historic districts should be preserved by the municipal adoption of historic district regulations pursuant to Act 167.


All municipalities should conduct comprehensive historical resources surveys.

The counties should seek ways to fund the creation of a comprehensive listing of historic resources in the region.

The JPC will keep an updated list of properties that are on the National Register of Historic Places.

During its various reviews, the JPC will document if any proposed action may impact any National Register property or any other feature that has been deemed eligible for the National Register by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

As the opportunity arises, the JPC will inform the counties and municipalities of historic features that may be worthy of preserving.

76

STA TEMENT OF PLAN INTERRELA TIONSHIPS

Section 301 (4.1 1 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code requires that comprehensive plans include a discussion of the interrelationships among the various plan components. This directive is intended to insure that the components of the plan are integrated and do not present conflicting goals, policies or recommended actions. What follows is a summary of the plan interrelationships. The more detailed aspects of interrelationships are covered in other sections of the plan.

The revised Regional Comprehensive Plan for Lehigh and Northampton counties was prepared with this directive in mind. During the preparation of the plan, each draft element was reviewed by JPC staff and a seven-member committee of Commission members. JPC staff and committee members met on over forty occasions during the preparation of the revised regional comprehensive plan. The internal consistency of the various drafts was examined during the review process.

Examples of the major interrelationships among various plan components are the following:

Little or no development is recommended in natural resource protection areas such as floodplains, steep slopes and wetlands.

The policies for preserving open space and important natural areas relate directly to the natural resource protection goals and policies of the plan.

Areas recommended for farmland preservation do not overlap with areas recommended for urban growth.

The retention of farmland as an economic activity strengthens the farmland preservation policies of the plan.

Future water and sewer service expansions are recommended only for

areas where urban development should occur.

Commercial and industrial development is not recommended in rural areas unless it is to mainly serve the surrounding rural residents or unless it requires a rural location.

A variety of housing types and densities is recommended to promote housing choice, but not at the expense of natural resource protection areas or areas recommended for farmland preservation.

Higher density housing should occur only where adequate infrastructure is available or planned based on the recommendations of the plan.

Water, sewerage and h ighway improvements should be made concurrent with major housing, commercial or industrial development takes place.

Highway improvements are n o t recommended where they will encourage large scale development in agricultural or rural areas.

Major economic development should locate where it can be served by existing or proposed sewer and water systems and high ways.

A compact pattern of development is recommended to save energy and lessen potential air quality problems.

Major employment facil i t ies are encouraged to locate where LANTA bus service is available.

Energy conservation is promoted through compact development at higher densities which is recommended in the section on housing.

77

STA TEMENT REGARDING PLAN RELA TIONSHIP TO PLANS FOR ADJACENT COUNTIES AND LOCAL MUNJCJPALITJES

Section 301 (51 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code requires that the Comprehensive Plan consider the relationship of the existing and proposed development of the two counties to the existing and proposed development and plans in contiguous counties. The intent of this section is to satisfy that requirement of the planning code.

Lehigh and Northampton counties are bordered by the Pennsylvania counties of Bucks, Montgomery, Berks, Schuylkill, Carbon and Monroe, and Warren County, New Jersey. The existing comprehensive plan for each of these counties was reviewed. Planning activities in the adjacent counties were discussed with planners from each county.

The revised Comprehensive Plan for Lehigh and Northampton counties matches very well with the comprehensive plans for adjacent counties. The Blue Mountain provides a major physical barrier between Lehigh and Northampton counties, and the counties of Schuylkill, Carbon and Monroe. The mountain is recommended for open space or very low density development along its entire length from Berks County to the Delaware River.

In the 1991 Berks County Comprehensive Plan, the Berks-Lehigh County border is proposed for environmental protection, agricultural preservation or limited (large lot) development. This is consistent with the recommendations for the adjacent area in Lehigh County.

A portion of Montgomery County borders Lower Milford Township, Lehigh County. The most current comprehensive plan for Montgomery County was adopted in 1978. That plan shows the area adjacent to Lower Milford as recommended for rural and open space uses. The Montgomery County plan is compatible with the rural and agricultural uses recommended in this plan.

Bucks County has a comprehensive plan that was adopted in 1977. The Bucks County plan recommends that the area adjacent to Lehigh County be in agriculture or low density residential development. That proposal does not conflict with the recommendations of this plan even though parts of Upper Saucon Township that border Bucks County are recommended for urban development. Most of the area of Bucks County that is adjacent to Northampton County is recommended for agriculture or low density residential development. There is a small area near Springtown and another near Riegelsville where development is recommended. The area in Northampton County adjacent to Bucks County is recommended for rural development in this plan.

Warren County, New Jersey, is separated from Northampton County by the Delaware River. The river acts as a major physical barrier and lessens the potential conflict between incompatible land uses along the border. The 1979 Warren County Master Plan recommends five different future land use categories for the area along the Delaware River. The land across the river from the northern tip of Upper Mt. Bethel Township is Federal Open Space. Phillipsburg and the area immediately surrounding are classified as a town center. This is the most urban district and a variety of residential, commercial and industrial uses is recommended. Belvidere and Columbia are village centers where economic development activities and a variety of housing types are recommended. The small villages of Delaware and Brainards are classified as village clusters. Village clusters are historic places with some moderately dense residential development and a limited amount of commercial services. Only l im i ted addi t ional development i s recommended. The remainder of the area along the Delaware River is recommended for rural development. The overall residential density should not exceed one dwelling unit for

78

'every three acres and agriculture is encouraged.

Two groups that include persons from Pennsylvania and New Jersey are interested in the Delaware River. The Delaware River Greenway partnership was created in 1990 to assist in the protection of the natural, historic, scenic and recreational resources along the Delaware River and its tributaries from the Delaware Water Gap to the Delaware Estuary. Northampton and Warren counties are part of the Greenway. A mid-Delaware River Task Force was created in 1989 with the same mission as the Delaware River Greenway except the Task Force limited its involvement to the segment of the river from Easton to the Delaware Water Gap.

Another major bi-county planning effort involves the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal National Heritage Corridor. The corridor includes the counties of Bucks, Northampton, Lehigh, Carbon and Luzerne. The corridor is currently under study. The recommendations that come out of that study will be considered in future plans of the Joint Planning Commission.

Section 306 of the Municipalities Planning Code states that. during the preparation of a comprehensive plan, both the county and the municipality shall each give the plan of the other consideration. This is to insure that the objectives of each plan can be protected to the greatest extent possible. During the preparation of this plan, the JPC staff reviewed all existing local comprehensive plans. A composite zoning map also was prepared because zoning is the most important statement of local land use policy.

local comprehensive planning and zoning played a major role in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan for the two counties. A goal of this planning process was to try to use local land use policy as expressed through zoning whenever possible. The final recommended land use plan map is consistent with most municipal zoning. The Regional Comprehensive Plan only recommends agricultural preservation for areas that are zoned for agricultural. The major future

industrial areas recommended on the Land Use Plan Map are zoned industrial. Areas recommended for urban development match local zoning except in a few instances. However, there are differences between this plan and the local plans and zoning of some municipalities that should be noted.

This plan recommends farmland preservation in a number of townships. The areas recommended for farmland preservation are zoned for agriculture, but only four townships have strong agricultural zoning of the type recommended in this plan.

Some municipalities have zoning ordinances that lack provisions to protect environmentally sensitive areas such as steep slopes.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends development for several areas that need highway improvements, public water and sewerage or all three, yet none is being planned locally. An example of this is the Route 309 corridor in North Whitehall Towns hip.

Many municipalities have done a poor job of planning for needed transportation improvements.

There are a few areas where this plan recommends urban development and local zoning does not. One example is the area between Alburtis and Macungie south of the railroad. The Lower Macungie Township Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of three acres.

Some townships have industrial zones in areas that are recommended for rural development in this plan. Weisenberg and Upper Mt. Bethel and Lower Mt. Bethel, and Moore are a few examples of this difference.

Many suburban townships have zoning ordinances that do not allow the variety of housing types and densities that are recommended in this plan to promote more affordable housing.

79

SUffLEMENTAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES

There are a number of supplemental programs that are important to future planning in the Lehigh Valley. Following is a review of these programs .

(1 .) Lehiah Vallev TransDortation Study JLVTSL. Participation in a comprehensive process of transportation planning is mandated by the federal government in areas that exceed 200,000 population. The JPC has collaborated with PennDOT in this process since the early 1960s. JPC staff provides technical services to LVTS and serves as secretary of the local technical and coordinating committees. A transportation plan covering future highway and transit needs has been adopted. It is updated annually along with a detailed program that lists costs and construction schedules for transportation projects.

(2. Stormwater Manaaement Planninq lAct 1671. Stormwater management planning is mandated by the State. Under this act, counties are mandated to prepare stormwater management plans for watersheds within their boundaries. The Joint Planning Commission has prepared these plans in Lehigh and Northampton counties. After adoption by the county and approval by the Pa. Department of Envi ronmenta l Resources, loca l municipalities are required to enact ordinances that implement the plan.

(3.) Sewer and Water Planninq. The Joint Planning Commission has prepared and maintains a regional sewer and water plan since the late 1960s. A major update to this plan is scheduled for completion in 1994. The JPC is actively involved in the review of local sewer and water plans under the provisions of Pa. Act 537. The regional plan is used to advocate consistent policies at the local level. Sewer and water planning at the county

level is an activity that needs greater support from the state.

(4.) Park & ODen Soace Plan. The JPC has an extensive involvement in park and open space planning at the county and local level. County park and open space plans were first prepared in the late 1960s. The JPC has updated and maintained these plans ever since. Park and open space planning is supported by Lehigh and Northampton counties.

(5.) Land Use Planning. As noted earlier in this plan, Pennsylvania places most of the authority to control land uses in the hands of local townships, boroughs and cities. The counties are required to prepare comprehensive plans that include a land use element, but they are not empowered to regulate land uses except where local jurisdictions have not created their own local zoning and subdivision regulations.

In June 1992, the Pa. House Select Committee on Land Use and Growth Management issued a report on hearings, findings and recommendations made by the Committee from March 1991 to June 1992. During this period, the Committee heard testimony from land use experts from around the nation. Based on this testimony, the Committee issued 65 recommendations for the improvement of land use management a t all levels of government in Pennsylvania. The Joint Planning Commission intends to study and monitor recommendations of the Select Committee.

(6.) Economic DeveloDment. The Joint Planning Commission collaborates with Lehigh and Northampton counties in the preparation of economic development plans and other recommendations regarding the Lehigh Valley economy.

80

(7.) CaDital Improvements Proaramminq. Capital improvement programs are used to plan and prioritize funds for capital projects. The JPC staff annually reviews the Lehigh County capital program and the Lehigh County Authority capital program. This process helps to assume coordination with the recommendations in the comprehensive plan. In addition, the JPC has a major role in the Pennsylvania Twelve Year Transportation Program. This program is updated every two years. Transportation projects must be on the Twelve Year Program in order to receive state funding.

(8 . ) Water Source Protection Planning. The JPC is working with the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a regional plan for the protection of public wells from contamination. R.K.R. Hess Associates of East Stroudsburg is the geotechnical consultant for the project. Project data and mapping are being incorporated into a Geographic Information System (GIs)

available f r o m t h e consul tant . Recommendations from the project will be considered in the development of the updated regional water supply plan. Model local regulations for the protection of groundwater will be one product of this study.

Local Planninq. Since the early 1960s the JPC staff has written comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations for nearly two-thirds of the municipalities in the Lehigh Valley. The Commission continues to perform municipal planning services under contract with Lehigh Valley communities and school districts. In addition to comprehensive plans and land use regulations, the JPC staff is experienced in preparing transportation plans, park and open space studies, economic studies, sewer and water plans, demographic studies, resident attitude surveys, and reproducible base maps. The Commission has prepared many model planning regulations that have been used a t the local level.

81

APPENDICES

83

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY

ADDITIONAL FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE. This includes capability class II and Ill soils that do not qualify as prime farmland.

AGRICULTURAL SECURITY AREAS. Areas established pursuant to the Agricultural Area Security Act, which give special consideration to farmers who voluntarily participate in a local Agricultural Security Area or "District". An Agricultural Security Area is defined as a unit of 500 or more acres of land used for agricultural production. The parcels do not have to be adjacent to each other or in the same municipality. The Act prohibits local and State government from imposing laws and regulations which impede farm operations. Land in Agricultural Security Areas is eligible for preservation using funding from Act 149.

ALLUVIAL SOILS. Soils that have been deposited by flood waters.

ARTERIAL ROAD. A road serving a large volume of comparatively high-speed and long-distance traffic. The primary function of an arterial road is to provide for through-traffic movement, linking secondary roads with highways. The provision of access to abutting properties is a secondary function.

CARBONATE GEOLOGY. Limestone or dolomite rock formations formed by carbonate sedimentation in shallow sea waters.

CENTRAL WATER SYSTEM. A publicly or privately-owned system of piping, tanks, pumping facilities and treatment works for the treatment and distribution of drinking water serving two or more lots in a service area limited to specific lots, subdivisions or land developments.

CENTRAL SEWAGE SYSTEM. A publicly or privately-owned system of piping, tanks, pumping facilities and treatment works which provides for collection, conveyance and treatment of sewage or process wastewater serving two or more lots in a service area limited to specific lots, subdivisions or land developments.

COLLECTOR ROAD. A road which balances the functions of providing access to abutting properties and providing for through-traffic movement. Collector roads link local streets with the network of arterial roads and highways.

COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM. A system of piping, tanks, pumping facilities and treatment works which provides for treatment and distribution of drinking water serving a generalized service area and designed independently of specific land developments or subdivisions.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. A long-range plan intended to guide the growth and development of a community or region, prepared in accord with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. At a minimum the plan includes: 1) a statement of objectives regarding future development, 2) a land use plan, 31 a housing plan, 4) a plan for the movements of people and goods, 5 ) a community facilities and utilities plan, 6) a statement of the relationship of the plan to contiguous municipalities.

CONVENTIONAL SEWAGE SYSTEM. A public or central sewage system which involves flow in fixed- pipe collection and conveyance facilities with treated effluent discharge to surface waters.

84

ECONOMICALLY AND FINANCIALLY DEPRESSED COMMUNITY. A municipality which has reached its legal limit in levying real estate taxes for general purposes, and has as a result experienced a decrease in the level of municipal services or has been unable to meet its financial obligations. A municipality deemed to be economically and financially depressed by the Pa. Dept. of Community Affairs pursuant to the Municipalities Financial Recovery Act.

EFFECTIVE AGRICULTURAL ZONING. Zoning which prevents the extensive or widespread conversion of farmland to non-agriculturally oriented development including, but not limited to, housing, commercial, employment and institutional uses.

FLOODWAY. The watercourse channel and adjacent land areas in the 1 OO-year floodplain which must be reserved to carry the base flood without cumulatively increasing the base flood elevation more than a designated height. One foot is the maximum increase allowed by The National Flood Insurance Program.

FLOODWAY FRINGE. The part of the 100-year floodplain that lies outside of the floodway.

IMPORTANT WOODLANDS. Woodlands of unique scenic, historic, geologic or ecologic significance or large contiguous tracts of forest land in urban and suburban areas.

INDUSTRIAL WASTE. Any liquid, gaseous, radioactive, solid or other substance which is not sewage resulting from manufacturing or industry or other plant or works. The term shall include all such substances whether or not generally characterized as waste.

INFILL. The continued development of vacant or underutilized properties in urban or development districts that can be supported by existing infrastructure and which is compatible with adjacent intensive land uses.

INFRASTRUCTURE. The basic facilities, equipment, services and installations needed to support the growth and functioning of an urban area or developing community. Infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, roads, sanitary sewers and water supply systems.

LEHIGH VALLEY. An area composed of Lehigh and Northampton counties, Pennsylvania.

LOCAL/CLOSE-TO-HOME SPACE. Outdoor recreation areas including mini-parks, neighborhood parks/playgrounds, and community parks. Localklose-to-home space may include areas suited for intense recreation facilities such as game fields or passive recreation activities.

MAJOR INSTITUTIONS AND EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. Facilities designed to serve and draw from regional and interregional areas rather than close-by local areas.

MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS. Tailpipe exhaust from any motor vehicle commonly used for street or highway travel.

MUNICIPAL WASTE. Waste including garbage, refuse, industrial lunchroom or office waste and other material including solid, liquid, semi-solid or contained gaseous material resulting from operation of residential, municipal, commercial or institutional establishments, and from community activities and any sludge not defined as residual or hazardous waste from a municipal, commercial or institutional water supply treatment plant, wastewater treatment plant or air pollution control facility. The term does not include source-separated recyclable materials. Municipal waste does not include residue from a municipal waste incineration facility or infectious or chemotherapeutic waste.

85

ON-LOT SEWAGE SYSTEM. A system of piping, tanks or other facilities serving a single lot and collecting and disposing of sewage in whole or in part into the soil or into any waters of the Commonwealth or by means of non-fixed pipe conveyance to another site for final disposal.

OPEN SPACE. Any parcel or area of land or water essentially unimproved and set aside, dedicated, designated or reserved for the public or private use or enjoyment, or for the use and enjoyment of owners or occupants of land adjoining or neighboring such open space.

OPEN SPACE RATIO. A land use intensity measure derived by dividing the total amount of open space within a property by the total area. This ratio is applied as a standard for resource protection referring to the percentage of the existing resource base to remain undisturbed by development.

PARATRANSIT. interregional fixed-route transit service.

Any form of public transportation which is distinct from conventional urban or

POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS. Air pollution originating from stationary sources such as factories or power plants.

PRIME FARMLAND. Prime farmland is land best suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops, and also available for these uses (the land could be cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land or other land, but not built-up land or water). It has the soil quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops economically when treated and managed, including water management, according to modern farming methods.

PUBLIC SEWAGE SYSTEM. A system of publicly-owned piping, tanks, pumping facilities and treatment works which provides for collection, conveyance and treatment of sewage and process wastewater serving a generalized service area and designed independently of specific land developments or subdivisions.

REGIONAL SPACE. Outdoor natural recreation facilities including regional/metropolitan parks and regional park reserves. Regional spaces are generally at least 200 acres in size and may include active play areas and lands reserved for conservation and natural resource management.

RELIEF INTERCEPTOR. Fixed-pipe sewage conveyance facilities, whether gravity or pressure flow, which provide additional capacity where existing facilities have inadequate capacity for existing or future flows.

SEDIMENT. Mineral or organic matter moved by wind, water or gravity which is suspended in water.

SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS. Wetlands which perform one or more of the following: 1) serve important natural biological functions, 2) have been set aside for study or as sanctuaries or refuges, 3) would negatively affect natural drainage, sedimentation or other environmental characteristics if destroyed, 4) shield other areas from erosion or storm damage, 5) provide storage areas for storm or floodwaters, 6) provide prime natural ground water recharge areas.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT. Residential, commercial, industrial, institutional or other development which produces process wastes or sewage in excess of one equivalent dwelling unit per acre, or which, by its nature and size, does not require a rural location or is designed to mainly serve a widespread or urban area.

WELLHEAD PROTECTION. A strategy for preventing the contamination of groundwater sources of water supply involving land use controls, contaminant management practices and local planning and monitoring initiatives.

APPENDIX B

Project Name

LEHIGH VALLEY HIGHWAY PLAN Major Projects

Municipality Description

4 Lane Arterial Widen Corridor 4 Lane Relocation 4 Lane Extension Widening Widen Corridors Widen Corridors 4 Lane Extension

l Widen Corridor I Restoration

I Restoration I

American Parkway Extension Basin Street Corridor Lawrence Street Extension SR 33 Extension SR 309/Coopersburg Area Airport Road Widening Race Street Race Street Extension Schoenersville Road SR 22: Lehigh River to

Northampton County SR 22: Lehigh County to

Hecktown Road SR 309 Restoration SR 222 Trexlertown

I Restoration 1 Design/ROW

Allentown Allentown Allentown Bethlehem Twp. Coopersburg Hanover Twp. (L) Hanover Twp. (L) Hanover Twp. (L) Hanover Twp. (L) Hanover Twp. (L)

Hanover Twp. (N)/ Bethlehem Twp.

South Whitehall Twp. Umer/Lower MacunQie twps.

Corridor

SR 412 William Penn Highway Freemansburg Avenue 25th Street SR 191 SR 873

Cedar Crest Boulevard SR 309 SR 145

CORRIDORS REQUIRING FURTHER STUDY

Municipality

Bethlehem/Lower Saucon Twp. Bethlehem TwpJPalmer Twp. Bethlehem TwpJPalmer Twp. Easton Lower Nazareth Twp. North Whitehall TwpJ

Washington Twp. South Whitehall Twp. South/North Whitehall twps. Whitehall Twp.

4th Street Willow Park Rd. Willow Park Rd. Glendon SR 22 SR 309

1-78 SR 22 Tilghman Street

To

Leithsville 25th Street 25th Street SR 22 Nazareth Slatington

Walbert Avenue SR 873 Egypt

87

I -

88

APPENDIX C

PLANS AND OTHER REPORTS AVAILABLE FROM THE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION

Since its creation in 1961, the Joint Planning Commission has published about 675 planning reports. Many of these reports are available for sale, and those that are not can be found in the JPC library. About every six months the JPC updates its report MaDs and Publications for Sale bv the Joint Plannina Commission. This report contains a list of the most frequently requested reports and maps currently for sale. A copy of the listing can be obtained, free of charge, at the JPC offices.

The following are some of the major plans and reports prepared by the JPC:

Plans formallv AdoNed liv the JPC

Act 1 67 Stormwater Management Plans for the following watersheds:

Air Quality Transportation Plan Areawide Housing Opportunity Plan Comprehensive Plan for the Lehigh Valley - 1982 Update Housing Plan for the Lehigh Valley Lehigh Valley Highway Plan (updated annually) Regional Recreation and Open Space Plan - 1980 Update Regional Storm Drainage Plan South Mountain Study Transportation Impact Study Guidelines Water Supply and Sewage Facilities Plan Update - 1979 Water Supply and Sewage Facilities Plan - 1992 Supplement

Little Lehigh, Monocacy, Nancy Run, Jordan, Bushkill, Saucon

Other Maior ReDorts of the JPC

Housing Information Package (updated annually) Inventory of Parks and Other Outdoor Recreation Facilities in Lehigh and Northampton Counties JPC Newsletter (published bi-monthly) Lehigh County Parks - 2000 Lehigh Valley Profile and Trends (updated annually) 1988 Lehigh Valley Public Opinion Survey Results and Analysis Mailing List for Municipal Officials in Lehigh and Northampton Counties Minimizing Sinkhole Occurrences - An Inquiry into Regulatory Approaches New Jersey Migration Study Northampton County Overall Economic Development Program Northampton County Parks - 2000 On-Lot Sewage Management Demonstration Project Selected 1990 Census Data for Municipalities and Census Tracts in Lehigh and Northampton Counties Study of Lehigh County Park, Museum and Open Space Properties - 1987 Update Summary of Subdivision Activity in Lehigh and Northampton Counties (updated annually) The Transportation Improvements Program (updated annually) Transportation System Evaluation (updated annually]

I U I I I I I I I I 1 I I m i 1 I I 1

APPENDIX D

JOINT PLA NNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2-93

RESOLUTION 2-93

Resolution adopting a comprehensive plan and recommendation that the plan be adopted by Lehigh and Northampton Counties.

WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Commission Lehigh-Northampton Counties (JPC) was

organized in 1961 to create a Comprehensive Plan for Lehigh and Northampton Counties;

WHEREAS, Section 301.4 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act 247

of 1968, as amended by Act 170 of 1988, as Eurther amended by Act 209 of 1990 and Act 131

of 1992 states "If a county does not have a comprehensive plan, then that county shall, within

three years of the effective date of this act, prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan in

accordance with the requirements of Section 301. Municipal comprehensive plans which are

adopted shall be generally consistent with the adopted county comprehensive plan."

WHEREAS, the JPC has held over 20 meetings to discuss drafts of the plan with

municipalities, organizations, and individuals and has distributed the draft plan to all

municipalities and school districts in Lehigh and Northampton Counties, County agencies and

authorities and to neighboring counties for review and comment, and has taken the comments

of these entities into consideration in preparation of the final draft of the plan;

WHEREAS, the JPC has held at least one public meeting pursuant to public notice before

forwarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan to Lehigh and Northampton Counties;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Joint Planning Commission adopts

the document entitled "Comprehensive Plan for Lehigh and Northampton Counties "The Lehigh

Valley'' as its official plan and recommends that the governing bodies of Lehigh and

Northampton Counties adopt it in accord with the provisions of Article I11 of the Pennsylvania

Municipalities Planning Code as amended.

hiid/{& Charles L. Fraust, Chair

ATTEST:

--& fit[c Michael N. Kaiser, Executive Director

Date

90

I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 t I

APPENDIX E

COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON RESOLUT/ON 33-93

THE COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON

RESOLUTION Number 33-93

WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Commission serves as the official planning commission for Northampton County; and

WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Commission acts in a research and consulting capacity for Northampton County (and its municipalities) ; and

WHEREAS# the Joint Planning Commission was formed by Northampton and Lehigh Counties in 1961 for the purpose of creating a Comprehensive Plan and conducting other studies for the management of land and other resources; and

WHEREAS? Section 301.4 of the Pa. Municipalities Planning Code requires that counties prepare and adopted a Comprehensive Plan and that municipal plans be generally consistent with the adopted county Comprehensive Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, THAT:

1. The Northampton County Council recognizes the Joint Planning Commission of Lehigh and Northampton Counties as the official planning commission for Northampton County;

The Comprehensive Plan presented and adopted by the Joint Planning Commission is hereby adopted by the Northampton County Council as its official Comprehensive Plan, superceding the Plan adopted in October 1984;

2.

91

3. The Northampton County Council will refer to the guidelines and policies presented in the plan when dealing with planning issues requiring action by the Council;

4. The Northampton County Council strongly encourages all the Authorities, Boards, Commissions and Departments in Northampton Countyto follow the recommendations of the Comprehensive Planthat may apply to them. The County Council will, when reviewing action by its Authorities, Boards, Commissions and Departments, monitor said action for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;

5 . The Northampton County Council strongly urges all of the municipalities in Northampton County to follow the recommendations and studies of the Joint Planning Commission, and closely follow the Comprehensive Plan as it applies to both local and regional planning;

6. The Clerk to the County Council is hereby instructed to forward a copy of this resolution to the Lehigh County Board of Commissioners, the members of the Joint Planning Commission of Lehigh-Northampton Counties, and Authorities, Boards, Commissions, Departments and all of the municipalities of Northampton County;

Any resolution or part of a resolution conflicting with the provisions of this resolution is hereby repealed insofar as the same affects this resolution;

7 .

8. The County Executive shall distribute copies of this resolution to the proper officers and other personnel of Northampton County whose further action is necessary to achieve the purpose of this resolution.

ATTEST:

- .- Frank E. Flisser Clerk to Council

INTRODUCED BY:

Ronald R. Heckman

The above resolution was adopted by the Northampton County Council at the meeting held July 15, 1993.

92

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I

APPENDIX F

COUNTY OF LEHIGH RESOLUTION 93-34

COUNTY OF LEHIGH, PENNSYLVANIA

SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONERS DOUGHERTY, McHUGH, MANAKOS AND RABER

REQUESTED DATE JUNE 15, 1993

RESOLUTION 93-34

ADOPTING A LEHIGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Commission sexves as the official planning commission for Lehigh County; and

WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Commission acts in a research and consulting capacity for Lehigh County (and its municipalities); and

WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Commission was formed by Lehigh and Northampton Counties in 1961 for the purpose of creating a Comprehensive Plan and conducting other studies for the management of land and other resources; and

WHEREAS, Section 30 1-4 of the Pa. Municipalities Planning Code requires that counties prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Plan and’that municipal plans be generally consistent with the adopted county Comprehensive Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, lT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF LEHIGH, PENNSYLVANIA, THAT:

1. The Lehigh County Board of Commissioners recognizes the Joint Planning Commission of Lehigh and Northampton Counties as the official planning commission for Lehigh County; and

2. The Comprehensive Plan presented and adopted by the Joint Planning Commission, dated April 29, 1993, is hereby adopted by the Lehigh County Board of Commissioners as the official Comprehensive Plan of Lehigh County, superseding the Plan adopted in October 1984;

3. The Lehigh County Board of Commissioners will follow the guidelines and policies presented in the Plan when dealing with planning issues requiring action by the Board;

93

4. The Lehigh County Board of Commissioners strongly encourages all the Authorities, Boards, Commissions and Departments in Lehigh County to follow the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan that may apply to them. The Board of Commissioners will, when reviewing action by its Authorities, Boards, Commissions and Departments, monitor 'said action for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;

5. The Lehigh County Board of Commissioners strongly urges all of the municipalities in Lehigh County to follow the recommendations and studies of the Joint Planning Commission, and closely follow the Comprehensive Plan as it applies to both local and regional planning;

6. It is further RESOLVED that the County Executive, the Executive Secretary, the County Solicitor and other appropriate officers and staff of the County are hereby authorized to take all necessary and incidental actions necessary to cany out the actions set forth in this Resolution.

7. Any resolution or part of a resolution conflicting with the provisions of this Resolution is hereby repealed insofar as the same affects this Resolution.

8. The County Executive shall distribute copies of this Resolution to the proper officers and other personnel whose m e r action is required to achieve the purpose of this Resolution.

ADOPTED this E8 day of July , 1993, by the following vote: - AYE NAY

Jane S. Baker X Daniel G. Dougherty X Martha E. Falk John F. McHugh (absent) Marcia R. Madison X George Manakos ( absent ) Sterling H. Raber X Jeffrey A. Skinner X

X

X Emrich M. Stellar, Jr.

CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

94

I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I

joint planning commissionelibrary.pacounties.org/documents/northampton_county/2626... ·...

Documents