By Richard L. Gaw
Staff Writer

New Garden Township took another step forward in determining its future on June 25 when its Planning Commission hosted the first of four public hearings regarding the update of the township’s zoning districts.

The hearing was moderated by Samantha McLean, a project manager for Michael Baker International – a consulting firm hired by the township in 2024 - who provided an overview of the multi-tiered process that began last year and has included four public outreach meetings and led to the establishment of a zoning task force made up of township residents and other key stakeholders.

Echoing the company’s previous presentations at the township, McLean said that the purpose of updating the township’s zoning map – last put into motion in 1987 - is to meet the objectives set down in the township’s 2018 Comprehensive Plan that call for development and redevelopment opportunities along the Route 41 and Baltimore Pike corridors, incorporating “missing middle” housing standards and the incorporation of mixed-use districts.

Updating these rules and regulations in the township is also intended to streamline the zoning process, which has led to excessive amounts of non-conforming land uses, “by right” use of agricultural facilities and a reliance on conditional use hearings to make final land use determinations – all of which has led to zoning misalignment of existing infrastructure, an undefined agricultural district and a shortage of mixed-use, planned-use, and other blended-use zoning districts that do not permit developers to implement innovative approaches to modern revitalization.

McLean said that the township must comply with the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code that outlines what townships have the authority to do in terms of land use regulation.

“Zoning has changed a lot since the township’s zoning laws were last enacted,” McLean said. “There are a lot of tried-and-true practices from other municipalities regarding some of these challenges that the township has identified. Applying some of these lessons learned has been part of the township’s goal.”

The ‘Enterprise District’

McLean’s presentation centered much of its focus on three of the ten districts that are being proposed for the updated zoning map, each of which have yielded the most amount of public comment over the past year. One of those districts discussed in McLean’s presentation was the “Enterprise District,” which is proposed to be located within the boundaries of Penn Green Road, Starr Road and Route 41 and is designed to become a dynamic and thriving business environment that encourages economic growth, innovation, and job creation and support a diverse range of commercial activities, including agricultural, offices, retail, light manufacturing, and technology-based enterprises. 

Michael Baker International’s recommendation said that by designating a specific district to agriculture, “the township is able to minimize future disturbance and use-based nuisances on residential areas which is consistent with the comprehensive plan and promotes strategies that attempt to reduce or avoid conflicts between new development and existing farm operations.”

While there are a few mushroom facilities located within the proposed zone, McLean said that public feedback in previous outreach sessions yielded concern for the future of mushroom operations that are located outside of the proposed district. She said that the consultant is considering adding a definition for “mushroom service providers to permit their inclusion in the district.” 

“A concern we heard [from residents and representatives from the local mushroom industry] is that there are a lot of different uses that are ancillary to the mushroom industry that are not covered by the existing uses that we have, so there is an offer to propose a mushroom service provider use and definition that would be permitted within the Enterprise District that would serve as a catch-all for those unique industries,” she added. 

Members of the Planning Commission and residents in the audience expressed concern that by limiting agricultural use to a specific region of the township could lead to a complete redefinition of an area that has been defined by the mushroom industry for several generations.

“This area is linked to the mushroom industry, and I wouldn’t want to see that limited and hope that these challenges that have been created will get addressed over time, in terms of nuisances that happen when residences are next to mushroom farms and plants,” said Planning Commission member Sam Stanton. “I don’t want to see some of the families that have been here [in the mushroom industry] zoned out of what they have and their existing operations.”

Discussion and disagreement

During the public comment portion of the hearing, attorney Brian L. Nagle of MacElree Harvey, representing Laurel Valley Farms, referred to a June 24 letter submitted to the Planning Commission from his colleague, J. Charles Gerbron, Jr., expressing their client’s opposition to the proposal that does not include “mushroom composting operations” in the “Enterprise District.” 

In the letter, Gerbron asked that the ordinance amendment be revised – before it reaches the Board of Supervisors for adoption - to include language specifying that “mushroom composting operations” be permitted within the district or extend beyond the boundaries of the district.

“You’re setting up an administrative problem and a legal problem because agriculture is protected by Pennsylvania law, so you’re putting the township and the landowner in a difficult position that will be an ongoing problem for the township and the landowner,” Nagle said. “Ultimately, you’re not going to change what’s there, but create a problem that is not grounded in sound land use planning.”

Township resident and former supervisor Barclay Hoopes – who has owned a “legacy” farm in the township since 1972 that is located just outside of the “Enterprise District,” took exception to his farm being recategorized as “Residential Low Density.” Although McLean told Hoopes that his farm would continue to operate under the categorization of “non-confirming use,” Hoopes continued to object to the new classification. 

“When I was on the board, we dealt with a lot of quality-of-life issues and why people came to this township,” he told the Commission. “I’ve had people tell me, ‘You’re the reason we came and the reason we stayed.’ Now you’re pushing me out.

“I understand a lot of what you want to do, but don’t put me in a straitjacket I’ve never been in, because it’s wrong.”

“If the zoning map went into effect tomorrow, you would still be farming,” Commission Chairman Jeff Hazelwood told Hoopes.

“But I don’t like my hands tied back here, and that’s what you want me to do,” Hoopes replied. 

Limestone Road and Route 41

The second district discussed during McLean’s presentation was the future vision for the southeast corner of the township near the interchange of Route 41, Route 7 (Limestone Road) and Southwood Road. She then presented two potential scenarios for the corridor: one that focuses  on the mixed-use corridor district to create a mixed-use greenway to the township; and a second option that imagines maintaining the area for a variety of uses including industrial, commercial and some residential through the development of an “Innovation District” that creates a large-scale, campus-like facility that provides employment opportunities and business to the township.

McLean said that at public outreach meetings, residents expressed concern that either scenario would create traffic congestion, but they also said the plan for the corridor may answer the need for easy access to services within state boundaries.

After weighing these components, McLean said that Michael Baker International recommended that the township choose the second option, one that maintains the existing zoning map’s flexibility of uses and brings services and employment opportunities. 

Residential Flex District

McLean then presented recommendations for the proposed “Residential Flex District” – projected to make up a majority of the township that is intended to achieve a balance between residential growth that allows for a diversity of lot sizes while promoting the conservation and preservation of vital areas of green space, steep slopes, wildlife habitats, and other natural areas. The consulting firm’s recommendation said that creating such a district in the township will address Chester County’s changing demographic trends that include a projected population increase in the county and increased demand for housing, particularly for lower median households, while at the same time allowing for new development to seamlessly fit the current environment and minimizing its impact on the rural look of the township.

McLean said that the district would be primarily residential - single unit detached, single unit semidetached and townhouses - but would also permit schools, houses of worship, mixed use buildings, day care facilities, lower-impact retail stores, schools, libraries, places of worship and community services. 

McLean said that some of the residents who attended public outreach meetings said that developing this housing model would impact the mostly “rural” character of the township and affect property values, infrastructure and natural resources. On the positive side, the proposal would broaden the availability of housing in the township. 

McLean urged the township’s primary stakeholders to weigh the considerations for adopting a new zoning program against the anticipated changes regarding land use and housing forecasts that may happen as near as a decade from now.

“You’re balancing existing reality with future opportunity,” she said. 

Toward the end of the public comment section, township resident Beverly Geller told the Commission that she and her family moved to the township 25 years ago.

“I think we need to look carefully at what New Garden has been, what it is now, and ask, ‘What are we really trying to accomplish by opening this kind of land to higher density housing development, mixed-use development and small medical facility development and does that fit with what the township is and why we came here, and why we are still here?’” she said. “If some of those things happen, I think a lot of us may find it’s not where we want to stay.”

The next public hearings about the township’s zoning ordinances and map will be at the Board of Supervisors meeting in July; at the Zoning Task Force’s meeting on July 23; at a presentation of the updated zoning ordinance and map in August; and at a Planning Commission public hearing in August, which will be followed by a 45-day public comment period. The updated zoning ordinance and township zoning map is expected to be agreed upon at a Board of Supervisors meeting in the Fall. 

To learn more about New Garden Township’s zoning map update, visit “Zoning Ordinance and Map Update” on the township’s website: www.newgarden.org. 

To contact Staff Writer Richard L. Gaw, email [email protected].