Gunnett Fleming

.FAYETTE TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

DRAFT

SEPTEMBER 1992

Prepared By:

Gannett Fleming, Inc. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Gunnett Fleming I

f ri L:

FAYETTE TOWNSHKP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pape Section

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Contents 1

List of Tables vi .. List of Figures vi1

vii Executive Summary .ES-1

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

BACKGROUND STUDm

. . 1.0 Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1 . 1 Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.,*. . . . . . .il ' . Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . 3

1.4 Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

. $ 7 :. I ;: , . :: ' > ' . , , " , " . . -1.2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 . Residential . 3

1.5 Summary ..........................................

2.0 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Classification of Major Thoroughfares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1

2.1.1 Rural Major Arterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1.2 Rural Minor Arterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . 2.1.3 Local Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .

2.2 Signalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3 Traffic Volumes and Accident Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4 Public Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.5 Road Conditions Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Community Facilities and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l o

3.0

3.1 Municipal Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1

3.3 Library Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2 Recreation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1

1

___. . . . _. ..

Gonnett Fleming

FAYETTE TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

! Section

4.0

5.0

6.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS (C ont ' d)

3.4 Emergency Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.4.1 Police Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4.2 Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.5 Public School System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Community Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.1 Wastewater System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.2 Water Supply and Distribution System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Solid Waste Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Stormwater Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.3 4.4

Environmental Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5.1 Environmentally Sensitive Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 5.1.7 5.1.8

Geologic Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Groundwater Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Steep Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Historical and Archaeological Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Soil Suitability for Septic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Prime Farmland Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Demographics and Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

6.1 Population Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

6.1.1 Population Growth Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.1.2 Age and Sex Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

6.2 Economic Base Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

.. 11

Gannett Fleming

I

Section

FAYETTE TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS (C ont ' d)

6.3 Housing Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

6.3.1 Number and Type of Housing Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 6.3.2 Occupancy Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6.3.3 Rental Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6.3.4 Housing Value . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6.3.5 Projected Housing Growth . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

7.0 Regional Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 39

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Decatur Township, Mifflin County . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . 39 West Beaver Township, Snyder County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 West Perry Township, Snyder County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Monroe Township, Juniata County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 42 Delaware Township, Juniata County . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , 42 Walker Township, Juniata County . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Fermanagh Township, Juniata County . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Summary ..........................................

COMMUNITY GOALS AND OBJECTWES

8.0 Community Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

8.1 8.2

Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Township Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

8.2.1 Police Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 8.2.2 Parks and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 8.2.3 Water Supply and Distribution System . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 8.2.4 Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 8.2.5 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 8.2.6 Solid Waste/Recycling . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1

8.3 Township Policies . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

... 111

r- L

f 1 -

r - L

1 :

I ' . I _

I .'

-. . I

I -& ..- r- -.

1

Gunnett Fleming

FAYETTE TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS ( C ont ' d)

Section Page

8.4 Community Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

8.4.1 Future Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.4.2 Transportation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.4.3 'Public Facilities and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.4.4 Public Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

PLANTWIG RECOMMENDATIONS

9.0 Future Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8

Forested Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Agricultural Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Residential Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Industrial Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Commercial Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Institutional Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Recreational Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

10.0 Transportation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

10.1 Traffic Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 10.2 Road Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

10.2.1 10.2.2

State Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Township Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

10.3 Road Construction Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 10.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

11.0 Public Facilities and Services Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

11.1 Municipal Buildings and Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

iv

Gunnett Fleming

r-

I !

. I-- 1 ; [-:

I

i "

FAYETTE TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS (C ont ' d)

Section Pace

11.2 Park and Recreation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

11.2.1

11.2.2 11.2.3 11.2.4

Parks and Recreation Commission/Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Park Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Parkland Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Recreational Facility Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

11.3 Police Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 11.4 Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

12.0 Public Utilities Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

12.1 Wastewater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . . . . . . . . 88 12.2 Water Supply and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 12.3 Solid Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 12.4 Stormwater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

13.0 Implementation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

13.1 Summary of Planning Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

13.1.1 13.1.2 13.1.3 13.1.4

Future Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Public Facilities and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Public Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

13.2 Ten-Year Capital Improvements Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 13.3 Comprehensive Plan Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 13.4 Comprehensive Plan Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

P- I ,

V

Eannett Fleming

FAYETTE TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont ' d)

LIST OF TABLES

Table r L

'1-1 Existing Land Use - Fayette Township 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2- 1 Fayette Township Automobile Accidents, 1986-199 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Recreational Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Fayette Fire Company Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Public School Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3-1 3-2 3-3

6- 1 Historic and Projected Population Growth of the

Age and Sex Composition of Fayette Township 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Housing Units in Fayette Township 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Fayette Township Housing Unit Projections 1980-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Fayette Township Area 1950-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6-2 6-3 6-4 - -*

1 'L 8- 1

8-2 8-3 8-4

Summary of Survey Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Evaluation of Township Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Township Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Township Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

r- 7,

! ' d .

9- 1 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Future LandUses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

10-1 10-2

Traffic Flow Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Priority Ratings for Township and Road Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

11-1 11-2

Recommended Community Park Acreage 1990-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Fayette Township Regional 20 10 Recreational Facility Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Space Standards for Community Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Space Standards for Neighborhood Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Projected Regional Police Service Demand 190-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 .

Recommended Distribution Standards for Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

11-3 11-4 11-5 11-6

r - I L 13-1 Recommended Capital Improvements Program for

Comprehensive Plan Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I04

vi -.

ir,

r?l, tannett Fleming 4

r- -.

ti

FiPure

1-1

2- 1

4- 1 4-2

' '5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4

7- 1

9- 1 10-1 12- 1

FAYETTE TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS (C ont ' d)

LIST OF FIGURES

m Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Transportation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Public Sewer System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Public Water System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 Environmentally Sensitive Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Soil Suitability for Septic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Prime Farmland Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Regional Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Future Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Transportation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Public Utilities Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C Road Conditions Survey

Federal Highway Administration Classification System Average Daily Traffic Counts

vii

Gonnett Fleming

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Despite being Juniata County’s most populous municipality, Fayette Township is

predominantly rural, with agricultural and forested land uses dominating the landscape. The

Township has never had a Comprehensive Plan before this document and does not have zoning

or subdivision and land development ordinances. c E

In the absence of previously prepared planning studies, a great deal of time has been

spent in the collection of background materials and the formulation of community goals and

objectives in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan. These two components provide the

framework upon which the planning recommendations and implementation program are based.

7 !2

r-1

‘ - A !

‘1 li The primary goal identified during the planning process was to maintain the rural

character of the Township while maintaining or improving the levels of service of facilities,

services and utilities. More detailed goals and objectives are presented in the Plan.

. ... < (

L

The future land use map shows Fayette Township continuing as a rural municipality, with

forested and agricultural land uses accounting for 91.2 percent of the Township. Residential

lands are expected to dominate the remainder of the Township, with some area for commercial

and industrial expansion also provided. Key recommendations in the future land use plan

include the preparation and adoption of zoning and subdivision and land development ordinances.

These ordinances are needed as important implementation tools for many of the planning

recommendations.

The transportation plan includes an approach for developing a long-range road

improvement program. Many of the Township’s roads are in excellent condition, as identified

in the road conditions survey included in Appendix C. The road improvement program is based

upon existing road conditions and existing and projected development patterns, which have been

used as the most accurate means of estimating traffic volumes on Township roads. Therefore,

higher priority has been given to improving roads where development is expected to be the

greatest.

Es- 1

F

i'

f - I I L

Gunnett Fleming I

The public facilities and services plan is based upon projected demands based upon the

population projections in the background studies and expected population centers identified in

the future land use plan. The emphasis of the plan is the maintenance or improvement of

existing levels of service. Alternatives are presented for providing local police service and

improving regional parks and recreation facilities.

The public utilities plan addresses the provision of adequate public utilities to promote

the general health and welfare of existing and future Township residents. Public water and

sewer extensions are projected into areas where residential, commercial and industrial growth

are anticipated. Projected needs for capacity expansions are based on population projections.

The future land use, transportation, public facilities and services, and public utilities plans

and the implementation program are all major components of the Comprehensive Plan. The

future land use plan is based on the Township's goal of maintaining rural character while

providing for reasonable growth and therefore takes into account much of the data collected and

developed in the background studies. The remaining four components of the Plan have been

developed in support of the background studies and future land use plan. All the components

are highly interrelated and the effectiveness of the overall Comprehensive Plan is dependent on

the implementation of each component.

:-

Es-2

Eonnett Fleming

I

BACKGROUND STUDIES

Eonnett Fleming 6'

P

f7, ! I L)

CHAPTER 1

EXISTING LAND USE

,

Eonnett Fleming I

1.0 EXISTING LAND USE

A comprehensive study and mapping of existing land use is

TOTAL

in order to

25,483.0 100.0

effectively guide future development patterns. A land use study provides a picture of existing

patterns and, together with other factors, outlines restrictions and opportunities for future land

use planning. Figure 1-1 illustrates existing land use patterns in Fayette Township. Table 1-1

shows the area in acres under each land category.

TABLE 1-1 Existing Land Use Fayette Township

1992

Land Use Type

Residential .

Forested Commercial Industrial Institutional RecreationaYOpen-Space Agricultural

Area (acres) I Percent of Total

1,079.6 12,977.0

50.9 423.7

87.4 299.0

10,565.4

~

4.2 50.9

.2 1.7

.3 1.2

41.5

1.1 FOREST

The largest singIe Iand use type in the Township is forested (12,977 acres - 50.9%). The

largest contiguous forested area (10,700 acres) is located in the northern portion of the Township

where steep slopes and thin soils comprise the area. State Game Lands #lo7 are located in the

forested northwest section of the Township. The remaining forested areas (2,277 acres) are

dispersed throughout the southeast quadrant of the Township.

1

L

E l * . .

n U

LEGEND

FORESTED

COMMERCIAL

INDUSTRIAL

IN STlTUTl ONAL

RECREATIONAL

RES1 DENTIAL

AGRlCU LTU RAL

FAYETTE TOWNSHIP JUNIATA COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA

EXISTING LAND USE

G A " E l T W I N G , INC. - HARRISBURG, PA - -

FIGURE 1-1

i3

Gunnett Fleming / i

1.2 AGRICULTURE

The second largest land use type in Fayette Township is agriculture. Agricultural land

use accounts for approximately 10,565.4 acres or 41.5 percent of the Township. The

agricultural land use is dispersed throughout the southern portion of the Township where the

most fertile soil and gently rolling landscape are located.

Fayette Township's agriculture tends to be concentrated in places with prime agricultural

soils, which are mapped in Chapter 5 of this Plan. Prime soils, defined as land that is best

J' '

suited to producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops, constitutes approximately one-

third of the agricultural acreage in the Township. This area is most likely to support

economically viable agriculture over the long-term. Prime farmland will be one of the important

factors in developing the future land use plan.

1.3 RESIDENTIAL

The third largest land use type in the Township is residential - 1079.6 acres - 4.2 %.

This category is dominated by single family dwellings. The two greatest concentrations of single

family residential land are located in the villages of McAlisterville and Cocolamus. However,

single family residential properties are fairly well dispersed throughout the middle and southern

portions of the township.

Nearly three quarters of the housing units in Fayette Township are single family detached

homes. Another 13.0 percent of the housing units are mobilehomes. The remaining 12.4

percent includes duplexes, apartments and other multi-family units.

1.4 MISCELLANEOUS

The remaining four land use types include the following categories:

, 3

funnett Fleming

e

e

e

e

Commercial (50.9 acres - .2%) Industrial (423.7 acres - 1.7%) Institutional (87.4 acres - .3%) Recreational/Open Space (299.0 acres - 1.2%)

) The four land use types comprise only 3.4 percent of

development is primarily located in McAlisterville although

the Township. Commercial

commercial uses are found

elsewhere in the Township, The wood products industry dominates industrial lands in Fayette

Township. The largest recreational area in the Township is the Lost Creek Golf Course with

165.0 acres.

1.5 SUMMARY

It is likely that forested, agricultural and residential land uses will continue to dominate

Fayette Township for the foreseeable future. Some conversion of forested and agricultural land

to other uses is likely to occur during the planning period. The Community Goals and

Objectives and Planning Recommendations portions of the Plan will identify and offer

suggestions for guiding land use development and conversions into land uses best suited for the

future of the Township.

4

I

Gannett Fleming

' .

E . ,"

I

' D

I

i

! i

I I

. !

CHAPTER 2

TRANSPORTATIQN

Gannett Fleming

2.0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

The Fayette Township transportation system consists of Sta..: and Townshj owned

roadways. Figure 2-1 illustrates the road system. The system of relatively narrow, winding

roadways connecting to wider state highways is typical of many rural areas. While this system

appears to be functioning well under current traffic loads, increasing traffic arising from regional

development is likely to put a strain on the transportation system.

2.1 CLASSIFICATION OF MAJOR THOROUGHFARES

The Fayette Township street system is classified as rural under the Pennsylvania

Department of Transportation (PADOT) system of roadway classifications. Based on the

importance and function, the streets of a rural road system are further classified as major

arterial, minor arterial, collectors, and local streets. This system, as shown in Figure 2-1,

follows the classification system of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PADOT),

which, in turn, is based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classification system.

Roadway classifications are as follows and are further described in Appendix A.

Major Arterials - Limited access highways that are important in the inter-regional

transportation system, with a major portion of the vehicular movements consisting of through

traffic.

Minor Arterials - Highways that are important in the regional transportation system and,

while carrying mostly regional traffic, serve some local or Township origins and destinations.

Collectors - Roadway that serves primarily local traffic, providing the connection between

the residential and commercial developments to the minor arterial system.

Local Roads - Roadways that serve local traffic and connect to collector or minor arterial

system.

5

A

. . . . . . . . . . . . . I ..... . . . . . . I ,- . . ,.- - . . . . . . i :.. . . _ . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

...

.- .

LEGEND .

1178 . 1991 TRAFFIC COUNT

MINOR ARTERIALS

C 0 LLECTO RS

FAYETTE TOWNSHIP JUNIATA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Scale: 1' = 4.000'

G A " € I T R E M I N G , INC. - HARRISBURG, PA

FIGURE 2-1

Gunnett Fleming

2.1.1 Rural Major Arterials

There are no major arterials within the Township.

2.1.2 Rural Minor Arterials

State Route (SR) 35 transects the Township and serves traffic in the east-west direction.

SR 235 bisects the Township and carries traffic in the north-south direction. Both State routes

are classified as rural minor arterials and intersect in McAlisterville, dividing the Township into

four quadrants. McAlisterville's location at the crossroads has led to its development as the

focal point of the community and as the area within the highest population density in the

Township. P ,

2.1.3 Rural Collectors

Rural collectors can be divided in four quadrants with the state routes serving as quadrant

boundaries. SR 1003 and SR 1004 serve the traffic in the northwestern quadrant of the

Township while SR 1005 serves the northeast quadrant. The southwestern quadrant is serviced

by SR 2007 and SR 2011. State Routes 2008, 2012, 2013 and 2015 serve the local traffic in

the southeastern quadrant.

2.1.4 Local Roads

All Township maintained roads are considered as local roads under the Federal Highway

Administration classification system.

2.2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

There is one signalized intersection in the Township. The signal is located at the

intersection of State Routes 35 and 235 in McAlisterville as shown on Figure 2-1.

7

1 ;; 9

Gonnett Fleming

2.3 TRdFFIC VOLUMES AND ACCIDENT LOCATIONS 3

ci

I

ct

3 fl

Traf$c volume counts are taken periodically on major thoroughfares by PADOT. The

counts are dither the results of actual mechanical counts or an estimating process known as the

Roadway Tanagement I System ( R M S ) . The counts are part of an ongoing traffic volume

counting pggram undertaken by PADOT. Figure 2-1 shows the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 5)

volumes at key locations for 1991. All available ADT counts for various roadway segments are

shown in Appendix B. State roadway ADT's include both directions of travel and include all 4

types of v&icles.

jr I The following table shows the number of accidents for the past five years on state routes

within Fa ette Township. This datum is from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Center fogsighway Safety Traffic Accident History Report. No information is available on the

specific &ations of these accidents.

* ' . .

?$ l?r

TABLE 2-1 Fayette Township Automobile Accidents

1986-1991 ':I

State Route Number'

35 .I 235

1002 1003 1004 1005 2007 2008 201 1 2012 2013 2015

Total Number of Accidents

80 21 5 9 3 1 2 2 1 1 9 3

.!. 'Represents only the portion of the state route within Fayette Township

Source: PADOT I

,: ,'

-1

tannett Fleming

2.4 PUBLIC PARKING

The Township has no municipal parking lots or metered parking spaces. Public parking

is primarily provided in off-street private lots and along the curbside in McAlisterville. The

ballfield in McAlisterville is also used for public parking when major events require additional

parking.

2.5 ROAD CONDITIONS SURVEY

A field survey of road conditions throughout the Township was conducted in January

Each road was evaluated for width, surface type and surface conditions. A table 1992.

summarizing the survey findings is found in Appendix C.

. The table in Appendix C lists the.width, surface type,and surface condition-of al1,roads

in the Township. If changes were noted along the roadway, multiple entries are included

showing where the conditions changed. Roads identified as being in good condition lacked

potholes and were oftentimes recently resurfaced. Fair condition roads had more cracks or

potholes, but not enough to require a complete resurfacing of the roadway. Poor condition

roadways had many potholes and were commonly gravel roads.

The majority of the roads in the Township are in good or fair condition. Sixty-six (66)

road segments or roads listed in Appendix C are given this rating. This number is evenly

divided between roads in good or fair condition. Only three roads were given a poor condition

rating. These included: Little Evandale Road (T545), Quarry Road (T448), and Vanormer

Road (T539). All these roads are gravel for at least a portion of their length.

Road width varies significantly within Fayette Township. Widths vary between twelve

(12) feet on Church Avenue (T601), Little Evandale Road (T545), and Vanormer Road (T539)

and twenty-five (25) feet on SR 35.

9

I

Gannett Fleming

2.6 SUMMARY

Fayette Township's roadways are in fairly good condition at the present time and no

major deficiencies have been defined. However, this may change as the Township and region

develop and traffic levels increase. The Planning Recommendations section of the Plan will

include suggestions for reducing accidents, improving road conditions and facilitating better

traffic flow through the Township.

)

r - I

1- ' t

i'

. -.

i' L '

10 I

Gannett Fleming c

-7

CHAPTER 3

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

ii

1 .-.A

I'i ' 1 I

i I j; 1 -

P- .j L j

tannett Fleming

3.0 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES c

The following sections describe the community facilities and services provided to the

residents of Fayette Township. An inventory was conducted of municipal buildings and

properties, recreational facilities, school facilities, fire and police buildings, and library facilities.

This inventory is presented in text and tabular form. A discussion of regional facilities is 1

provided in Chapter 7.

3.1 MUNICIPAL PROPERTY

The municipal building is located on approximately 2.75 acres of land on Bunkertown

Road (T458). The building houses municipal office space, as well as equipment storage and

maintenance space. There appears to be ample expansion room on the property if building

-

enlargement becomes necessary.

The Township also owns one acre of real estate 700 feet northwest of the intersection

with State Route 1003 and Fairview Road (Township Route 533). In the past the property was

used as a shale pit. Even though the shale pit still exists, the Township is not currently utilizing

the property as a source of shale or fill.

3.2 RECREATION FACILITIES

Fayette Township inhabitants have access to eight recreation areas within the Township.

These recreational areas are listed in Table 3-1. The table also includes a list of facilities in

each location. Together, the recreation areas provide roughly 197 acres of recreation space

within the Township.

The planning recommendations will include an analysis of existing recreational facilities

and their relationship to the estimated existing and future demands of residents. Specific

recommendations for new parks, facilities and/or programs will be included, as well as several

I '

I

means of funding the improvements.

11

L.:

Football General Picnic Purpose Shelters Field

Picnic Campsites Tables

Fiihing

X

Golf

X

Cocolamus

McAlisterville

X (2)

TABLE 3-1 FAYETTE TOWNSHIP

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

Facility Ownership Trails Baseball Field

y 7.0 X East Juniata Jr./ Sr. High School

Juniata Co. School District

X Fay& Township Elementary

Juniata Co. School District

2.4 X

Cocolamus Picnic Grove

Private 15.5 I Cocolamus

Juniata Horse and Saddle club

Private 14 X

Private 3.7 X Lost Creek

pa* Community

Lost Creek Golf course

Private 165.0

McAliskxville Senior Citizens Center

NA NA

X McAlisterville Area Youth Sports Assoc., InC.

NA 4.8

Source: Juniata County Planning Commission

NA = Not Available

.

Gunnett Fleming

3.3 LIBRARY FACILITIES

The Juniata County Library is located in Mifflintown. The library is available to all

Fayette Township residents. A library assistant goes to the Senior Citizens Center in

McAlisterville periodically to show films, initiate discussions and provide entertainment. There

are no current plans to build a new library in the Fayette Township area. )

3.4 EMERGENCY SERVICES

Emergency services include police, fire and ambulance protection. These services are

an important amenity to the health and safety of the community.

I ,3.4.1 Police Protection

Police protection for Township residents is provided by the Pennsylvania State Police for

Mifflin and Juniata Counties. The State Police station is located on Ferguson Valley Road,

Yeagertown, Mifflin County, Pennsylvania, approximately 20 miles from McAlisterville.

3.4.2 Fire Protection

The Fayette Fire Company serves the residents of the Township. The volunteer fire

company is located in McAlisterville. Currently membership is approximately 30 people. The

volunteer fire company also provides ambulance service.

Table 3-2 is a list of the equipment owned by the fire company.

I

13

I-

- Equipment

Ford 1500 GPM Pumper with a 1250 gallon tank

Ford Pump 750 GPM Pumper with a 100 gallon tank

Dual Wheel Dodge Truck 400 GPM Pumper with a 250 gallon tank

Ford Ambulance

r- i L-

i-

Gannett Fleming

TABLE 3-2 Fayette Fire Company Equipment

199 1

1973

1978

1984

Source: Fayette Fire Company

The need for new equipment is based on the amount of outdated and malfunctioning

equipment in use. The current and near future needs are to replace the malfunctioning air packs

(self-contained breathing apparatus), the 1973 Ford Pumper with rusting steel tank and numerous

engine repairs and the 1984 Ford Ambulance. Funds for purchasing new equipment include

donations from computerized mass mailings and membership sponsored dinners.

. Dispatching for ambulance service is provided through the County Central Dispatch

Center located in Mifflintown. Seven of the nine county fire companies provide ambulance

service. The closest ambulance service to the emergency is determined by the Central Dispatch

Center, thereby, providing the fastest ambulance service available.

3.5 PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM

The Juniata County School District provides public education for Township students.

Schools include the Fayette Elementary (McAlisterville), Susquehanna Elementary,

Thompsontown-Delaware Elementary, and the East Juniata High School (Cocolamus). The

enrollments at the various schools are given in Table 3-3. The enrollment figures given here

include all students, not just Fayette Township residents. L .

. - 14

Gunnett Fleming I

r TABLE 3-3 Public School Enrollment

School Location

Fayette Elementary Mc Alisterville Susquehanna Elementary Susquehanna Thompsontown-Delaware Township

East Juniata High School Elementary Thompsontown

Cocolamus

Source: Juniata County School District

15

Enroll men t

K-6

GanneBt Fleming

CHAPTER 4

COMMUNITY UTILITIES

L

c

r F '

i

f

r-

Gannett Fleming

4.0 COMMUNITY UTILITIES

4.1 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

The public sewer service area in Fayette Township is limited to an area within a one mile

radius from the center of McAlisterville. The treatment plant is located along Benner Road

southwest of McAlisterville. Figure 4-1 is a map of the wastewater collection system in the

Township.

The collection system includes approximately 29,500 feet of 8 inch collector sewers,

2,650 feet of 8 inch interceptor sewers and 1,700 feet of 10 inch interceptor sewers. There are

no major extensions of the system planned in the foreseeable future. There have been only

about 20 residential connections to the system in the last three years.

The treatment plant was built in 1974. It has a capacity to treat 130,000 gallons per day

(GPD). Current (1992) flows average 62,000 GPD. The McAlisterville Joint Authority is

currently in the midst of a $235,000 upgrade of the plant, including the addition of aerators, a

sludge holding tank and filters. These improvements are being made so the PADER ammonia

nitrogen discharge limits can be met on a more regular basis. The discharge from the plant goes

into Little Lost Creek.

4.2 WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

c The public water service area is approximately the same as the public sewer service area.

A map of the major distribution lines is found on Figure 4-2. The system has a distribution

capacity of 65,000 GPD. Current usage averages 62,000 GPD. Despite the fairly small

difference between these two numbers, there are no current plans to increase the capacity of the

system.

L-

The supply sources for the system include two wells and two springs located about one

mile north of McAlisterville. There is a 60,000 gallon storage tank and a 30,000 gallon

reservoir located within three quarters of a mile from downtown McAlisterville. The distri-

r L,

r: L _. I

_. 16

I I

I I

. . . __

. .

. _ . ,

LEGEND

------ 8” COLLECTOR

8” INTERCEPTOR

- 10” INTERCEPTOR

-.I

FAYElTE TOWNSHIP . JUN IATA COUNTY, PEN NSY LVANlA

PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM

Enlargement Scale: 1” = 900’

G A “ m FLEMING, INC. - HARRISBURG, PA

FIGURE .4-1 .

60,000 GAL. STORAGE TANK-? I

. ..

LEGEND

i

- PUBLIC WATER LINE

FAY ETTE TOW NSHlP JUNIATA COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA

PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM

Enlargement Scale: 1" = 900'

GANNEIT FLEMING, INC. - HARRISBURG, PA

FIGURE 4-2 . . i .

r

, L Gonnett Fleming ! . 6

' bution system includes approximately 32,350 feet of line. The system is owned and maintained

by the McAlisterville Area Joint Authority.

4.3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Each resident is responsible for contracting with a licensed solid waste hauler for trash

removal. The Township regulates solid waste management practices through the municipal

waste ordinance. The ordinance prohibits residents from dumping waste in unapproved places,

provides for annual licensing of haulers by the Township supervisors and includes standards for

the storage, transport and disposal of solid waste.

There are a few recycling drop-off locations at churches and other similar establishments,

but none are sponsored or funded by the Township. Some interest has been expressed in

establishing a Township recycling program. There are no current plans to initiate such a system.

There are two private recycling facilities in Fayette Township operated by Donald Elsasser and

Michael Kramer.

4.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

There is no stormwater collection and discharge system in Fayette Township except along

some state roadways. In addition, stormwater management is not regulated by ordinance in the

Township. Despite the lack of regulations, no specific stormwater problem areas have been

identified to date.

19

Gunnett Fleming

,

p,: Ti L

: - j

CHAPTER 5

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Eannett Fleming

5.1

5.1.1 )

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

Geologic Limitations

Ten geologic units/formations are found in Fayette Township. These formations traverse

the Township in a southwesterly to northeasterly direction (See Figure 5-1). Each of the

formations underlie approximately equal portions of the Township and are composed primarily

of resistant ridge forming sandstone and nonresistant limestone and shale in the valley portions.

The formations in the Township are generally described as follows:

Reedsville Formation consists of various shades of gray shale, some siltstone and

few sandstone layers near the top.

Bald Eagle Formation is composed of olive gray and reddish gray, fine-to-coarse-

grained sandstone and some conglomerate.

Juniata Formation is composed of brownish to grayish red sandstone and some

siltstone and shale.

Tuscarora Formation consists of light to medium gray sandstone and minor

interbedded shale.

The Clinton Group is composed of light gray shales and some minor interbedded

siltstone and sandstone with horizons of hematatic sandstone of siltstone.

Bloomsburg and Mifflintown Formations (undivided) consists of gray shales and

mudstone with interbedded limestone and sandstone.

20

LEGEND - Juniata Formation Bald Eagle Formation Reedsville formation Tuscarora Formation Clinton Group Bloomsburg and Mifflintown Formations wills Creek Formation Old Port and Onondaga Formations Keyser and Tonoloway Formations Hamilton Group

, Scale: 1" = 4,000'

G A N N m FLEMING. INC. - HARRISBURG, PA i . . I . I !

_. ~~~ . . .

. . . . . . . . . FIGURE 5-1 , . I

. . . ! , . . I I I . . . . ' . . . ; . .

. .' .. . .

. . . , . .

--??---.--- . . . - - * i I - _-.--. c.1- .I. -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . .

. .

Gnnnett Fleming

0 Wills Creek

noncalcareous

I

Formation is composed of greenish gray calcareous and

shale and argillaceous limestone with interbeds of grayish red shale

and fine-grained sandstone.

Keyser and Tonoloway Formations (undivided) consists of laminated limestones

and argillaceous limestone.

e Old Port and Onondaga Formations consists of dark gray limestone, shaley

limestone, and calcareous and noncalcareous shale with a quartz sandstone unit.

0 Hamilton Group is composed of various shades of siltstone, olive-gray silty

claystone, and fine-grained siliceous sandstone and dark-fissile shale.

Source: Groundwater Resources of the Juniata River Basin, Pennsylvania Water Resource Report 54, 1982, Department of Environmental Resources.

The portions of the Township underlain by carbonate bedrock (limestone) are susceptible

to sinkhole development. Surface water accumulating in small areas is an indicator of where

ground subsidence or sinkholes are likely to occur. There is no mapping currently available of

sinkholes in Fayette Township.

Groundwater well yields vary with respect to topographic location, bedrock formations

and structure. Valley well yields are two to three times higher than yields located in

mountainous areas. Highest well yields occur predominately within limestone and dolomite

rock, followed by sandstone and shale in that order.

Natural groundwater quality is generally

tend to produce moderately hard to hard water

Wells in the Clinton Group produce water high

adequate for most uses. Limestone formations

while sandstone rock is known for soft water.

in naturally occurring iron and manganese.

22

Gannett Fleming

5.1.2 Groundwater Contamination

Groundwater contamination has occurred at four wastewater facilities according to the

PA DER, Bureau of Water Quality Management. The four facilities: East Juniata High School,

Cocolamus Creek Supply, Graybill’s Car Wash and McAlisterville Area Sewage Treatment

Plant, have been placed on DER’s regular inspection list. Each of these facilities are in various

stages of clean-up.

The McAlisterville Sewage Treatment Plant has periodic effluent violations with the

discharge to Little Lost Creek. The treatment system is currently being upgraded with extended

aeration filters being added to comply with DER’s regulations.

Graybill’s Car Wash has experienced settling/holding tank overflow. According to DER,

there was no known stream contact although the discharge could have reached the tributary to

Cocolamus Creek.

Cocolamus Creek Supply’s discharge was towards Cocolamus Creek. The discharge was

from a malfunctioning septic tank/sand filter. The system has been repaired.

East Juniata High School’s discharge violation was to Cocolamus Creek. The wastewater

facility is regularly being inspected by DER.

According to DER regional office personnel, possible groundwater contamination may

have O C C U K ~ ~ in several incidents. These include small oil/milk spills, improper manure storage

and manure irrigation, malfunctioning septic systems, leaking underground petroleum storage

tanks and runoff from washing of heavy equipment into nearby streams.

23

I

Connett Fleming

5.1.3 Steep Slopes

~ Steep slopes are defined as all areas with greater than 15 percent slope. These areas are

identified as sensitive because they are erosion prone, have thin soil and construction in these

areas is difficult. Steep slopes are shown on Figure 5-2.

Approximately 11,860 acres (46%) of Fayette Township has slopes greater than 15

percent. The largest single concentration is the forested area north of Mountain Road. The

southeastern portion of the Township is another area with a lot of steeply sloping land. The

areas with steep slopes trend in an east-west direction, following the geologic formations shown

on Figure 5- 1.

5.1.4 Wetlands

The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping prepared by the U. S o Fish and Wildlife

Service has identified many wetland areas within the Township. These areas provide wildlife

habitat, flood protection, surface water quality improvement and a variety of other important

functions. They are shown on Figure 5-2. The wetlands shown on Figure 5-2 are only those

identified on the NWI maps outside floodplains. There are numerous other wetlands not shown

on the maps within floodplains. All wetlands should be delineated and mapped as their

surrounding areas are developed.

5.1.5 Floodplains

Approximately 1,625 acres (6.4%) of the Township fall within the 100-year floodplain.

Approximately three-tenths mile of Lost Creek and 1.3 miles of Little Lost Creek were studied

by detailed methods for the 100 year floodplain. Cocolamus Creek, Tennis Run, Laurel Run,

Big Run and the remaining portions of Lost Creek and Little Lost Creek were studied by

approximate methods. Areas of detailed study were identified as areas of known flood hazards

and areas of potential development and base flood elevations were determined. Areas delineated

24

NOTE: Wetlands shown are t h o s e identified on U.S.D.I. NW1 m a p s outside floodplains.

. . . . . . . .

0

LEGEND

SLOPES OVER 15%

100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN

WETLANDS

. .-

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

Scale: 1' = 4.000'

Gunnett Fleming I

using approximate methods were identified as lower development potential or minimal flood hazards. No base flood elevations were determined for the approximate study methods.

The 100 year floodplains are delineated on Figure 5-2. These areas can be expected to

be inundated when a combination of abundant surface water, ample soil moisture and high water

table supply runoff more than can be accommodated in the normal stream channel. )

5.1.6 Historical and Archaeological Sites

The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation,

has indicated there are no recorded archaeological sites within the Township. However, the

Township does contain many areas that have a high probability of containing as yet undiscovered

archaeological resources. Sensitive archaeological areas include relatively flat areas near streams

and springs, especially stream and spring junctions and areas with fertile, well-drained soils.

Potentid resources in the Township range from the Paleo-Indian period to the historic period.

5.1.7 Soil Suitability for Septic Systems

Figure 5-3 shows soil types potentially unsuitable for septic systems; potentially suitable

for conventional in-ground systems; and potentially suitable for elevated sand mounds. The map

is based on soil survey mapping, not field investigations, and should be used for planning

purposes only.

The largest category is soil potentially suitable for elevated sand mounds. These soil

types are fairly well distributed throughout the Township, although large concentrations are

found north of Mountain Road (T527). These areas typically have bedrock or an elevated water

table between two and five feet from the surface with slopes less than 12 percent. The most

common soil types that fall under this category include Laidig, Hazleton-Dekalb, Edam-Weikert

and Momson soils.

26 I

1

t

i - ' -2 . _ I . . . . . . . . :. .-* ~. '. . 1. . . I . - - . . .. .. . . . . .

. -- ... . . . . . . .

. . . . , . . - . I . . .. ~ ... .

I

.S

TI POTENTIALLY SUITABLE FOR ELEVATED SAND MOUNDS

I

FAYETTE TOWNSHIP JUNIATA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

SOIL SUITABILITY FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS

Scale: 1" = 4,000'

I I GANNEIT FLEMING. INC. - HARRISBURG, PA

FIGURE 5-3

Gunnett Fleming 1 ,

I

I

The second largest category is soil potentially unsuitable for septic systems. Once again,

these soils are fairly well distributed throughout the Township. They are typically found on

steeply sloped areas (more than 25%), or in floodplain or other low lying areas. The limiting

zone for these soils is within two feet of the surface. Common soil types include Rubble Land,

Hazleton-Dekalb, Atkins, Brinkerton and Klinesville soils.

I

, The remaining area is potentially suitable for conventional in-ground gravity systems.

The largest concentratiofi is found east of Route 235 and south of Route 35. Another large area

, is located between Mountain and Rockland Roads in the western end of the Township. The soil ' types are typically deep and well drained, with a limiting zone greater than five feet from the

$ I

surface. Typical soil types include Morrison, and Mertz soils. Much of this area is also prime ~

farmland soils, so there is likely to be some conflict between demands for agricultural and

residential lands.

5.1.8 p i e Farmland SoiJs ,' '1 ' 8

irime farmland, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is the land that is

best sui h ed to producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops. It has the soil quality,

son and water supply needed to economically produce a sustained high yield of crops

ted and managed using acceptable farming methods. Prime farmland produces

the highkst yields with minimal inputs of energy and economic resources, and farming it results

in the l&st damage to the environment. Prime farmland may be in crops, pasture, woodland,

or otheqiland, but not in urban and built-up land or water areas. It must either be used for

producirig food or fiber, or be available for these uses. Prime farmland soils are usually

classifid as capability Class 1 or 2 on a scale of 1 to 8.

i g

8 ;$ $

\y

f

ere are approximately 2,900 acres of prime farmland soil in Fayette Township. These

rly well dispersed throughout the Township. The largest concentrations are found

south g d east of McAlisterville and through the valleys in the southern half of the Township :

14

28 t

I I

tannett Fleming

(See Figure 5-4). If a,gricultural preservation is determined to be a priority of Township

residents these areas should be targeted for preservation.

29

. -

I - . .

. .

.' .. . ' , . . . . . . .

E Gunnett Fleming

CHAPTER 6

DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING

,

Gonnett Fleming

6.0 DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING

A study of population data is crucial in making decisions involving the physical,

economic and social development of the Township. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of

the population is necessary in the formulation of reasonable projections of future population

levels and needs. This chapter includes a look back into historic population changes in the

Township and forward into population projections for prospective changes in the next twenty

)

.years.

Attractive housing and well maintained residential neighborhoods are some of the most

important assets of any community. Another important feature of the local housing market is

the variety of housing types and prices. Information presented at the end of this chapter includes

an inventory of the existing housing stock in the Township and a projection of future housing

needs.

6.1 POPULATION PROFILE

6.1.1 Population Growth Trends

Fayette Township has experienced an average growth rate per decade of 14.85 percent

for the past four decades. The most rapid growth in this time period took place during the

1970's, when the Township's population grew by 532; an increase of 23.7 percent. This is

approximately twice the growth rates of the 1950's, 1960's and 1980's. The 1970's was also

a period of rapid growth for the region and Juniata County. Table 6-1 shows the historic growth

rates for Fayette Township, its surrounding municipalities, and Juniata County.

31

Gannett Fleming

Municipality

Fayette Township .

Delaware Township

Given the relative long-term uniformity of population growth, it is reasonable to assume

that historic growth rates will continue into the future. In order to provide some flexibility in

future planning, future population projections are given as ranges. The projections shown in

Table 6-1 reflects a 10 to 15 percent growth rate for each of the next two decades. This range

was selected because it closely reflects the historic growth rate of the Township and region.

Actual future growth rates will be dependent on a variety of factors including zoning, sewer and

water availability and economic conditions. Planning recommendations will be based

1950’ 1960’ 1970’ 1980’ 1990’ 2000 2010

1,730 1,917 2,165 2,679 3,002 3,300-3,4562 3,63&3,97d (+10.8%) (+12.9%) (+23.7%) (+12.0%) (+lo-15%) (+1615%)

995 971 1,082 1,408 1,440 1 ,47S3 1,491’ (-24%) (+11.4%) (+30.1%) (+2.3%)

TABLE 6-1

1,620

1,599

1,620

HISTORIC AND PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH OF THE FAYETTE TOWNSHIP AREA

1950-2010

1,755 1,767 (+8.3%) (+0.6%)

1,868 2,216 (+16.8%) (+ 18.6%)

1,789 1,842* (+10.4%) (+3.0%)

Ferrnanagh Township 1,297 1,855

(+4.8%) +7.9%)

Walker Township

Decatur Township (Mifflin Co.)

W.Beaver Township (Snyder Co.)

W. Perry Township (Snyder Co.)

Regional Total

Juniata County

668 I 717 1 768 (+7.3%) (+7.1%)

10,790 11,779 13,120

15,243 15,874 16,712

2,406’ 2,523’ 2,249 2,097

2,070’ 1,651

2,124 I 2,331 I 2,5403 (+20.2%) (+9.7%)

2,513 2,735 2,983’

849 I 969 I 1 ,077’ (+ 10.5%) (+14.1%)

15,287 16,692 16,996 17,140

19,188 20,625

Source: ’ US. Census Bureau * Gannett Fleming, Inc. ’ PADER Division of State Water Plan NA = Not Available

32

2 ,7073

3,1603

1 ,390’

1,165’

18,136- 18,476

NA

Gannett Fleming

on the projected ranges given here. If actual growth is outside the projected ranges, the Plan

should be revised accordingly.

6.1.2 Age and Sex Distribution

The age and sex distribution of the population is a key factor in projecting growth and

the types of services best suited for the majority of residents. A balance of age groups is

necessary to support a healthy growth rate. A high percentage of young adults in their

childbearing years may result in rapid growth. Conversely, a high percentage of senior citizens

can result in slow growth and increases in the demands related to this age group. The age and

sex distribution of the Township's 1990 population is shown on Table 6-2.

I /

The overall population of Fayette Township has aged slightly since 1980. The percentage

of persons under 18 decreased from 29.5 percent to 26.4 percent, while the percentage of

persons over 65 increased from 11.9 percent to 13.5 percent. Despite this trend, which is

common throughout Pennsylvania, Fayette Township still has a fairly young population.

The Township's largest age group (ages 20-44) is the group most often involved in new

,' household formation and childbirth. The second largest group is the school age group (ages

0-19). Approximately two-thirds of the Township's population fall in these two groups.

Therefore, the Township should be able to maintain its historic rate of between 10 to 15 percent

with limited in-migration.

Another important aspect of this analysis is that public services and facilities should be

geared toward the school age and young adult age groups. This will be taken into account in

the planning recommendations portion of the Plan.

33

Gannqtt Fleming

10 - 14

15 - 19

t: 8.5 7.7

7.9 6.0

t: c c t;

r L

20 - 29

30 - 39

TABLE 6-2

AGE AND SEX COMPOSITION OF FAYETTE TOWNSHIP

1990

14.5 13.8

14.4 16.4

AGE GROUP I MALE (PERCENT) I FEMALE (PERCENT)

40 - 44

School Age Group

I ~~

7.5 6.6

0 - 5

45 - 49

50 - 59

60 - 64

8.0 I 7.8

6.7 6.7

9.1 8.9

4.4 6.2

6 - 9 I 7.2 I 5.8

65 - 74

75 - over

7.4 8.2

4.4 6.9

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

I- C..

i] r-.

34

Gannett Fleming

6.2 ECONOMIC BASE PROFILE

In the absence of available 1990 census data related to employment and income, estimates

of 1991 income levels have been obtained so that some conclusions related to the economic base

of Fayette Township can be drawn. \

Fayette Township’s median household income has doubled in each of the past two

decades. The 1970 median household income of $7,653 was slightly less than Pennsylvania’s

($8,153) in 1970. Both income levels have risen about 200 percent in the past 20 years and

should therefore be approximately equal today.

Per capita income has increased faster (+377.6%) than household income in Fayette

Township since 1970. Although adequate data are not available to fully evaluate the large

discrepancy .between the growth rates of per capita and household income, the decreasing

household size discussed later is a major factor, as there are fewer potential income sources in

each household today.

In summary, income levels in Fayette Township have tended to parallel those of

Pennsylvania as a whole. Based upon available data, economic conditions in Fayette Township

have remained fairly stable over the past 20 years and should continue to do so, barring the loss

. of major employers.

6.3 HOUSING ANALYSIS

6.3.1 Number and Type of Housing Units

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 1,192 housing units in the Township

in 1990. The majority of these housing units are single family detached dwellings. Another

13.0 percent are mobilehomes. The remaining 12.4 percent are various multi-family type

35

I

. - .

I

Number of Units in Structure

I

!

Total Housing Vacant Housing Units Units

Gnnnett Fleming

1, Detached

1, Attached

dwellings. Table 6-3 shows the number of housing units by the number of units in the structure

and' the vacancy rates for each housing type.

8 89 62

16 1

TABLE 6-3

HOUSING UNITS IN FAYETTE TOWNSHIP 1990

2 I 29 I 2

3 or more I 92 I 1

Mobilehome 1 155 I 18

Other I 11 I 2

Source: BonData

6.3.2 Occupancy Status

The Township's occupancy rate for its 1,192 dwelling units in 1990 was 92.8 percent.

This rate has increased slightly from the 1980 occupancy rate of 90.8 percent. The majority of

the vacant units (79.1%) are seasonal or occasional use dwellings such as hunting cabins. If

these units were not counted Fayette Township would have an unusually low vacancy rate of

only 1.5 percent.

Occupancy rates do not typically change greatly with time in rural areas like Fayette

Township. Therefore, it is reasonable to use the average rate of 91.8 percent for future

conditions. This estimate is used in the projection of future housing demand in section 6.3.5.

36

Gannqtt Fleming

6.3.3 Rental Units

According to U.S. Census Bureau information, 273 of the Township's 1106 occupied

housing units are rental units (24.7%). This is high in comparison to Juniata County (22.6%)

but lower than Pennsylvania (29.4%). It appears that the demand for rental units in Fayette

Township has increased slightly over the past ten years. Assuming that this trend will continue,

the future land use plan must allow ample land for moderate increases for multi-family units.

6.3.4 Housing Value

Census data from 1990 shows the median housing value in Fayette Township was

$53,800. This is an increase of 63.5 percent since 1980, or an average annual increase of

slightly more than five percent. Fayette Township's 1990 median housing value is slightly

higher than, that of Juniata County ($51,700) but is significantly less than Pennsylvania's

($69,700).

The 1990 median rent in Fayette Township was $171. Rents increased at a slightly lower

rate (55.4%) than housing value during the 1980's. Unlike housing values, median rent in

Fayette Township was lower than that in Juniata County ($184) and Pennsylvania ($322).

. 6.3.5 Projected Housing Growth

Using historic population and housing data from various sources, projections can be made

for future housing demand. Due to a national trend of a decreasing number of persons per

household, the housing growth rate is almost always higher than the population growth rate. In

Fayette Township's case, the decennial housing growth rate is projected to be about six percent

higher than the population growth rate.

An important calculation in the projection of future housing demands is the rate of

decrease of the number of persons per household. This rate has historically decreased slightly

37

,i I L

Year

1980'

1990'

20002

201oz

A- I

I ' L

Total Occupied Personal Housing Units Housing Units Population Housing Units

1040 944 2679 2.84

1192 1106 3002 2.70

1400-1460 1285- 1340 3300-3450 2.57

1625- 1775 1490-1630 3630-3970 2.44

.*- ', i LJ

.J r

Gonnett Fleming

less than five percent per decade in Fayette Township. Therefore, a decennial decrease of 4.9

percent was used to estimate future conditions. When combined with the population projections

and occupancy rates presented earlier in this chapter, estimates of future housing demands have

been prepared (see Table 6-4).

)

If the projections in Table 6-4 prove to be accurate, between 430 and 580 housing units

will be constructed in the next 20 years. Similarly, if historic trends continue, approximately

130 to 250 of these units will be rental units.

TABLE 6-4

FAYETTE TOWNSHIP HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS 1980 - 2010

Sources: ' U.S. Census Bureau Gannett Fleming, Inc.

38

; E 4 I Gunnett Fleming I .

CHAPTER 7

REGIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

I

I I

Gunnett Fleming

7.0 REGIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Fayette Township is surrounded by seven municipalities in Juniata, Mifflin and Snyder

Counties. Several of these municipalities are somewhat isolated from Fayette Township by large

tracts of state-owned land to the north. However, development and infrastructure changes within

any of the surrounding municipalities have a potential impact on Fayette Township. This chapter

contains a summary of pertinent, available information from each of the surround townships and

an analysis of their impact on Fayette Township. A map of the region is included as Figure 7-1.

7.2 DECATUR TOWNSHIP, MEFLIN COUNTY

The portion of Decatur Township that borders Fayette Township is completely owned by

the state, either as part of State Game Lands 107 or Bald Eagle State Park. There are no roads

connecting the two townships in this area. In addition, since the boundary is the ridge top of

Shade Mountain, the municipal boundary is also a watershed divide, so drainage and stormwater

issues are separated at the boundary.

Decatur Township is a rural municipality, much like Fayette. Most of the development

that has taken place has occurred along the PA Route 522 corridor, located parallel to the

municipal boundary about 1 miles from Fayette Township.

Due to the public ownership of the land along the municipal boundary and the physical

boundary of Shade Mountain, these two municipalities are fairly well isolated from each other.

However, each municipality should be kept abreast of each other’s planning activities to ensure 1 t

uniformity and to share problem solving techniques for rural governmental issues.

. . .

3NILL3S 1VNOI338

VI NVAl ASN N 3 d ‘ M N I70 3 VlVl N I7 r dlHSNMOl 3 U A V A

I

I .

. .

Eonnett Fleming

(13i development in this area.

West Beaver Township adjoins Fayette Township for a very short distance about one mile

, west of where Route 235 leaves Fayette Township to the north. The adjacent portion of West

Beaver Township is all part of Bald Eagle State Forest. Like Decatur Township, the municipal * I

boundary is the ridge top of Shade Mountain. PA Route 235 is the only road connecting the two

townships.

)

I Much of the development and public utility (sewer and water) availability is centered

'around McClure, a village located about 1% miles northwest of the portion of the Township that

.. ' adjoins Fayette Township. Since this area is physically divided from Fayette Township by Shade

Mountain and the lack of,roads, there is little potential for a development impact on Fayette

7.4 WEST PERRY TOWNSHIP, SNYDER COUNTY

The majority of the joint boundary between West Perry and Fayette Townships is dso

joint boundary. Beaver Springs is a village in Spring Township at the junction of PA Routes

! 235 and 522.

As with Fayette Township's other northern neighbors, there is little potential development

impact on Fayette Township due to public ownership of land, location of Shade Mountain and

limited roadway accessibility. The only potential area for private development along the joint . I _

boundary is the area along Fayette Township's northeastern boundary.

41

L Gannett Fleming

p 7.5 MONROE TOWNSHIP, JrnVIATA COUNTY

Monroe Township borders Fayette Township to the east. The two municipalities are

connected by PA Route 35. Monroe Township is a rural municipality and there are no known

development activities that would have a significant impact on Fayette Township. Monroe

Township does not have its own Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinance or subdivision and land

development ordinance.

E )

c; r: L , 7.6 DELAWARE TOWNSHIP, JUNIATA TOWNSHIP

Unlike the other municipalities discussed thus far, Delaware Township has a

Comprehensive Plan (1975), a zoning ordinance (adopted 1975), and a subdivision and land

development ordinance (adopted 1975). ? ,r, .

L'

According to the Comprehensive Plan, which has not been updated since 1975, the

portion of the Township along the Fayette Township boundary is planned for agricultural and

LJ

D

r?

1 L-,

p : '

L i

forested land uses. This is reflected in the current zoning ordinance, as the area is zoned rural-

agricultural which allows agricultural and horticultural uses, single family detached dwellings

and other related activities.

The plan also proposes the extension of public sewer service along PA Route 333 from

Thompsontown to service the East Salem area. The northern extent of this proposed extension

is approximately one mile from the Fayette Township boundary. Since this area is at a lower

elevation than the southern portion of Fayette Township, there is a potential of connecting a part

of Fayette Township to the Thompsontown sewer system if the need arises. To date, much of

this area is sparsely populated.

The Comprehensive Plan does not mention any planned transportation improvements that

would have a significant impact on Fayette Township. PA Route 235, which enters Fayette

Township south of McAlisterville, is classified as a connector roadway designed to service

traffic from rural roadways and connect to higher volume arterial roads (Le. Rt. 322). The

same classification is given to the road in Fayette Township.

'L' 0;.

. .. 42

Gannett Fleming

The subdivisionlland development and zoning ordinances for Delaware, Walker and

Fermanagh Townships are all similar in terms of specific requirements and zoning districts. If

planning ordinances are adopted in Fayette Township, some effort should be made to provide

uniformity throughout the region.

7.7 WALKER TOWNSHIP, JUNIATA COUNTY )

Walker Township also prepared their current Comprehensive Plan in 1975, revised their

zoning ordinance in 1988 and revised their subdivision/land development ordinance in 1979.

The Township is currently in the process of preparing an Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan.

I - .-

- - -.d

r “3 b g i- Delaware Township.

As with Delaware Township, the portion of Walker Township adjacent to Fayette

Township is projected for continued agricultural use in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned

rural-agricultural. The permitted uses in this zoning district are the same as they are in

r I

1

L_.

The Comprehensive Plan recommendations do not include any public sewer or water

extensions in the vicinity of Fayette Township. The closest projected service area is along Rt.

322 to the west of Fayette Township.

The only state road that joins the two municipalities (SR 2007) is in the southwestern

corner of Fayette Township. There are no major improvement plans along this roadway.

Similarly, there are no known improvement plans along Vanwert Road, the only township road

that joins the two municipalities.

7.8 FERMANAGH TOWNSHIP, JtTNIATA COUNTY

Fermanagh Township’s Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 1975, its zoning ordinance

adopted in 1981, and its subdivision/land development ordinance adopted in 1981.

Once again, the Comprehensive Plan recommends agricultural and forested land uses r - !

43

Gunnett Fleming

along the Fayette Township boundary. The portion of the Township roughly north of Mountain

Road is in a forest district, which permits agriculture, forest, parks and other public uses, single

family detached dwelling sand similar uses. The portion south of Mountain Road is zoned rural

agriculture. The permitted uses in this district are the same as they are in Delaware Township.

The Comprehensive Plan does not include any recommendations for extending public

sewer and water beyond their existing (1975) extents. The proposed limits of these utilities

extend only about two miles from the Juniata River, which is nearly 2.6 miles from Fayette

Township. Therefore, combined with the agricultural and forest zoning, there is little potential

for major development projects near the joint municipal boundary.

The major roads that join the two municipalities are Mountain Road, SR 1002 and SR

35. Fermanagh Township's portion of Mountain Road (Slim Valley Rd.) and SR 1002 are both

classified as feeder roads, while SR 35 is classified as a connector. No major improvement projects are planned along any of these roadways.

7.9 SUMMARY

Fayette Township is located at the center of a large rural agricultural and forested area.

Based upon available planning documents and interviews with key officials, there are no

significant development or improvement projects in the region which will have a major impact

on Fayette Township. However, due to the similarities between the seven regional

municipalities, it is important to maintain communications between the municipalities to ensure

compatibility along joint boundaries and in planning regulations. The planning recommendations

and implementation program portions of the plan include various means of improving regional

communications and reducing costs through regional cooperation.

44

LJ Gunnett Fleming

CHAPTER 8

COMMUNITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Gunnett Fleming

8.0 COMMUNITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

8.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Fayette Township officials indicated a desire to maximize public input into the

Comprehensive Plan preparation process. To accomplish this goal, community surveys were

mailed in October, 1991 to approximately 1,200 households and businesses in the Township.

In addition, public meetings were held throughout the planning process to gather additional input

from the public.

A total of 241 surveys were returned for a response rate of 20.9 percent. Each survey

response was individually tabulated. Multiple choice questions were entered into a computer

database for tabulation and the written responses were tabulated by hand.

According to the survey results, 76 percent of respondents live in Fayette Township, 18

percent both reside and operate a business and 3 percent operate a business in the Township.'

When asked why they chose to live or operate a business in the Township, the majority

answered atmosphere (61 %), low tax rates (58%), location relative to employment (37%), and

housing cost (36%). (See Table 8-1)

For the majority of survey respondents (27%), the primary wage earner works outside

Juniata County, Another 26 percent of respondents are retired. Only 22 percent work in

Fayette Township, while 18 percent work outside the Township but inside Juniata County.

The most common source of information about Township programs for respondents is

the newspaper (79%). Nearly one half (49%) cited neighbors as another significant source of

this information. Radio (30%) and mailings (24%) were other significant sources of Township

information.

Percentages do not always add up to 100 percent since some respondents did not answer every question.

45

r-. L I

F

t.

f ̂I

L

L r .

c,

I - C'

I I

Gonnett Fleming

TABLE 8-1

MISCELLANEOUS SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

QUESTIONS

Reside or Operate a Business in the Township

Reside Operate Business Both

Primary Reasons to Reside or Operate Business in Township

Location relative to place of employment Educational system Housing cost Housing availability Access to shopping and facilities Property resale value Tax rates Recreation facilities Atmosphere Other

Where Residents Primary Wage Earner Works

Within Township Within Juniata County Retired Other More than one location checked

Source(s) of Information about Township Programs Newspaper Radio TV Cable TV Neighbors Mailings Other

~~ ~

PERCENTAGES

76 3 18

37 17 36 11 7 9 58 3 61 20

22 18 26 27 4

79 30 1 1

49 24 5

SOURCE: FAYETTE TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY SURVEY, NOVEMBER 1991.

Note: Percentages may not equal 100 because not all questions were answered.

46

Gannett Fleming

c--

1 L

1. I.

1

r- f ’.

y -

r

i-’

id’

The following report is a summary of the information gathered through the community

survey and public meetings. The information is used to develop insight into the residents’

opinions about their community and provide the basis for the development of community goals

and objectives.

8.2 TOWNSHIP SERVICES

The first section of the survey requested an evaluation of 10 Township services on a scale

of one to five, with five being excellent and one being poor. The responses are summarized in

Table 8-2. Most services received fair to good ratings. A fair rating should be interpreted as

acceptable, but in need of improvement.

Fire and ambulance services received by far the highest number of good or excellent

ratings (74 and 71 percent respectively). This indicated that residents are pleased with the level

of service provided by the Fayette Fire Company. The public school system also received a

high percentage of good to excellent ratings (66%). Similarly, solid waste collection services

received a high rating (60% good to excellent). The last category where more than one half of

the respondents gave good to excellent ratings (54%) was local road maintenance. However,

a significant portion of respondents (34%) rated local road maintenance as fair.

The service receiving the highest percentage (63%) of fair to poor ratings was police

protection. It is imp-?ant to note that most of these responses (40%) were under the fair

category. The stormwater management system also received generally poor ratings, with 45%

of respondents giving a fair to poor rating. Therefore, police protection and stormwater

management are the two services perceived as being most in need of improvement. Other

services, such as parks and recreation, water supply and sewage treatment were primarily rated

as fair and in some need of improvement.

.- t

.- - *_ 47

1 Gonnett Fleming

L r- '

6 L

TABLE 8-2

EVALUATION OF TOWNSHIP SERVICES

SERVICE

11 Fire Protection

Ambulance Service

11 Local Road Maintenance

II Stormwater System

PERCENT OF RESPONSES PER RATING SCALE

I I I I ll

2 5 18 56

4 I 4 1 3 4 1 4 4 1 1 0 l l

2 5 20 55

SOURCE: FAYETTE TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY SURVEY, NOVEMBER 1991.

Note: Percentages may not equal 100 because all questions were not answered.

RATING KEY: 1 = poor; 2 =unsatisfactory; 3 =fair; 4 = good; 5 = excellent

48

Gonnett Fleming

8.2.1 Police Protection

Several specific written comments were made regarding police protection services. Three

respondents noted that the Township should have at least a part-time police force since the state

police cannot commit enough officers to adequately cover the area. Another resident mentioned

a need for a policemen to patrol/visit Fayette Elementary to prevent potential mischief and drug

related problems. Another resident felt that a state police barracks in Juniata County could help

the situation.

1

8.2.2 Parks and Recreation

Although parks and recreation facilities received only fair overall ratings, 53 percent of

respondents felt that existing facilities are adequate. When given a list of options for choosing

which new facilities respondents would support (See Table 8-3), more youth programs (38%),

more facilities at existing parks (35 %) and an indoor recreation center (29 %) were the leading

responses. Written responses on parks and recreation facilities included a need for facilities to

benefit all ages, a place for single young adults and a perceived need to fix up the Township’s

existing park.

8.2.3 Water Supply and D‘ktribution System

The majority of respondents either support the extension of public water service (43%)

or have no opinion (24%). The existing primary water supply for respondents is a private well

(57%). Only 39 percent of respondents currently have public water service. Written comments

regarding public water service included the following:

e

e

e

services should be extended only as population concentration demands it chlorine levels are too high citizens should not be required to connect to public water

49

I .

I k Gonnett Fleming

c TABLE 8-3

TOWNSHIP SJ%RVICS

QUESTIONS

Adequate Roadway System for Existing Levels YeS No No Opinion

For Future Levels YeS No No Opinion

Extension of Public Sewer Service YeS No No Opinion

Extension of Public Water Service YeS No No Opinion

Sourc;! of Current Wastewater' Treatment Public Sewer On-lot System Other

Source of Drinking Water Public Water Private Well Other

Support Township Recycling Program YeS No No Opinion

Adequate Recreational Facilities YeS No No Opinion

Support Establishment of Recreational Facilities Indoor recreation center Township parks More facilities at existing parks More youth programs More adult programs Other

PERCENT

82 12 3

25 51 21

47 27 22

43 31 24

42 56 1

39 57 3

79 8 12

53 33 12

29 22 35 38 18 9

! ,_-. I \ I -

SOURCE: FAYEITE TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY SURVEY, NOVEMBER 1991.

Note: Percentages may not equal 100 because not all questions were answered.

r .- 50

I I. L Gannett Fleming

8.2.4 Wastewater Treatment

As with public water service, most residents (47%) support or have no opinion (22%)

regarding the extension of public sewer service. Respondents were almost evenly dividcd

between having an on-lot septic system (56%) and public sewer service (42%). The only written

comment received regarding public sewer service is that service should not be extended until the

i

- -

!-

7' population concentration demands it. i . -

! 7' 8.2.5 Transportation

ic Almost all respondents (82%) feel that Fayette Township roadways are adequate for

existing traffic levels. However, the majority of respondents (51 %) feel that existing roadways

will not be adequate for the traffic levels in the year 2010. Written comments regarding the

transportation system include the following:

i

i

I --

I .

0

0

road maintenance and planning could be improved

the E-2 Mart intersection at Oakland Mills has many accidents there is a speeding problem in McAlisterville

i_ ~*

r McAlisterville does not need a traffic light

_. .

7

t - 8.2.6 Solid Waste/Recycling

c

. - Solid waste collection services received a fairly good rating. However, 79 percent of

residents support the establishment of a recycling program. Several written comments were also

received in support of a recycling program. Other written comments were that collection costs

are too high and suggestions that billing be made on a per bag versus a per household basis.

r-

L-

. -

---

r

I 8.3 TOWNSHIP POLICIES 8 -

When asked which type of future development is preferred by residents, the answers were

as follows (See Table 8-4):

51

Eannett Fleming

QUESTIONS

Preference of Development Increase Commercial-retail Commercial-wholesale Office Industrial Single family residential

Other Multi-family residential

Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Yes No No Opinion

Yes No No Opinion

Adoption of SubdivisiodLand Development Ordinance

TABLE 8-4

PERCENTAGES -

29 17 11 29 40 12 10

60 25 13

54 27 15

TOWNSHIP POLICIES

SOURCE: FAYETTE TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY SURVEY, NOVEMBER 1991.

Note: Percentages may not equal 100 because not all questions were answered.

52

Gonnett Fleming

e

e commercial-retail - 29 % e industrial - 29%

commercial-wholesale - 17 % e

e office - 11% e other - 10%

single family residential - 40%

multi-family residential - 12 %

The most common response given under the "other" category was "no more

development. 'I Aside from the preference for single family homes, residents apparently perceive

a need for more employment generating land uses.are summarized here as the community's goals

and objectives for the next ten to twenty years. The goals are not prioritized in this section.

Some prioritization will be done in the implementation section of the Plan.

Written responses centered around a need for increased planning and the need to better

regulate hog/poultry activities in residential areas. Other comments included questioning of the

need for a zoning ordinance, a need to adequately enforce subdivision and zoning ordinances,

and a need to protect the rights of farmers.

Respondents favor the development of a zoning ordinance by more than a two to one

A similar preference was given to the development of subdivision ratio (60% to 25%).

regulations (54% to 27%).

8.4 COMMUNITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the public participation process is to provide a foundation for the future

development of Fayette Township. The input from the community survey and public meetings

- _ .-

53 r

1, Gannett Fleming

8.4.1 Future Land Use

0 Maintain the rural character of the Township through the following actions: - Extend public water and sewer service only to those areas with identified

problems or where population density necessitates their provision.

- Adopt and enforce zoning and subdivision/land development regulations

- Protect environmentally sensitive areas including floodplains, wetlands and c steeply sloped areas.

e Encourage a managed expansion of employment generating land use types, including commercial and industrial development.

Regulate poultry/hog agribusiness activities to minimize conflicts with adjacent land uses.

r- I L e

I- I

L e Achieve a balance between the rights of farmers and adjacent landowners.

8.4.2 Transportation System

0 Improve the paving maintenance and plowing services by developing a multi-year plan for scheduling improvements.

e Develop standards for new roads to ensure their adequacy for future traffic conditions.

0 Make roadway improvements where safety problems are identified.

e Improve the condition of roadways listed as fair or poor in the road conditions survey (appended).

8.4.3 Public Facilities and Services

0 Investigate the establishment of a Fayette Township police department.

0 Maintain support for fire and ambulance services to maintain the current level of service.

54

Connett Fleming

Improve parks and recreation facilities by expanding existing programs and increasing facilities at existing parks.

Investigate establishment of an indoor recreation facility/program.

Support the school district in its efforts to maintain its current level of service.

8.4.4 Public Utilities

Extend public water and sewer service to those areas with problems or as population density and development require

Prepare an Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan to closely document existing problems and plan for future growth.

Establish a Township-wide recycling program. e

r i -I Manage the increasing costs for solid waste collection services.

Establish stormwater management regulations for new development and rectify existing problem areas.

r ! ..- .

I

I

55 '

i Gannett Fleming

CHAPTER 9

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN L _

I ' I

c

I

1,

! L-

T-

i

F L L

L

Eonnett Fleming

9.0 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN

The future land use plan designates portions of the Township for the future development

or use of forested, residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational and agricultural

lands. These land use types have been distributed throughout the Township to ensure its

continued development as a pleasant, safe and attractive place to live and work. Existing land

use patterns, environmental constraints, utility availability, growth projections, community goals

and objectives, and sound planning principles have been combined to formulate the future land

use plan.

The future land use plan should be viewed as a guide for future growth and development

in the Township and is intended as a flexible guide for the future uses of land. It is not a

detailed prediction of the future uses of land in the years 2000 or 2010. All areas in the

Township are designated as land use types which may be different than their current uses but

not all will be developed during the planning period. In addition, the map is somewhat

generalized and does not reflect the land use of every lot. It should be reviewed periodically

by the Township and revised, if necessary, to keep pace with changing development patterns and

trends.

The future land use map is not a zoning map and should not be construed for this

purpose. A proposed zoning ordinance is being prepared as part of the planning process which

may, or may not, be adopted by the Supervisors. If adopted, the zoning ordinance will serve

as the legal means of enforcing the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.

The community goals and objectives developed for future land use are as follows:

0 Maintain the rural character of the Township through the following actions:

- Extend public water and sewer service only to those areas with identified

Adopt and enforce zoning and subdivision/land development regulations

problems or where population density necessitates their provision -

r

i 56

Gunnett Fleming

- Protect environmentally sensitive areas including floodplains, wetlands and

steeply sloped areas

e Encourage a managed expansion of employment generating land use types,

including commercial and industrial development

Regulate poultry/hog agribusiness activities to minimize conflicts with adjacent

land uses

Achieve a balance between the rights of farmers and adjacent landowners

a

These goals and objectives provide the framework for the future land use plan. The

recommendations included here are designated to achieve these goals given the existing

environment and pertinent federal, state and local regulations.

The future land use map (Figure 9-1) shows the proposed future distribution of land use

types and Table 9-1 lists the areas included under each land use category. The map also shows

the 100-year floodplain. M'hile some portions of the floodplain have already been developed,

future development of the floodplain should be severely restricted to protect property owners and

provide adequate stormwater management.

9.1 FORESTED LANDS

Over one half (50.9 percent) of the Township is currently forested. Much of this area

is remote, steeply sloped, poorly suited for septic systems and is not well suited for more

intensive development. Therefore, most of this area is projected to continue as forested land

throughout the planning period.

Fayette Township's three surrounding Juniata County municipalities (Delaware,

Fermanagh and Walker Township) with zoning each have a forest district with similar

regulations. The district regulations generally allow forest, agriculture, parks, churches and

single family detached dwellings. The minimum lot size is 80,OOO square feet (approx. 2 acres)

in all three municipalities. Given that all three townships regulate these areas similarly and that

the regulations are consistent with the intended uses of the forested areas shown on the future

57 . _

. - c ._. , . , .' .. . : . ,I. . . . . , . . . . . ._ . . ~- .. .. -

. . . . . . .. . , ' . . . . . ' -~ . ~ . . . - . I . r .

_ _ _ ___. .--i ...... _- _ - _ *-._I- - . . . - - - . . . . . . . . . .

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +----&-:. ->--..-d'-L-L i_ '-1 . I ' .: , . . . . . ....................... . . . . . .: , . . . . . .

. . -- . - . . . - . -

I_ .__ .

LEGEND

FORESTED

COMMERCIAL

INDUSTRIAL

I NSTlTUTlO NAL

R ECR EAT1 0 NAL

RESID ENTlAL

AGRICULTURAL

FLOO D P L 4 l N BOUNDARY

FAYElTE TOWNSHIP JUNIATA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

FUTURE LAND USE

Scale: 1" = 4,000'

G A " 3 - r R E M I N G , INC. - HARRISBURG, PA

. .

- I - -

.. -

. . 1 ’ .

i .

Eonnett Fleming

TABLE 9-1 COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USES

I

ORY

Forest

Agriculture

Residential

Industrial

Commercial

Institutional

Recreational Open space

TOTAL

12,977.0

10,565.4

1,079.6

423.7

50.9

87.4

299.0

25,483 .O

13,010.0

10,230.6

1,120.0

615.0

121.0

87.4

299.0

25483 .O

+33.0

-334.8

+40.4*

+19:.3

+70.1

0.0

0.0

* The future land use plan actually allocates more than 250 acres of new residential land. The difference shown here is less because the generalized nature of the future land use plan does not include the measureinent of the numerous individual lots and small subdivisions.

land use map, Fayette Township officials should consider adopting similar regulations as part

of the zoning ordinance.

9.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS

Approximately 40 percent of the Township is currently in agricultural land use. About

one third of this land meets the USDA definition for prime farmland. Prime farmland areas

should be preserved to the maximum extent possible as they are the areas most able to produce

crops on a profitable basis over the long-term. Understanding that agriculture is important to

Fayette Township’s economy and its continued existence as a rural municipality, most of the

existing agricultural lands are projected to continue as such throughout the planning period.

59

L

c

c

Eonnett Fleming

As with many land use types, there are potential conflicts between agricultural and

residential uses. Some effort has been made in the future land use plan to cluster non-

agricultural uses, thereby partially isolating them from agricultural lands. Additional controls,

such as nutrient management regulation, building set-backs and buffer yards can also be effective

tools in minimizing these conflicts. The designation of agricultural security areas and/or the

purchase of development rights can also be effective tools for preserving farmland while partially

separating agricultural and new residential uses. Township officials must be careful not to adopt

regulations that overly restrict the normal farming practices of existing farming operations as

prohibited by Pennsylvania’s Right to Farm Law (PA Act 133).

The zoned municipalities surrounding Fayette Township each have a rural agricultural

district which permits agriculturally related uses, single family detached dwellings and similar

low density uses. Minimum lot size in all three municipalities is 40,000 square feet (approx.

1 acre). These regulations are generally consistent with the intent of the future land use plan

and should be considered for implementation of the agricultural land use recommendations.

Township officials may also want to consider additional nutrient management or bufferyard

requirements as long as they do not effectively zone out specific agricultural uses.

9.3 RESIDENTIAL LANDS

L

11

L

r i .

The residential land use category must provide the municipality’s fair share of all

reasonable housing types. The housing projections presented in Chapter 6 show that 433 to 583

housing units should be built in Fayette Township within 20 years to keep up with the projected

population growth. If the existing breakdown of housing types is a reasonable match for market

demand, then the future demands for differing housing types is as follows:

e

e

e

e

0

0

single family detached - 74.6% (323 - 435 units)

single family attached - 1.4% (6 - 8 units)

two family - 2.4% (10 - 14 units)

multi-family - 7.7% (33 - 45 units)

mobilehomes - 13.0% (56 - 76 units)

other - 0.9% (4 - 5 units)

r

60

r I

r - i.

Gunnett Fleming

The major area for residential development on the future land use map surrounds

McAlisterville due to existing residential development in the area and availability of public sewer

and water. There are approximately 250 acres of undeveloped land outside the floodplain

proposed for residential development. Using the typical minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet

taken from the surrounding municipalities zoning ordinances and an assumption that only 75

percent of the land will be available for lots (excluding roads, parks, stormwater ponds, etc.),

there is ample space for approximately 545 units within the proposed residential area. Since this

represents more than 90 percent of the maximum projected housing units over 20 years, the land

use plan should provide ample opportunity for meeting the Township's fair share allocation.

This is especially true, considering that additional residential units will also be constructed within

the forested and agricultural areas on the future land use map. High density development such

as apartments or mobilehome parks may even take place in the commercial, industrial or

agricultural areas, depending on the regulations in the zoning ordinance.

9.4 INDUSTRIALLANDS

A relatively small 1.7 percent (423.7 acres) of the Township is under industrial use. The

wood products industry dominates this land use category, taking advantage of the significant

regional forest reserves. The largest single industrial property is the quarry located along Route

235.

In keeping with the township's goal of providing more employment generating land uses,

an additional 191.3 acres has been added to the existing industrial lands. The largest addition

is located in the southern Oakland Mills area as an addition to the existing industrial lands. The

new industrial area is fairly well buffered to the north and south by the 100 year floodplain, has

existing industrial land to the east and agricultural land to the west. One potential limitation for

the land is the unavailability of public sewer or water. Although the soil mapping does show

that much of the site is potentially suitable for elevated sand mound type systems, some type of

public utility service may be needed depending on the volume of water or wastewater generated.

Oakland Mills should be investigated closely for the need and feasibility of public sewer service

in the sewage facilities planning process due to the amount of existing development, small lot

sizes and age of many structures (see Chapter 12).

61

I] \

c

L

c

Gannett Fleming

In addition to the industrial lands shown on the future land use map, there may be

additional industrial opportunities in the forest district if regulated like Fayette Township’s

surrounding municipalities. All three municipalities allow the production of forest products and

forest industries within their forest districts as a special exception in the zoning ordinance. This

method of regulation would be consistent with the goals of this Plan if the special exception

criteria are sufficient to protect the sensitive forested areas.

9.5 COMMERCIAL LANDS

There are only 50.9 acres of commercial land in Fayette Township at this time.

Consistent with the goal of providing additional employment generating land use types, an

additional 70 acres has been added to this category.

Once again, a significant portion of this area is in the Oakland Mills area and may be

limited for development by the availability of utility services. The area was selected due to the

amount of existing commercial development, the potential availability of adjacent lands, a lack

of conflicting adjacent land uses and location along the Township’s most heavily travelled

roadway (SR 35).

Understanding the potential limitations for this area, additional land for commercial

development is provided in downtown McAlisterville and west of McAlisterville at the

intersection of SR 35 and Musser Road (T-563). These two locations provide for the conversion

of residential home sites to commercial use in an existing commercial/residential environment

and the development of new commercial land adjacent to existing commercial uses. These

locations are readily accessible to both public water and sewer and are both located along a high

traffic volume roadway (SR 35). When combined with the proposed commercial lands in

Oakland Mills, there should be ample commercial opportunities for the growing population of

the Township.

r; L.

62

Gunnett Fleming

9.6 INSTITUTIONAL LANDS

Institutional lands include municipal property, schools, churches and other similar

public/semi-public uses. There are currently 87.4 acres (0.3 percent) of institutional property

in Fayette Township. No new institutional lands are proposed although these land use types are

typically compatible with a wide variety of other uses and may be developed as necessary in

many areas of the Township. Therefore, they can be developed without being inconsistent with

the future land use plan.

!

9.7 RECREATIONAL LANDS

The primary recreation lands in the Township include the Lost Creek Golf Course,

community park and ballfields in McAlistemille, and the Cocolamus Picnic Grove. Chapter 11

contains specific recommendations for the future development of parks and recreation facilities.

Therefore, while no new recreational lands are shown on the future land use map, they may be

developed if consistent with the recommendations in Chapter 11.

9.8 SUMMARY

The future land use plan provides additional residential, commercial and industrial

development areas while maintaining the Township’s rural character in accordance with the

community goals and objectives. The effective implementation of this plan is dependent on the

adoption of zoning and subdivision regulations and the implementation of the recommendations

in the other components of the plan.

63

1, Gtinnett Fleming

c r -

I , , , -

I . I

i

CHAPTER 1Q

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

r

Eonnett Fleming [- I

10.0 TRANSPORTATION PLAN

r f. t

Fayette Township's transportation system is a rural one, clearly designed to meet the

needs of a small community. However, the combination of state and local roadways provide

excellent east-west travel and an acceptable degree of north-south travel, given the rural nature

of the area. More than eight of ten (82%) of residents feel that the existing roadways are

adequate for existing traffic levels, but a lesser percentage (46%) feel they are adequate or have

no opinion on their adequacy for travel in 20 years. Transportation goals and objectives

developed during the planning process are as follows:

0 improve the paving maintenance and plowing services by developing a multi-year

plag for scheduling improvements 0 develop standards for new roads to ensure their adequacy for future traffic

conditions

make roadway improvements where safety problems are identified

improve the condition of roadways listed as fair or poor in the road conditions

survey

0

0

Several transportation systems deficiencies are identified in the background studies and

community goals and objectives chapters. The material presented here is designed to identify

potential problems, and alleviate existing deficiencies and improve the overall system. Several

alternatives for financing the improvements are given in the implementation program.

10.1 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS

PADOT estimates traffic flow increases on an annual, 10-year and 20-year intervals.

These estimates show that traffic on minor arterials and collectors in the Township should

increase by 15 percent in ten years and 30 percent in 20 years. Using these estimates, traffic

projections have been prepared for those roadways for which current counts are available from

PADOT. The projected counts are listed in Table 10-1 and are shown on Figure 10-1.

64

.._"

\ . -

\ \ \ \ \ \

\ \ \ \ \ \ \

_ -

.LEGEND

\ /' \ \

i i 7 m 2011 TRAfFlC COUNT

r w A FAIR ROAO CONDLTIONS

0 lMPROVEMENT PRIORITY CHigh. ~edium or b w )

~

FAYETTE TOWNSHIP JUNIATA COUNTY, PEblbdSYLVANIA

'I"SPORTA3ION PIAN

Scale: 1' = 4,0001

GA"m FLEMING. INC. - HwaRISEU& PA

F I G U R E 10-1

SR 35 SR 235 SR 1002 SR 1003 SR 1004 SR 1005 SR 2007 SR 2008 SR 2011 SR 2012 SR 2013 SR 2015

TABLE 10-1 TRAFFIC FLOW PROJECTIONS

2475-4084 599-1790

639 3 19-383 511-1087

259 383 3 19 127 447 1178

26-575

2846-4697 689-2058

735 367-440 5 88- 1250

298 440 367 146 5 14

1,355 30-66 1

3218-5809 779-2327

831 .

415-498 664-1413

337 498 4 15 165 581 1531

34-748

Sources: PADOT Roadway Management System ( S e e Appendix B). Ranges given represent the range in existing average daily traffic (ADT) over the various road segments.

* Gannett Fleming, Inc.

Given the relatively low 1991 traffic counts, the projected increases are moderate and

should not present major congestion problems. However, without transportation system

improvements the safety of local roadways will most likely decrease. These projections and

available accident information (see Table 2-1) will be used to prioritize the improvements given

here.

10.2 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS

10.2.1 State Roadways

The only state roadways in Fayette Township not identified as being in good condition

(fair) in the road conditions survey (Appendix C) are SR 2011 and SR 2015. Both are macadam

roadways with a number of potholes and surface cracks that prevented them from being

66

Gannett Fleming

classified as being in good condition. Township officials should urge PADOT to improve these

roads so the condition of all state roadways in the Township is consistent.

SR 2015 should ge given a higher priority given the higher traffic volume on this

roadway and somewhat poorer condition. There were three accidents on SR 2015 between 1986

and 1991, all involving motorists hitting fixed objects. No specific information regarding the

locations or causes of these accidents is available so no specific safety improvements can be I

recommended.

SR 2011 is a low volume roadway in an almost total agricultural setting. The relatively

high volume of trucks and farm vehicles utilizing this road has probably contributed to its

deterioration to its currently fair to good condition. Therefore, it does waiiant improvement so

it can continue to provide an adequate surface for these vehicles. Since there has been only one

accident on this road in the past five years (1986-1991) there does not appear to be a need for

major safety improvements at this time.

The majority (73.7%) of accidents on Fayette Township's state roads between 1986 and

1991 occurred on SR 35 and SR 235, the Township's two highest volume roadways. Most of

the accidents occurred on SR 35 (80 or 79.2%) and nearly one-half of these involved motorists

hitting fixed objects. There is a positive trend toward a decreasing number of accidents on SR

35, although the number of accidents warrants further study of their cause and the necessary

safety improvements to further reduce the number of accidents. The decreasing accident trend

is not occurring on SR 235, as there have been three to four accidents annually on this road for

the past five years. Nearly half of these accidents were motorists hitting fixed objects, followed

closely by angle collisions. There has been a disturbing increase of fatal accidents (one in each

of the past two years) which should be investigated and any necessary safety improvements

implemented.

Two of the Township's state roads (SR 1005 and SR 2008) have unusual configurations

resulting in multiple, nearly 90 degree bends. These alignments should be straightencd as

development occurs along them to improve visibility and reduce the potential for future

accidents.

67

w

c-

Gonnett Fleming

I .L

r l I-.-

r ! \

i-

10.2.2 Township Roadways

There are no traffic or accident count data available to prepare a detailed evaluation of

Township roads. Therefore, the road conditions survey and land use/development information

gathered in the background studies are the primary tools for making recommendations. The

Township road system is in amazingly good condition, given its rural nature and the total length

of Township roads. Given the excellent condition of many rural roadways, the road conditions

evaluation used here is very stringent in comparison to other rural townships.

The Township road identified as being in the worst condition is Vanormer Road (T-539).

Vanormer Road is one of the municipality's narrowest (12 feet) roadways and is both macadam

and gravel, depending upon the specific location. The poorest condition segments are those that

are gravel. Land uses along the road are forested and agricultural, with small residential lots

limited to the paved section adjacent to SR 235. The remaining portion of the road should be

widened and paved as it develops or if conditions continue to deteriorate.

Another Township road in need of improvement is Quarry Road (T-491). This road is

also identified in the road survey as being in fair to poor condition, depending upon the exact

location. The primary reason for the poor condition of this roadway is its primary use as the

main access way to SR 235 for heavy trucks leaving and entering the limestone quarry. The

portions of the road beyond the quarry's main access points are in discernably better condition

than the remainder of the road. The Township should pursue a joint agreement with the quarry

owners to maintain the road in better condition, thereby improving travel for other vehicles on

the roadway, improving safety and reducing the dust and mud from being transported or blown

off-site.

Another road identified as being in fair to poor condition is Little Evandale Road (T-545)

along the Township's eastern border. This 12 foot wide dirt/gravel roadway serves little purpose

as a Township road and does not connect to any known municipal roads in Monroe Township.

Therefore, officials should give serious consideration to abandoning this road and allowing it to

revert to private ownership.

68'

Gonnett Fleming

The gravel roads in the northern portion of the Township are both in fair to poor

condition. These include Bunkertown Road north of Jamison Road and Landis Road. Philips

Hill Road and Ridge Road are two other northern roadways identified as being in fair to poor

condition. While both roads are macadam, they are both in need of repair. Despite their

relatively poor condition, all are given a low priority due to their isolated locations and relatively

few homes served (13 total).

The remainder of the Township roads are identified as being in fair or good condition

in the road conditions survey (Appendix C ) . A priority rating system for upgrading the roads

in fair condition has been developed based upon several factors:

e

e

e road width

number of residential lots along the roadway (development density)

traffic count on intersecting state route (if applicable)

surface type (macadam or gravel)

High priority has been given to roadways with high development density and high traffic

volumes on intersecting roadways. All roads given a high priority rating are macadam, have

between 10 to 27 residential lots and are between 12 to 18 feet wide. The total length of all

roads with a high priority rating is approximately 8.4 miles. See Table 10-2 and Figure 10-1

for a listing and mapping of the priorities given to all Township roads. These roads should be

placed at the top of a long-range repaving/repair list that identifies planned road improvement

projects over a three to five year period.

A medium priority is given to the roadways with a fewer number of residential lots,

lower traffic volumes on intersecting state roads or no connection to a state road. Most roads

in this category are macadam, are typically 14 feet wide and have between one and eight

residential lots along the portion in fair condition. The total length of all roads with a medium

priority rating is approximately 9.3 miles.

69

TABLE 10-2

Roadway

Church Avenue (T-601)

Fairview Road (T-533)

Mountain Road (T-527)

PRIORITY RATINGS FOR TOWNSHIP ROAD IMPROVEMENTS

Number of ADT of Intersectin2 State Surface3 Width‘ Length’ Priority Residential’ Lots Route Type (miles)

15 4084 (SR 35) 1790 (SR 235) M 12 0.15 High

17 383 (SR 1003) 599 (SR 235) M 14 1.82 High

30 None M 16 2.35 High

Town Ridge Road (T-509)

Vanormer Road (T-539)

Benner Road (”-507)

Liberty Road (T-450)

Dagen Road (T-537)

Dressler Road (T-493)

Hornberger Road (T-600)

Jamison Road (7’-541)

McAlister Road .(T-604) Orchard Road (“-442)

Quarry Road (T-491)

S hellenburger Road (T-497)

Sunnyside Road (T-608)

8 1790 (SR 235) 319 (SR 2008) M 14 1.14 High

22 599 (SR 235) M/G 12 2.90 High

5 1790 (SR 235) 127 (SR 2011) M 14 1.67 Medium

6 319 (SR 2008) M 18 0.45 Medium

4 383 (SR 1003) 511 (SR 1004) G 14 0.53 Medium

7 1178 (SR 2013) 319 (SR 2008) M 14 1.36 Medium

6 3094 (SR 35) M 17 0.30 Medium

6 None M 14 0.76 Medium

9 None M 17 0.15 Medium

2 1662 (SR 235) M 14 0.38 Medium

M 14 0.61 Medium 1 1662 (SR 235)

7 1178 (SR 2013) 319 (SR 2008) M 18 1.44 Medium 8 None M 14 0.23 Medium

I

Thompson Road (T-430) 2 3866 (SR 35) 511 (SR 1004) G 14 0.68 Medium

TABLE 10-2

Roadway Number of ADT of Intersectit$ State Surface3 Width' Length' Priority Residential' Lots Route Type (miid

I

Sunset Drive (T-535) 5 639 (SR 1002) 319 (SR 1003) M 17 0.57 LOW

Bunkertown Road (T-458) 4 None G 14 0.53 LOW

Flint Road (T-463) 0 383 (SR 2007) G 13 0.30 LOW

Hower Road ("-505) 4 127 (SR 201 1) M 14 0.68 LOW

Landis Road (T-468) 2 None G 16 0.53 LOW

McMeen Road (T-436) 1 None M 16 0.38 LOW

Mountain View Road (T-454) 2 None M 18 0.14 LOW

Oak Drive (T-426) 2 None M 16 0.61 LOW

Philips Hill Road (T-456) 2 None M 15 0.23 LOW

Ridge Road (T-422) 5 None G 16 1.14 LOW

Singer Hill Road (T-428) 4 None M 15 0.68 LOW

St. Johns Road (T-466) 2 None M 16 0.61 LOW 1

PRIORITY RATINGS M)R TOWNSHIP ROAD IMPROVEMENTS

(Continued) .

Notes: 1. Number of residential lots is based on land use as mapped in 1992 and 1991 Township tax maps. 2. ADT's taken from PADOT Roadway Management System for 1991. "None" is given when the road section does not intersect a state road. 3. M = Macadam, G = Gravel. 4. Widths given are averages as measured for the road conditions survey in 1992. 5. Length refers to the portion of the road identified as needing repair.

Gonnett Fleming

Low priority ratings are given to rural roadways with few residences and estimated low

traffic counts. These roads do not typically intersect state roadways, or if they do, they intersect

them at locations with low traffic volumes. The roads in this category have less than four

residential lots, are commonly gravel and are between 13 and 18 feet wide. While significant

to the overall transportation system, these roads can be placed near the end of a long-term

pavinghmprovement program unless developed at a higher density or their condition worsens

significantly. The total length of all roadways in this category is 7.8 miles.

The roads identified and rated in Table 10-2 should be improved according to their

priority ratings. A three to five year improvement program should be implemented and the

information in Table 10-2 regularly updated so the long-range plan can become an ongoing

program. When improved, roads should be brought up to the specifications in the

subdivision/land development ordinance. A similar system can be implemented for snow

plowing, giving higher priority to roads with more housing units and intersecting high volume

state routes.

\I I"

I --

r: .I

L

10.3 ROAD CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

The Township is considering adoption of a subdivision and land development ordinance

as part of the overall planning process. The draft ordinance currently under consideration

contains road construction standards in sections 404 to 408. If adopted as initially proposed,

local access roads are to be constructed with 18 to 20 foot widths with 4 to 8 foot shoulders.

If these standards are adopted, the standards in the ordinance should be used as the minimum

standards when upgrading existing Township roads. This will minimize the narrowing of roads

at the intersections of new and existing roadways. When implemented as part of the long-range

improvement program, all Township roads will eventually be brought to consistent construction

standards. The upgrade process will be jointly shared by the Township and developers.

f- t L

72

Eannett Fleming I La

10.4 SUMMARY F. .L 1-

I \ - The Township road system is in overall excellent condition. Road improvement projects

are proposed on roadways in fair or poor condition to bring all roads to the same condition.

Priorities are given based on existing road conditions and estimated existing traffic volumes.

Road construction standards are also recommended to standardize the condition of all Township

I I \ L _

i I 1 L roads.

+ I ,,

I i.

73

i. Gannett Fleming

c: . i-

r-

L I , '

i

F --

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN

Cannett Fleming

f

I L

r- c. -

c 1

[ I i-;

P

L

11.0 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN

Municipal governments are charged with providing their residents with public facilities

and services necessary to protect the health and welfare of their residents and promote their

social and cultural well-being. The buildings, parks and services necessary to meet this mandate

and the goals of the community are the focus of this component of the Plan.

The primary goals established in the planning process related to public facilities and

services included:

e improve parks and recreation facilities by expanding existing programs and

increasing facilities at existing parks

investigate the feasibility of establishing an indoor recreation facility/program

investigate the establishment of a Fayette Township police department

maintain support for fire and ambulance services to maintain the current level of

service

support the school district in its efforts to maintain its current level of service

e

e

e

e

11.1 MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY

Municipal buildings and property in Fayette Township include the 275 acre tract where

the municipal building is located and a one acre tract along Fairview Road (T-533) that used to

be a source of shale for the Township.

It does not appear that there is any need for expansion of either of these two properties

and the municipal building tract should be large enough for any expansion of the municipal

building in the foreseeable future. There are no recommendations here that would necessitate

such an enlargement.

There are recommendations in this chapter for the potential municipal purchase or lease

of parkland within the planning period. There is also the potential of locating police facilities

74

C .

I

i

f

Gonnett Fleming

in the Township. Therefore, it is likely that municipal lands will increase during the planning

period.

11.2 PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES

There are eight parks or recreation facilities in Fayette Township comprising

approximately 200 acres of land. The two major public parks in Fayette Township are Lost

Creek Community Park and the ballfield complex north of McAlisterville on SR 1004. They

are owned and maintained by the McAlisterville Park Association and the McAlisterville Area

Youth Sports Association. Both are non-profit organizations interested in providing recreational

facilities to the general public. The Township should cooperate with these organizations to

ensure the long-term availability of the facilities.

11.2.1 Parks and Recreation Commission/Committee

The outright purchase of new parkland by the Township would be expensive and may be

unnecessary given the limited demands of the Township's relatively small population. This is

true for many of the municipalities in the region. An alternative is the establishment of a

regional parks and recreation commission to pool the demands and financial resources of several

municipalities. The initial task of the commission should be to prepare a plan that quantifies

recreation demands, evaluates the adequacy of existing facilities and includes a capital

improvements program for park purchase and development. The commission would also be

responsible for developing and managing recreation programs.

In the event that municipal officials are unable to establish such a commission, the

responsibility for providing adequate recreation facilities and programs falls upon the individual

municipalities. If this occurs, the Fayette Township Supervisors should consider establishing

a parks and recreation committee as an advisory board for recreation oriented issues. This

committee could be given the responsibility for coordinating with the existing park and sports

associations, identifying needs for physical improvements, developing recreation programs and

securing adequate volunteers or personnel to run the recreation programs. These residents could !

75

1, Gannett Fleming

tT

1: II- r action. i F- 11.2.2 Park Development

then transmit recreation oriented information to the Supervisors who could take appropriate

t i

ie.

!-

r- i- I

o- ~

i L'

The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) has established a parkland

classification system and standards to assess the adequacy of a municipality's parkland.

Generally speaking, recreation land can be divided into neighborhood, regional and community

parks. These parks vary in terms of size, facilities and service area. The following sections

describe the standards for each park type and projections for parkland acreage necessary to serve

future population levels in Fayette Township and the region.

Reeiond Parks

The NRPA classifies regional parks as areas of 200 or more acres with natural qualities

suited for outdoor oriented passive recreation such as hiking, picnicking, fishing, hunting, etc.

These areas should be within one hour of the service population and ten acres should be

provided for each lo00 persons served.

Using the year 2010 projects for Fayette Township and the seven other adjoining

municipalities inventoried in chapter 6 (18,476 total), the projected demand for regional parkland

is 185 acres. Local lands meeting the NRPA definition for regional parks include the 7,000 acre

State Game Lands 107 and a 15,000 acre portion of Bald Eagle State Forest, both of which are

located along Fayette Township's northern border. Considering that these two facilities

represent a small percentage of the land available at the 24 state parks and numerous state forests

and state game lands within a one hour drive, Fayette Township residents are blessed with an

abundance of regional park facilities.

r I L

I--

: ' c -.

r -

. . 76

L

L'

I 1.-.

. . r i ...I I --

.- I

L.

'. .

Gunnett Fleming

Community Parks

The NRPA identifies community parks as being 25 or more acres, including both areas

for intense recreational facilities, such as athletic fields, and other areas suited to walking,

biking, picnicking and related activities. The MWA recommends that five acres be piovided

for each 1,OOO residents served and that the service area be limited to less than a two mile

radius. However, given the low population density in the Fayette Township area, it appears

reasonable to drop the service area requirement and base the suitability on the acreage multiplier.

Table 11-1 shows the recommended community park acreage for Fayette Township and the

region.

Based on the NFWA standards, it appears that Fayette Township's 3002 to 3970 (2010

projection) residents may not generate enough demand to justify developing a 25+ acre park.

However, if a joint recreation commission is developed, there may be enough demand generated

by 2010 for up to four such parks.

Neighborhood Parks

The NRPA recommends that neighborhood parks be located within one half mile of their

service population and that one to two acres be provided for each 1,000 residents.

Neighborhood parks should range between five to 20 acres, depending on land availability and

service population. Once again, due to low population densities, the service area radius

recommendation will not be used in this plan. Neighborhood parks are typically used for

intensive recreational activities such as field games, court games, crafts, playground apparatus,

skating, picnicking, etc.

There are six facilities in Fayette Township (see Table 3-2) that meet the definition of

a neighborhood park. These facilities include 33.4 acres and are found in the Cocolamus,

McAlisterville and Oakland Mills areas. Utilizing the NRPA acreage multipliers, the current

and year 2010 demands for neighborhood park acreage are three to eight acres respectively. The

two school district properties, Lost Creek Community Park and the ballfield complex comprise

17.9 acres. The problem with assessing the adequacy of Fayette Township neighborhood parks

77

TABLE 11-1

Municipality - County

Fayette Township - Juniata County

Delaware Township - Juniata County

Fermanagh Township - Juniata County

Monroe Township - Juniata County

Walker Township - Juniata County

Decatur Township - Mifflin County

West Beaver Township - Snyder County

West Perry Township - Snyder County

Regional Total

Juniata County Municipalities Total

RECOMMENDED COMMUNITY PARK ACREAGE 1990-2010

1990 2000 2010

Recommended Recommended Recommended Population Park Acreage' Population Park Acreage' Population Park Acreage'

3002 15.0 3300 - 3450 16.5 - 17.2 3630 - 3970 18.2 - 19.8

1440 7.2 1478 7.4 1491 7.4

2249 11.2 2406 12.0 2523 12.6

1800 9.0 195 1 9.8 2070 10.4

233 1 11.6 2540 12.7 2707 13.5

2735 11.9 2983 14.9 3160 15.8

2166 10.8 1255 6.3 1390 7.0

969 4.8 1077 5.4 1165 5.8

16,692 83.5 16,990-17,140 85.0 - 85.7 18,136-18,476 90.7 - 92.4

10,822 54.1 11,675-11,825 58.4 - 59.1 12,42 1- 12,76 1 62.1 - 63.8

Sources: 1. U.S. Census Bureau 2. Gannett Fleming, Inc. 3. PADER Bureau of State Water Plan 4. NRPA Standard of 5 acres/lOOO residents

tannett Fleming

is that none of the parks are publicly owned. In addition, the availability of the school district

property, is limited to items when school activities are not active. Given this limitation, the

Township should pursue the purchase, lease or other long-term assurances of availability of

these, or other recreational facilities, to meet the demand for neighborhood parks.

11.2.3 Parkland Acquisition \

Much of the regional parkland acquired in the future will likely be through the mandatory

dedication/fee-in-lieu portion of the various subdivision and land development ordinances.

Although the funds collected are not likely to be substantial, this method should provide a means

to collect recreation monies without committing tax dollars. Specific standards for land accepted

for park development should be included within a Fayette Township ordinance and the fee should

reflect the current market value of the land to be developed. This will ensure that the dedicated

parks can be developed in an appropriate manner and that adequate funds will be available for

park purchase/development. Specific recommendations for the recreation dedication portion of

the subdivision ordinance will be included in the Implementation Plan.

It may prove difficult to obtain five or more acres as a single parcel for park development

given the average subdivision size in Fayette Township. If this should be the case, dedicated

parcels should be along property boundaries to allow for additional land as the adjacent land is

developed. This will prevent the municipality from being burdened with a large number of very

small parks that service very small numbers of residents.

11.2.4 Recreational Facility Development

One of the most difficult questions facing a municipality in the area of parks and

recreation is what facilities to place in parks. The responses to the community survey showed

a desire for more facilities at existing parks and more sponsored recreational programs. The

Township or regional parks and recreation commission recommended earlier in the plan should

develop program appropriate for the ages of Township and regional residents (see Chapter 6).

These programs should be reviewed regularly by the commission and revised as necessary. All

programs and park facilities should be advertised to residents via a region-wide newsletter or the

79

L tannett Fleming

i- i i, .

r

newspaper. The existing indoor school facilities should be utilized to their fullest potential by

offering programs for all ages throughout the year.

L

r A major advantage of the regional recreation concept is that each municipal park will not

L- have to be developed with the maximum diversity of facilities which tends to lead to competition

r ! u between municipalities. This is especially true for community parks.

for different portions of the park. Instead, each park can be specialized and facilities shared

r L

r -

Table 11-2 shows NRPA standards for special recreational facilities and how they relate

to Fayette Township. These standards should be used as a tool for planning the development i -

F- ! L-

c

L

of the neighborhood and community parks. The distribution of these, and the special facilities

typically found in neighborhood and community parks is discussed below. A complete inventory

of all facilities in the table should be conducted prior to assessing the needs for new parks.

Inclusion of the facilities in this table is in no way a recommendation for their development in

or around Fayette Township. Table 11-2 is a list of special facilities for which standai-ds were

readily available for the park and recreations commission's consideration. The information in

the table seems to indicate that there are adequate facilities in the Township but some deficits

within the region. However, the limited availability of many of the private facilities in the

Township must be considered in evaluating facility adequacy.

Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show space standards for community and neighborhood parks. The

acreages shown can be altered to reflect available acreage or special desires of area residents.

Once again, the facilities listed may be changed to reflect facilities already available to area

residents. The tables are included here to provide sample breakdowns for facilities development

in community and neighborhood parks.

c-' t

80

TABLE 11-2

Facility

Baseball Diamonds

Softball Diamonds

Standard' Projected3 Existing2 Projected3 Existingl

1/5,000 1 3 2 - 3 5

1/5,000 1 See Above 2 - 3 6

(#/residents) Township Demand Township Facilities Regional Demand Regional Facilities

(including above

Tennis Courts

Basketball Courts

Volleyball/Badminton Courts

Soccer/Football Fields

1/2,000 2 2 6 - 7 4

1/5,000 1 2 2 - 3 6

1/5,000 1 0 2 - 3 0

1/1o,OOo 0 1 1 - 2

tannett Fleming TABLE 11-3

SPACE STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY PARKS

Facility or Unit

Play apparatus area - preschool Play apparatus area - older children Paved multipurpose courts Tennis complex Sports fields Senior citizens' complex Open or "free play" area Archery range Swimming pool Outdoor theater Ice rink (artificid) Family picnic area Outdoor classroom area Off-street parking

Subtotal

Landscaping (buffer and special areas) Undesignated space (10 %)

TOTAL

Area in Acres

.35

.35 1.25 1 .oo 1.00 1.90 2.00 .75 1 .oo .50 1 .OO 2.00 1 .OO 1.50

15.60

3.00 1.86

20.46 acres

Source: Urban Planning and Design Criteria, DeChiara and Koppelman, 1982.

TABLE 11-4 SPACE STANDARDS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS

Facility or Unit ~~

Play apparatus area - preschool Play apparatus area - older children Paved multipurpose courts Senior citizens' compIex Quiet areas and outdoor classroom Family picnic area Outdoor classroom area Off-street parking

Subtotal

Landscaping (buffer and special areas) Undesignated space (10 %)

I

Areas in Acres

.25

.25 S O .50 1 .OO .50 1.00

* - 4.00

2.50 .65

TOTAL I 7.15 acres

Source: Urban Planning and Design Criteria, DeChiara and Koppelman, 1982.

82

I L lionnett Fleming

11.3 POLICE PROTECTION [ d All of the municipalities in the Fayette Township region (see figure 7-1) rely on the

Pennsylvania State Police to provide police protection services to their residents. The barracks

serving the region is located in Yeagertown, nearly 25 miles northwest of McAlisterville.

Depending on the locations and availability of state troopers, response time to the Township can

!T- L

p-‘ e often be 30 minutes or more.

I

; - .

i i

i-

!

r t C.

Township residents gave police protection services the lowest rating of all public services

evaluated in the community survey. Many residents expressed a desire to establish at least part-

time police protection for the area or have a state police barracks closer to the area.

Establishing an effective municipal police force, either part- or full-time is likely to be

very expensive, especially for a municipality the size of Fayette Township. It is not unusual for

police protection to utilize 40 to 50 percent of a municipality’s general fund budget. In light of

the potential expense, and considering the lack of police protection in the surrounding

municipalities, it appears that the most feasible approach is to institute a regionalized police

force if local police services is to be established. There are two possible approaches to

providing this service -- a joint police department and contracted police protection. Under a

joint police department, each participating municipality appoints a representative to a board

which determines the amount of coverage needed in each municipality and staffing is provided

appropriately. The sharing of administrative and operating costs reduces the cost to each

individual municipality. Under a contract program, one municipality establishes and oversees

the police department and contracts with the other municipalities for it’s services. Locally,

Mifflin and Mifflintown Boroughs share a police officer, as do Walker Township and Port Royal

Borough. Both arrangements are on a contract basis.

The service area for a regional police force is up to the discretion of the local public

officials. However, it would appear that the municipalities identified in Chapter 7 north of

Fayette Township are so isolated from the Township by Shade Mountain and the lack of

connecting roadways that another means of police protection should be considered for that area.

For the purposes of this study the potential service area will include Fayette, Delaware, Walker,

83

Gannett Fleming

IC

L

I

L

- I t,

it:

L

I.

c I

6 -

L .

L,

F-

L

I' I . -

Monroe and Fermanagh Townships and Thompsontown Borough which is surrounded by these

townships.

Table 11-5 shows current and projected police service demands for the proposed service

area. These projections are based on the FBI recommendation of a minimum of one officer per

1,OOO residents in a rural area. Based on these statistics, the existing regional demand could

support about 12 police officers and this demand should increase to 14 officers within 20 yeus.

A joint police department would be run by a board containing representatives from each

of the member municipalities. These board members will be responsible for establishing the

level of service to be provided within their municipality, thereby controlling the cost to their

residents. The municipalities will also be responsible for reimbursing the department for

necessary costs incurred beyond the estimate provided beyond the initial estimate.

A contract police department would be under the control and direction of the municipal

Any degree of shared control of budget approval, governing body providing the service.

appointment of the chief, or other major policy matters is up to the providing municipality.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Joint departments have the

advantage of being controlled by all participating municipalities and are typically less prone to

major controversies between member municipalities. However, they can be difficult to establish

because of the degree of intermunicipal cooperation necessary. Contract departments can be

established more easily, but are controlled by only the one providing municipality. This municipality must be open and responsive to input from the other municipalities for the program

to work effectively over the long-term. Either approach could work effectively for Fayette

Township.

The regional approach should provide full time protection and services less expensively

than maintaining individual full-time (or possibly part-time) departments. This allows

municipalities that do not have the potential workload to justify developing a local police

department to have local police protection. This is the case for most, if not all, of the

municipalities discussed here.

84

Gannett Fleming

Monroe Township 1800 1.8 195 l3 2.0 20703 2.1

1 Thompsontown Borough 582 0.6 5so3 0.6 5503 0.6

TABLE 11-5

Population

PROJECTED REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE DEMAND 1990-2010

Recommended Police Force’

(officers) Population Municipality

Recommended Recommended Police Force’ Police Force*

(officers) Population (officers)

3300 - 3456

24063

Fayette Township I 3002l 1 3.0 3.3 - 3.4 3630 - 3970’ 3.6 - 4.0

2.4 25233 2.5 Fermanagh Township I 2249 1 2.2

Walker Township 233 1 2.3

Regional Total 11404 11.4 12235 - 12385 12.3 - 12.4 12971 - 13311 13.0 - 13.3

25403 I 2.5 I 27073 I 2.7 I1 Delaware Township I 1440 I 1.4 I 147g3 I 1.5 I 14913 I 1.5 II

Sources: 1990 U.S. Census GF, Inc. PADER Division of State Water Plan

Gannett Fleming

r-

i .

*-

r I 2..

i

.- I t r L'

6 '

r

i c-

i

Local officials should give serious consideration to visiting the Northern York county

Regional Police Department (NYCRPD) facilities in Dover Township, York County to gain a

better understanding of how a regional department operates and should also investigate the

operation of the two local multi-municipal departments. In addition, the Department of

Community Affairs provides police service consulting services and may be willing to prepare

a police service feasibility study for the region. This report could summarize the estimated

demand, staffing and equipment needs, and cost of establishing a regional versus numerous

individual departments for the area.

One potential problem in developing a regional police department is where to house the

facilities. It should be located near the population center of the region and yet be accessible to

the entire service area. Based simply on the population of the theoretical member municipalities,

it appears that a location along SR 35 near the Fayette-Fermanagh Township line meets these

requirements. However, a more detailed analysis of available properties and projected demands

must be completed before a site is selected. It may even be necessary for satellite stations to

be established to adequately service the entire area.

11.4 FIRE PROTECTION

Fire and ambulance services received by far the highest number of good or excellent

ratings in the community survey. Therefore, it can be assumed that residents are pleased with

the level of service currently being provided by the Fayette Fire Company.

The National Board of Underwriters (NBU) recommends a maximum for mile radius for

The American Planning Association's "Small Town Planning service to a fire company.

Handbook" contains the standards presented in Table 11-6.

All of Fayette Township's developed area falls within the four mile radius, with the

exception of the easternmost portion of the Township. However, given the fire company's

accessibility to this area via SR 35 and intermunicipal cooperation, all areas of the Township

appear to be serviced most efficiently by the one fire company system.

86

Gannett Fleming

Land Use Type Engine or Pumper Company

Commercial-Industrial .75 - 1.0 miles

TABLE 11-6

Ladder Company

1 .O miles

RECOMMENDED DISTRIBUTION STANDARDS FOR FIRE PROTECTION

Low Density Residential 4.0 miles 4.0 miles

Medium-High Density Residential

2.0 miles 3.0 miles

Source: American Planning Association

The Township should support the Fayette Fire Company in order to maintain the current

level of service. This support can be financial, if necessary, or educational by helping the fire

company to inform residents of their equipment, volunteer and financial needs. This support

should allow the fire company to continue to provide an excellent level of service throughout

the planning period.

.- ,

r-

r

87

1. Gannett Fleming

CHAPTER 12

PUBLIC UTILITIES PLAN

Gannett Fleming

12. PUBLIC UTILITIES PLAN

The provision of adequate public utilities is a major key in ensuring the health and

welfare of residents. The utilities for which specific recommendations are given here include

wastewater, water, solid waste and stormwater control. The Township’s goals and objectives

for public utilities established in the planning process are as follows: )

Extend public water and sewer service to those areas with problems or as

population density and development require.

Prepare an Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan to closely document existing problems

and plan for future growth.

Establish a Township-wide recycling program.

Manage the increasing costs for solid waste collection services.

Establish stormwater management regulations for new development and rectify

existing problem areas.

12.1 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

The Township’s wastewater treatment plant services the McAlisterville area and has

current available capacity of about 68,000 gallons per day (GPD). No major capacity increases

are planned at this time.

The most effective way of identifying problem areas and assessing the need for extending

sewer service is to prepare an Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan. The focus of such a plan should

be the identification of malfunctioning systems, water quality problem areas with a concentration

on areas with numerous small lots including Oakland Mills and Cocolamus, and an alternatives

analysis for addressing problem areas. A 50-50 cost share is available from PADER for

preparing Act 537 Plans. I

88

Gnnnett Fleming

In the absence of a current Act 537 Plan, the recommendations are designed to provide

adequate sewer service for the anticipated new development quantified in the future land use plan

(see Chapter 9). The land use plan proposes the concentration of new development in the

McAlisterville area because of the availability of public water and wastewater services. The

plan recommends enough area for residential zoning around McAlisterville so most or all of the

projected 433 to 583 new households to be constructed in the next 20 years could be built within

reach of the existing sewage collection lines. It should be noted that this is considered an

unlikely scenario, since many of the new households will probably be constructed with on-lot

systems in agricultural or forested areas. Without a capacity increase, approximately 265 new

houses could be connected to the existing system. This is equal to the maximum projected

residential growth in 10 years or about one half of the projected residential growth for 20 years.

These numbers indicate that either a capacity increase will be needed in 10 to 20 years, or about

one half of new units will need to be constructed with on-lot systems. Preparation of an Act 537

Plan will provide a closer look at the need for additional capacity and the advisability of

continued reliance on on-lot systems for sewage treatment. The proposed expansion of the

existing water and wastewater service areas is shown on Figure 12-1.

No on-lot system problem areas have been identified during the preparation of this plan.

However, since a detailed look at such systems is beyond the scope of this study, many such

systems may exist. Their identification should be part of the Act 537 Plan.

12.2 WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION

The water system in Fayette Township is owned and maintained by the McAlisterville

Area Joint Authority, as is the wastewater collection and treatment system. Unlike the

wastewater system, there is only about 3,000 GPD of available capacity in the water system.

There are no current plans to increase capacity.

. In order to adequately service the projected number of new homes in the McAlisterville

area significant additional water sources will have to be ,developed. According to the

information in Chapter 5 , well yields should be greatest h the valleys and the highest yields are likely to be found in the limestone formations in the Township’s &them region, followed by

<

89

- . ... . . . - . . . , , . . . . . . , 1 . . +.. - -

LEGEND

EXISTING UTILITY . SERVICE AREA

FUTURE UTILIN SERVIGE AREA

Gonnett Fleming

sandstone which is found in the Township's northern ridges, and shale, which predominates the

central and southeastern portions of the Township. Water from limestone formations is usually

hard, with a significant potential for contamination via large solution cavities. Sandstone rock

is known for soft water. Water from the Clinton Group is usually high in iron and manganese.

More detailed hydrogeological analysis, test wells and water quality samples will be needed prior

to developing additional water supply sources. Without development of additional water

capacity, public water service will probably become a limiting factor for future growth.

12.3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

The Township adopted a municipal waste ordinance in 1986 that established a licensing

program for solid waste haulers operating in the Township, designated a disposal area in

accordance with the Juniata County Solid Waste Management Plan, and established waste

collection and disposal standards. The PADER has determined that the ordinance meets the

requirements of the current waste management reguIations.

One change the Township may want to consider is a change from the current approach

to establishing a contract with one or more haulers to collect waste from the entire Township

or regions within the Township. This should reduce redundancy in collection areas for haulers

and could reduce the fees paid by property owners. Municipal officials should consider this

option if residents feel existing fees are excessive and/or there are complaints related to the

efficiency of the current system.

Many residents expressed a desire to have a recycling program in the Township.

Considering the low population density, the most cost efficient approach is likely to be

establishment of a drop-off program, as opposed to contracting for curbside pick-up. Drop-off

locations could be established at the municipal building and, if demand warrants others, at the

Fayette Fire Company, churches, parks and other institutional establishments. However, if +he

Township proceeds with a contract collection they might want to add curbside collection of

recyclable materials.

91

I" L

Gonnett Fleming

12.4. STORMWATER l"AGEMENT

There is no stormwater collection system or stormwater management regulations in

Fayette Township at this time. Despite the lack of controls, no specific stormwater problem

areas have been identified to date.

The likelihood for stormwater problems will increase as development continues. This

is especially true for the McAlisterville area, which is proposed for significant new development,

has substantial existing development and also has a 100-year floodplain running through the

middle of the area. Stormwater controls will be necessary if the lack of existing problem areas

is to be retained.

The subdivision and land development ordinance proposed for Fayette Township requires

that post-development runoff be maintained at pre-development levels. This will necessitate the

construction of detention basins and other controls in newly developing ireas. Adoption of this

ordinance, or a stormwater management ordinance with similar requirements is needed to

prevent the development of new stormwater management problem areas.

r-

!:

I- !

92

lionnett Fleming I .-

E_; ' .

i L

r I '..

CHAPTER 13

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

i -

!

Gannett Fleming

13. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

Chapters 9 through 13 of this Plan include numerous recommendations for improvements

and changes for Fayette Township and the region. Some recommendations can be implemented

through the adoption of ordinances, while others will require capital expenditures. The intent

of the implementation program is to provide specific guidance or ordinance requirements and

to identify potential funding sources for capital projects.

13.1 SUMMARY OF PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS

13.1.1 Future Land Use

The themes behind the future land use plan are provision of adequate housing

opportunities, encouFgement of economically stimulating development .!.* and I \ coqsistency * I , , * ' with surrounding municipalities. The key to fully implementing the recommendations is the adoption

of appropriate zoning and subdivision/land development ordinances.

The future land use map is inserted in the Plan as Figure 9-1. The map shows

McAlisterville as the continued center for residential and commercial development. Significant

areas in the Oakland Mills area are projected as commercial and industrial growth areas if

adequate provisions can be made for water and wastewater disposal. Most of the Township is

expected to remain as agriculture or forest.

Zoning Ordinance

A zoning ordinance designates various portions of a municipality for specific land use

types and establishes density limits within each area. Additional controls for signage and off-

street parking are also typically found in zoning ordinances.

The daily enforcement of a zoning ordinance is handled by a zoning officer. Fayette

Township will have to hire such as person on a part-time basis when a zoning ordinance is

adopted. In addition, a zoning hearing board (ZHB) must be established in conformance with

93

i,

c L

c r I I .

L

Gunnett Fleming

Article 9 of the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). The ZHB must also appoint a solicitor

to assist with legal matters. The Township must make appropriate budget provisions for the

operation of the zoning hearing board and zoning officer. The Township can establish

reasonable fees to administer the ordinance, but these fees cannot be used for legal expenses of

the ZHB, engineering, architectural or other expert witness costs. Examination of the budgets

from Delaware, Fermanagh and Walker Townships should provide officials with a close estimate )

of the funding required from the general fund for enforcing a zoning ordinance.

One method of reducing enforcement costs, improving uniformity and providing more

efficient service is for the local municipalities to share the services of a single zoning officer.

This should not prove difficult, given the similarity of the local zoning ordinances, upon which

the proposed Fayette Township Zoning ordinance will be based. A single full-time zoning

officer will be less expensive for all municipalities than the potential for four part-time

employees.

As discussed above, the Fayette Township zoning ordinance should be based on the

models provided through the surrounding municipal zoning ordinances. The three existing

ordinances are virtually the Same terms of the districts. Each include the following.

e Rural Agricultural District

e Forest District

e Residential Low Density District

e Industrial-Commercial District

e Floodplain District.

The recommendations in the future land use plan can be implemented with virtually the L'

same districts. The only major suggested change is the division of the industrial-commercial

district into two separate districts. This will provide much better control over the development

types in these areas. Additional consideration should also be given to broadening the residential

types permitted in the residential district as well as reviewing the permitted uses, special

exceptions and conditional uses permitted in each district.

r ' I- t P

L

t 94

!L Gonnett Fleming

In reviewing the uses contained in the ordinance officials should be aware that they must

allow for all reasonable uses and cannot legally specifically or effectively prohibit any reasonable

use through zoning. Potentially detrimental uses should be permitted in the most suitable areas

with adequate regulation to protect the public welfare.

7, r-. i

L

I" 1

' r 1 t -

The official zoning ordinance and map must be officially adopted by the Board of

Supervisors following a public hearing, review by the Juniata County Planning Commission and

a 45 day public review period in accordance with Article 6 of the MFC.

L'

1 1

' I + - ! : , i L !

Subdivision and Land DeveloDment Ordinance

i p, ; L -

r- , 1 .

A subdivision and land development ordinance provides standards for the development

types permitted in a zoning Ordinance or for all subdivisions and land developments in the

absence of zoning. The ordinance is intended to establish uniform development standards \ I ) throughout a municipality .

A proposed ordinance has been provided to the Planning Commission for review. The r_.

J proposed ordinance is based on the ordinances of the surrounding municipalities to maintain I consistency with local requirements. This ordinance is enforced through plan reviews by the ' f-' I ! Township and County Planning Commissions, municipal engineer, PADER, and other

appropriate agencies and plan approval by the Board of Supervisors. The Township may assess 1 L.1

reasonable fees to cover the review and inspection costs of the reviewing bodies. The 1 L'

I subdivision and land development ordinance must be officially adopted by the Board of

Supervisors following a public hearing to take place after review by the Township and County

Planning Commission and a 45 day public review period.

! h L-

I 1 ; I;'

-. I

( 1 - l

I 13.1.2 Transportation ~ i-: L

i -- 1 There is a great deal of competition among Pennsylvania municipalities for the limited

funds available from PADOT for highway improvements. The Township will need to actively

P -

c .-- work with the PADOT District Office to make them aware of the problems and concerns in the

8 1 Township and the strategy for correcting these problems. The Comprehensive Plan and Capital

' re;

I . 95

e Gunnett Fleming

e- 4- r Program can be a starting point for initiating this dialogue with PADOT. Most of the

improvement projects outlined in Chapter 10 are on Township Roads. However, many projects

will involve local or joint local-PADOT funding. Some projects may be funded by private

sources. This section of the Implementation Program outlines various funding alternatives

L

F- i available to the Township. I ,

)

F'

The transportation recommendations are summarized in Table 10-2 and Sections 10.2 and

10.3. The following list includes funding mechanisms available for these highway

improvements.

6 L'

L r Highwav Assessment or Capital Improvements Fund - This fund can be

established as a special fund set aside for capital improvements. Funds could

come from a special tax or the use of excess revenues or both. For instance, a

specified amount of the Township's millage could be set-aside for this fund.

When this fund reaches a certain size, it could then be utilized to contribute to a

variety of capital improvement demands.

General Obligation Bonds - Another funding method that would provide

project flexibility would be general obligation bonds. Bond issues can be used

to finance projects in developed areas which would not be part of a transportation

partnership district, hence providing the Township with flexibility in undertaking

transportation projects.

Highway Transfer or Road Turnback Program - This program has been

sponsored by PADOT since 1981. Under this program, PADOT will bring a

road up to current specifications and then dedicate it to the participating

municipality. Annual maintenance fees are also included (up to $2,500/mile) by

PADOT. In most cases, the Township gets a new roadway and funding for

maintenance. The Township should give serious consideration to the

opportunities under this program given the number of state roadways in good

condition and the complexity of state-local cooperation in improvement projects.

96

Gannett Fleming

ECONS: Enerm Conservation. Coneestion Reduction and Safety Program

- This program is aimed at improving highway safety and reducing congestion.

The source of the funding is the Center for Program Development and

management, PADOT.

Local Share of Liquid Fuels Tax - This provides for a permanent

allocation of a part of the liquid fuels taxes collected by the state for

municipalities. Liquid fuels allocations may be used for any road related activity

including maintenance, repair, construction, or reconstruction of public roads or

streets. The funding source is the Bureau of Municipal Service, PADOT. In any

given year, at least a portion of the money could be used for transportation

facility projects.

TransDorbtion Partnershks - Under Act 47 of 1985, as amended, it

provided for the formation of "partnerships" between municipalities and, in most

cases, local developers and businesses. A formal partnership requires the

designation of a transportation development district in which all improvements

will take place and in which assessments may be charged. The Township may

find participation in this program as a means of obtaining funding for roadway

improvements.

Impact Fees - Until recently municipalities in Pennsylvania could not

collect impact fees for transportation or other public utility improvements.

However, Acts 203 and 209 of 1990 now provide legal justification for the

assessment of such fees. The Township and surrounding municipalities should

give some consideration to implementing such a system to supplement state and

other local sources, although the initial costs of establishing impact fees will

likely prove excessive for the individual municipalities.

The New law authorizes the use of impact fees for costs incurred for

improvements designated in the municipalities' transportation capital improvement

program attributable to new development, including the acquisition of land and 1

97

..I

tonnett Fleming ! b

L rights of way; engineering, legal and planning costs; and all other costs directly

related to road improvements within the service area or areas, including debt

service.

, I r I k ',

f 1 f

;r;

Municipalities are expressly prohibited under the new impact fee law from using impact \

fees for:

w

(1) the construction, acquisition or expansion of municipal facilities that have not

been identified in the township's transportation capital improvement plan; L

f-1 : i- (2) the repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements;

(3) the upgrade, update, expansion or replacement of existing capital improvements

to serve existing developments to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental

or regulatory standards that are not attributable to new development; and 'U I7 '

r: c, t

(4) the preparation and development of land use assumptions and the capital

improvements plan. T 1 i'

c-: c,

i I

As a prerequisite to going ahead with plans for an impact fee ordinance, a municipality

must have adopted a township or county comprehensive plan, a subdivision and land

development ordinance, and a zoning ordinance. -:

I-.

F '

i In addition, municipalities must meet a number of specific requirements before adopting c,

an impact fee ordinance. Following is a step-by-step breakdown of these requirements:

L

" ' ! ' L

0

a

0

0

appoint an impact fee advisory committee

develop future land use assumptions

conduct a roadway sufficiency analysis

develop a capital improvements plan 0 prepare an impact fee ordinance

c-.

i 98

I I c - ,

L _‘

i

\

Eannett Fleming

13.1.3 Public Facilities and Services

Parks and Recreation

There are two areas of emphasis in the parks and recreation recommendations. The first

is to ensure the long-term availability of parkland through lease, purchase or agreement with the

existing park owners. The second is establish a recreational committee, preferably on a regional

basis, to evaluate parks and recreation needs and to provide a better funding base for maintaining

a parks and recreation program.

The primary source of funding the recommendations is projected to be a mandatory

dedication/fee-in-lieu of component of the subdivision and land development ordinance. There

are two primary ways of establishing the fees for such an ordinance.

The initial step is to determine a reasonable mandatory dedication area. The information

in Chapter 11 shows that the NRPA recommends seven acres of parkland (community and

neighborhood) for each 1,OOO residents. Dividing one thousand persons by the current 2.7

persons per dwelling unit in Fayette Township, it requires 370.37 dwelling units to house 1,OOO

residents. This factor is then divided into the seven acre recommendation to show that about

0.02 acres of parkland should be provided for each new dwelling unit. The equations follow:

lo00 persons/2.7 persons per dwelling unit = 370.37 dwelling units

7 acres of parkland/370.37 dwelling units = 0.02 acres/dwelling unit

The 0.02 acre requirement should be included in the ordinance.

The first option for assessing a fee-in-lieu of dedication is to establish a fee per lot. This

has been the historical method of choice for many municipalities because it is easy to administer.

However, many municipalities’ fees do not come close to the actual value of land and do not

provide sufficient monies for the municipality’s needs. If this option is selected, a fee of at least

$100 per lot should be established and this number should be reviewed periodically to make sure

that it is in line with increasing property values.

99

Eannett Fleming I I, I -J

6' \ Another fee calculation method that many municipalities are now beginning to adopt the

"Fair Market Value" formula for determining fee-in-lieu costs. This formula can be established

as follows:

U

rt %.-

,-

L Recreation Area Reuuired x Development Cost Factor x Average Lot Price = Fee-in-lieu Payment

1 Acre )

h' j-,

Recreation Area Reuuired would be that land required to be dedicated if the fee- in-lieu provision was not utilized (Expressed as acres) r L'

Development Costs Factor is a percentage of the total average lot price that

development actually costs on a per lot basis. This figure would include costs for

streets, sidewalks, curbing, and utilities. The actual percentage should be

established on a region-wide basis by the municipal engineers. c E,.

Average Lot Price would be determined by taking the arithmetic average of all

lot prices in the municipality for the previous year. The highest and lowest prices

would not be used to provide a more accurate average price. This figure would

be calculated annually.

r- i ' 6'

The following is an illustration of the additional revenues that a Fair Market Value

Ordinance would generate for a 20 lot residential subdivision. Lr! G

Typical Ordinance - 20 lots x $100/lot = $2,000

Fair Market Value Ordinances

,4 acres reauired dedication x 0.75 Development x $lO.OOQ Average Lot Price 1 Acre Cost Factor

.4 x 0.75 x $lO,OOO = $3,000

100

Gannett Fleming

In this example, the municipality would get an additional $1,000 over that received under

the existing ordinance using the fair market value system. However, actual 1992 lot sale prices

were not available for this report and the $lO,OOO figure was used as a reasonable estimate.

Therefore, the amount the municipality may receive may be different under a fair market value

recreation ordinance. The area municipalities should investigate fair market value as a means

of keeping par with land value and ensuring sufficient funding for public recreation lands

development and organization.

)

The Municipalities Planning Code (Act 170) provides for recreation fees-in-lieu of land

dedication in Article V, Section 503, Section (11). To meet the provisions of this section of the

Municipal Planning Code, it is recommended that the Township adopt the appropriate sections

of the Comprehensive Plan as their official recreation plan and provide for use of recreation fees

in the specified three year period. If done on a regional basis, the townships may want to

consider breaking the region down into recreation zones to address the MPC’s emphasis on park

accessibility.

Another method of funding parks and recreation facilities is through the Recreational

Improvements and Rehabilitation Program (RIRA). This program is administered by the

Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs and provides a program of grant funds to local

municipalities to develop or acquire public parks and recreational facilities. Funds are available

on a 50/50 match basis, up to $200,000. The Township recently leased the ballfields located

north of McAlisterville to be eligible for monies under this program.

Police Protection

Chapter 11 contains a recommendation for establishing a regional police force via a joint

department or contracted services. The first steps in implementing this recommendation involve

the identification of the service area and a more detailed analysis of the options available.

Township officials should initiate a dialogue with the surrounding municipalities to

determine the local demand for local police protection. Once this is accomplished the

municipalities should petition the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to prepare a police 1

101

.

Gunnett Fleming

feasibility study for the area. The participating municipalities should then evaluate the findings

of the report and establish the most efficient means of providing police protection services.

Fire Protection

Township residents enjoy an excellent level of service from the current system provided

by the Fayette Fire Company. The Township officials should maintain an open dialogue with

the fire company to keep abreast of their needs and to help inform residents of these needs. The

Township should also be willing to provide funding assistance if necessary to help maintain the

current level of service.

13.1.4 Public Utilities

Wastewater Management Svstem

The primary need for improving

prepare, and then implement, an Act 537

the existing wastewater management system is to

Sewage Facilities Plan. Funding is available from

PADER on a 50/50 matching basis. The financial commitment on the Township's behalf is

likely to be in the $lO,OOO to $15,000 range. The Township should be aware that they must

first pay the full amount for the Plan and then be reimbursed following its completion.

Water SuDply and Distribution System

Public water supply appears to be the major limiting factor in the proposed development

area. The existing system is near capacity and adequate supply for the estimated number of

homes to be constructed is not available. The McAlisterville Area Joint Authority will need to

evaluate and establish additional water supply sources fairly early in the pIanning period.

102

Gunnett Fleming

Stormwater Management System

The primary recommendation for improving stormwater management is adoption of the

proposed subdivision and land development ordinance with its requirement for maintaining post-

development runoff at pre-development rates. If the subdivision ordinance is not adopted a

separate stormwater management ordinance with similar requirements should be adopted.

13.2 TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM

A number of recommendations for physical improvements in the Township and region

have been set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The process recommended for the

implementation of these project proposals is known as capital improvement programming. It

involves the scheduling of public improvements over a period of time with consideration being

given to the financial capabilities of the community in the establishment of project priorities.

Substantial benefits can be derived from the use of such a systematic approach to

planning public improvement projects because the individual projects can be made to coincide

with both the Township objectives and its financial capabilities. The schedule of improvements

resulting from this approach serves as a guide in making sound annual budget decisions and in

achieving the optimum utilization of available funds. Sharp changes in the tax structure and

indebtedness of the Township can be avoided and an advance selection of the most economical

means for financing each project can be made.

Some of the projects listed will involve financial participation from the surrounding

municipalities, private developers and PA DOT. Financial alternatives for many projects are

outlined in this chapter. Many projects are projected to continue throughout the ten year

planning period, while others may also extend beyond the time allotted in Table 13-1.

Table 13-1 presents the recommended ten-year capital improvements program from the

Township. The capital improvements program should be evaluated and revised each year. This

will allow projects to be reevaluated for consideration on a continually evolving 10-year capital

improvements program.

103

Future Land Use

Transportation

Public Facilities & Services

~~ ~

Public Utilities

1992-1993

Adopt Subdivision/Land Development Ordinance

Prepare and Adopt a Zoning Ordinance

Hire a Zoning Offiwr (preferably joint) . Establish Zoning Hearing Board

Improve/Widen Church Avenue

ImprovJWide Vanormer Road

Improvelwiden Fairview Road

Establish parks & recreation commission

Initiate intermunicipal discussions on renional palice

TABLE 13-1 -

RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FOR C O M " S I V E PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

1994-1995

Review effectiveness of zoning and subdivision ordinances and make appropriate changes

ImprovdMaintain Road

ImprovWiden Town Ridge Road

ImprovJWiden Dressler Road

Improve Liberty Road

Complete regional police study and implement recommendations

~~ ~~~~

Initiate Act 537 Plan

1996- 1997

Improve Shellenburger Road

ImprovJwiden Benner Road

Improve Hornberger Road

ImprovelWiden Quarry Road

ImprovJwiden Sunnyside Road

Improvmiden Jamison Road

Conduct Water Supply Study (MAJA)

1998-1 999

ImprovelWiden McAlister Road

IrnprovelWiden Dagen Road

ImprovNiden Orchard Road

Irnprovmiden Thompson Road

Improve Sunset Drive

ImprovNiden Bunkertown Rd.

ImprovelWiden Hower Road

Improve Landis Road

Improve Mountain View Road

ImprovelWiden Philips Hill Rd.

Improve St. Johns Road

Develop Additional Water SUDD~Y Sources (MAJA)

2000-2001

Improv&iden Flint Road

Improve McMeen Road

Improve Oak Drive

Improve Ridge Road

Improve/Widen Singer Hill Road

Improve Vanwert Road

i

i 1:

tannett Fleming

13.3 PLAN APPROVAL

Section 301.3 and 302 of Article I1 of Act 170, Municipalities Planning Code, sets forth

the procedures that need to be followed to provide for review and adoption of the

Comprehensive Plan.

) Adoption of the plan begins with the Fayette Township Planning Commission. Under

Section 302, the commission is required to hold at least one public meeting on the Plan prior

to forwarding the Plan to the county planning agency, local school district, and contiguous

municipalities at least 45 days prior to a public hearing on the Plan. These agencies then have

45 days to provide review and comment on the proposed Plan. Township Supervisors should

then review all comments on the Plan and must hold at least one public hearing on the Plan.

Comprehensive Plan adoption involves a resolution approved by a majority of the Supervisors.

Within 30 days of adoption of the Plan, the Supervisors forward a copy of the approved

Comprehensive Plan to the Juniata County Planning Commission.

13.4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAINTENANCE

The Comprehensive Plan will be useful only if it is regularly used and updated. For this

to occur, the following functions need to be performed on an annual basis to review and update

the Plan.

0 Annually evaluate the Comprehensive Plan and, if necessary, make modifications

to the Plan to ensure that it remains a useful document to help make day-to-day

decisions about the future growth and preservation of the Township and region.

0 The township planning commission should submit an annual written report to the

Township Supervisors summarizing its conclusions on the evaluation of the

Comprehensive Plan, a summary of the past year’s major activities, and a

summary of the upcoming year’s major projected activities and crucial issues that

will or may be facing the Township and/or region. .. I

105

I -

Eannett Fleming

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

This Appendix contains definitions and characteristics of highway facilities in rural setting based on their functional classifications. It presents information, in revised form, from the Federal Highway Administration publication Highway Functional Classification: Concepts, Criteria, and Procedures(2).

Definitions of Urban and Rural Areas

Urban and rural areas have fundamentally different characteristics with regard to density and type of land use, density of street and highway networks, nature of travel patterns, and the way in which these elements are related. Consequently, urban and rural functional systems are classified separately.

Urban areas as discussed herein are considered those places within boundaries set by the State and local officials having a population of 5,000 or more. Urban areas are further subdivided into urbanized areas (population of 50,000 and over) and small urban areas (population between 5,000 and 50,000). For design puqoses, the population forecast for the design year should be used. (For legal definition of Urban Area, see Section 101 of Title 23, U.S. Code.)

Rural areas are those areas outside the boundaries of the urban areas.

Functional Categories

The roads making up the functional systems differ for urban and rural areas. The hierarchy of the functional systems consists of principal arterials (for main movement), minor arterials (distributors), collectors, and local roads and streets: However, in urban areas there are relatively more arterials with further functional subdivisions of the arterial category: whereas in rural areas there are relatively more collectors with further functional subdivisions of the collector category.

Functional System for Rural Areas

Rural roads consist of facilities outside of urban areas. The rural functional classification system includes: principal arterials, minor arterials, major and minor collectors, and local roads.

il:

/-- I

Gonnett Fleming

Rural PrinciDal Arterial System

The rural principal arterial system consists of a network of routes with the following service characteristics:

1. Corridor movement with trip length and density suitable for substantial statewide or interstate travel.

2. Movements between virtually all urban areas with populations over 50,000 and a large majority of those with populations over 25,000.

3. Integrated movements without stub connections except where unusual geographic or traffic flow conditions dictate otherwise (e.g., international boundary connections or connections to coastal cities).

r- r i L In the more densely populated States, this class of highway includes most heavily traveled

routes that might warrant multi-lane improvements; in the majority of States, the principal arterial system includes most existing rural freeways. c

The principal arterial system is stratified into the following two design types: (1) Freeways - divided highways with full control of access, and (2) Other Principal Arterials - all f-*

F . .(i non-freeway principal arterials.

Rural Minor Arterial System

The rural minor arterial road system, in conjunction with the rural principal arterial system, forms a network with the following service characteristics:

r L

1. Linkage of cities, larger towns, and other traffic generators (such as major resort areas) that are capable of attracting travel over similarly long distances.

2. Integrated interstate and inter-county service.

3. Internal spacing consistent with population density, so that all developed areas of the State are within reasonable distances of arterial highways.

4. Corridor movements consistent with items 1-3, with trip lengths and travel densities greater than those predominantly served by rural collectors or local systems.

Minor arterials therefore constitute routes, the design of which should be expected to P L'

provide for relatively high travel speeds and minimum interference to through movement.

I - - I r :

Eonnett Fleming

Rural Collector System

The rural collector routes generally serve travel of primarily intra-county rather than statewide importance and constitute those routes on which travel distances are shorter than of arterial routes. Consequently, more moderate speeds may be typical. To define rural collectors more clearly, this system is sub-divided according to the following criteria:

) Major Collector roads. These routes (1) serve areas of the county not on arterial routes, larger towns not directly served by the higher systems, and other traffic generators of equivalent intra-county importance, such as school districts, county parks, and important agricultural areas; (2) link these places with nearby larger towns or cities, or with routes of higher classification; and (3) serve the more important intra-county travel corridors.

Minor Collector Roads. These routes should (1) be spaced at intervals consistent with population density to accumulate traffic from local roads and bring all developed areas within reasonable distances of collector roads, (2) provide service to the remaining small communities, and (3) link the locally important traffic generators with the remote rural areas.

Rural Local Road System

The rural local road system primarily access is to land adjacent to the collector network and serves travel over short distances. Local road mileage of course, constitutes all rural mileage not classified as principal arterial, minor arterial, or collector road mileage.

r' t

I I L tannett Fleming

’ .

F L

r ’

APPENDIX B

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS

k Gannett Fleming

Segment Length (Mil&*

Average Daily Traffic Count

(ADW

APPENDIX B

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS FAYETTE TOWNSHIP

1991

Segment Number' SR

0035 0640 0650 0660 0680 0690 0710 0730 0750 0800 0810 0840

0.231 0.279 0.617 0.425 0.524 0.380 0.178 .

0.468 0.246 0.435 0.379

32 17 3341 3465 3217 3866 3465 4084 3094 2475 3504 3504

2007 01 10 0140

0.423 0.232

383 383

~

0010 0040

0.468 0.514

127 127

201 1

0010 0040 0050

0.546 0.359 0.258

3 19 3 83 383

1003

1004 0.606 0.150

511 1087

0010 0030 ~-

0010 0030

0.477 0.417

259 259

1005

~

0010 0070

0.453 0.622

319 3 19

2008

0350 0390 0400 0470

0.489 0.334 0.641 0.434

1662 1790 599 599

0235

0.347 0.266

1178 1178

2013 0030 0080

:ir' r 1 .

0120

f i , . L'

0.429

f '! k

tonnett Fleming

SR

2015

2012

1002

Segment Number'

0010 0020 0050 0060 0070

0030 0050

Segment Length

0.066 0.142 0.040 0.425 0.419

0.515 0.511

Average Daily Traffic Count

(ADV3 ~ ~~

26 243 447 575 575

447 447

639

Source: PADOT

Notes: 1. 2.

3.

Segment numbers are PADOT designations for portions of state roads. Each segment length varies, depending partially on the overall length of the roadway and the density of the road network. Average daily traffic counts include all vehicles travelling in both directions in a typical 24-hour period.

Gannett Fleming

APPENDIX C

ROAD CONDITIONS SURVEY

- ' -'- 1 L

ROAD NAME

Apple Road (T470)

Beaver Street (T607)

Eknner Road (T507)

Billyville Road (T561)

Bunkertown Road (T458)

Church Avenue (T601)

Church Avenue (T601)

Dagen Road (T537)

Dagen Road ("537)

Dressler Road (T493)

Fairview Road (T533)

Fairview Road (T533)

Flint Road (T463)

Foundry Road (T556)

Bunkertown Road (T458)

EXHIBR C FAYETIE TOWNSHIP ROAD CONDITIONS

ROAD CONDITIONS WIDTH SURFACE SURFACE

BETWEEN ROAD AND ROAD (FEET) TYPE CONDITION

18 M G

17 M G

14 M F

20 M G

Jamison Road (T541) SR0035 16 M G

Jamison Road (T.541) Vanormer Road (T539) 14 G F/P

17 M G

SRO235 SR0035 12 M F

Bridge SR1004 16 M F

14 G F

14 M F

SR1003 Sunnyside Road (T608) 14 M F

Sunnyside Road (T608) Bunkertown Road (T458) 16 M G

13 G F

16 M G

KEY:

Surface Type: M =macadam, G=gravel Surface Condition: G=good, F=fair, P = p r

EXHIBIT C FAYETIT TOWNSHIP ROAD CONDITIONS

(Cont'd)

ROAD NAME

Hilltop Road (T448)

Hornberger Road (T600)

Hower Road ("505)

Hower Road (T505)

Jamison Road (T541)

Keller Road ( T S 13)

Landis Road (T468)

Laurel Run Road (T418)

Leonard Road (T602)

Liberty Road ("450)

Little Evandale Road (T545)

Long Road (T461)

Lost Creek Road (T424)

McAlister Road (T.604)

McMeen Road (T436)

ROAD CONDITIONS WIDTH SURFACE SURFACE

BETWEEN ROAD AND ROAD (FEET) TYPE CONDITION

14 M F

17 M F

SR2011 Leonard Road (T602) 14 M F

Leonard Road (T602) SR0035 15 M G

14 M F

15 M G

16 G F/P

16 M G

15 M G 18 M F

12 G P

18 M G

17 M G

17 M F

18 M F

KEY:

Surface Type: Surface Condition: G=good, F=fair, P = p r

M = macadam, G =gravel

Orchard Road (T442)

Philips Hill Road (T456)

Potter Road ("472)

Quarry Road (T491)

Red Bank Road (T543)

Rockland Road (T531)

Shellenburger Road (T.497)

Quany Road (T491)

Ridge Road (T422)

KEY:

14 M F

14 M F/P

16 M G

Hilltop Road (T448) SR0235 14 M F/P

Township Boundary Hilltop Road (T448) 14 G F

18 M G

16 G F/P

16 M G

18 M F

Surface Type: M=macadam, G=gravel Surface Condition: G=good, F=fair, P = p r

KEY:

ROAD CONDITIONS f _ WIDTH SURFACE RbAi)NAME- I -. BETWEEN ROAD AND ROAD (FEET) TYPE

Singer Hill-Road (T428) 14 M

Smith Road (T.452) 18 M

SR0035 25 M

SR0235 20 M

SR0235 Mountain Road (T527) Township Boundary 20 M

SR1002 20 M

SR1003 SR0035 Sunset Drive (T535) 18 M

SR1003 Mountain Road (T527) Lost Creek 18 M

SR1004 18 M SR1005 16 M

sR2007 18 M

SR2008 16 M

SR2011 18 - M

sR2012 17 M

SR2013 20 M

SURFACE CONDITION

-F -

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

F

G

G

Surface Type: Surface Condition: G=good, F=fair, f?=poor

M =macadam, G =,gravel

ROAD NAME

SR2015

SR2015

St. Johns Road (T466)

Sunnyside Road (T608)

Sunskt Drive (T535)

Sunset Drive (T535)

Thompson Road (T430)

Town Ridge Road (T509)

Town Ridge Road (T509)

Vanormer Road (7539)

Vanwert Road ("489)

Water Avenue (T603)

Whitehall Road (T558)

Vanormer Road (T539)

.. . - - . . . _ . . 1 .- , - .. .. .'.

KEY:. .

ROAD CONDITIONS -

WIDTH SURFACE SURFACE BETWEEN ROAD AND ROAD (FEET) TYPE CONDITION

sR35 SR2013 17 M F

SR2013 Township Boundary 17 M G

16 M F

14 M F

Lost Creek Road (T424) SR1003 17 M F

Township Boundary Lost Creek Road (T424) 18 M G

SR2008 3,000 ft. west 18 M G

McAlister Road (T.604) 6,000 ft. east - 14 M F

14 G F

Foundry Road (T556) SR1005 12 G F/P

SR1005 sR235 16 M F

17 M F

16 M G

18 M G

Surface Type: M=macadam, G=gravel Surface Condition: G = ~ o o d - F=fair. P = m r