HomeMy WebLinkAboutAntrim Comp Plan. .. ..* . . C ' . 1. -: .-. . --. . . . . :: .' : . J-, . . . ... *.' , . # , . :.-' . . ._ * . .,, * . I _. . -..\., .. . ,I. ': -' , . . ! . . . . . . -. I . I ...... ...... I ...
.-. .. .. . . .-. I . I, '. ' : . .,. ... . . . . . c . i ' ~ .. , > I.-.-<_ . ... . !, . . . . . . . . _. -. . . .C . . . . . . C , . .. -..,. . .-.. . . . . _ _ : ! . . . . ..1 ,,
. . . I . . . . . .....I. ,. . . ._.
3 COmREHENSm PLAN FOR ANTRIM AND GREENCASTLE . -. . .. .,,, . . ... .. . .. . . .. .... .. ._ _... . --
The document was prepared and drafted by a coopertth Greencastle-Antrim School District and the Center ative agreement between Antrim Township, Greencastle Borouugh for Local and State
Government at Shippensburg University. The principal researchers at the University were: Dr. Jack Ford, Professor, Department of Geography-Dr. Daniel DeVitis, Professor, Department of
Earth Science Geography-Earth Science
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A document of this stature requires countless hours of research and effort. The authors would like to acknowledse the following individuals who contributed to the completion
of this plan: Amanda Hasemeier Amy Richert Scott Richert Michael Misner The elected and appointed officials of Antrim Township and Greencastle Borough also need recognition for their
contribution to this document. The elected officials of Antrim Township are: BJ Roberts Jr. Chairman Larson Wenger Scott Dif f enderf er James Byers Robert Whitmore. The elected officials
of Greencastle Borough are: John F. Benchoff, Mayor; Carl E. Amsley, President Sydnae R. Vanner H. Duane Kinzer W. Jean Oliver Glenn I. Knepper Barbara B. Bock. Planning Commissions
have the statutory power to oversee the drafting of a comprehensive plan. The planning com-misions from both municipalities discharged their functions with vigor. The Antrim Township
Planning Comrnision consists of: Lester A. Musselman, Chairman Fred D. Ferry George D. Elliott, Elliott, Ph.d Joel L. Wenger Stephen M. Zeis The Greencastle Borough J. Edgar Wine, Chairman
John Lehman James H. Thomas Robert J. Kendle Jeffrey E. Stouffer Planning and Zoning Commission consists of: The authors would also like to acknowledge the Greencastle-Antrim School
District, Dr. Robert Pascal, Superintendent, and John Kinney, President of the Board. Elliott, Ph.d and G. Paul Klinger of Antrim Township for their tireless editorial comments and reviews.
The net result of the collective effort of everyone is a planning document which will benefit both communities through the next two decades. JJF, DPD June, 1992 A special appreciation
is extended to George D.
a TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I . I1 . I11 . IV . V . VI . VI1 . VI11 . IX . Prologue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community Development Objectives . . . Community Facilities . . . .
. . . . . Demographics. Housing and Labor . . . Part B: Housing and Income . . . . Part C: Labor Force . . . . . . . . Part D: Population Projections . . . Part A: Demographics . . .
. . . . . Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . Part A: Intersection Surveys . . . . Part B: Transportation Management Issues . . . . . . . . . . . Part C: Transportation Partnership
. Financial Resources . . . . . . . . . Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part A: Antrim Township . . . . . . Part B: Greencastle Borough . . . . Part C: General Conclusion . .
. . Environmental Analysis . . . . . . . . Part A: Bedrock . . . . . . . . . . Part B: Floodprone Areas . . . . . . Part C: Sinkholes . . . . . . . . . Part D: Wetlands . . . . . . .
. . . Part E: Surface Drainage . . . . . Part F: Subsurface Drainage . . . . Part G . Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Interpretations . . . . Part A: Soil Suitability for
Septic Effluent . . . . . . . . . . Part B: Soil Suitability for Agriculture . . . . . . . . iii Page 1 3 5 15 15 19 26 32 35 35 47 50 52 62 62 64 65 66 66 67 68 69 71 72 73 75 75 77
........ . . . . . . . . . . ... ____ _ , . . .
X. Environmental Provisions -Utilities . : . 79 XI. Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . 80 Part A: Introduction and Conclusions. . 80 Cooperative Agreements . . . . 81 Clustering
. . . . . . . . . . 8 2 Transfer of Development . . . 84 Public Purchase and Lease. . . 85 Tiered Utility Rate Structure. 86 Capital Improvement Planning . 87 Zoning . . . . . . . .
. . . 87 . Impact Fees and Tapping Fees. Conclusion 1 Conclusion 2 Conclusion 3 Conclusion 4 Conclusion 5 Conclusion 6 Conclusion 7 Conclusion 8 89 Part B: Best Developable Land . .
. . . 90 Class I Vacant-500 feet W & S. 91 Class I1 Vacant-500 feet Sewer .91 Class I11 Vacant-500 feet Water.91 Class IV Developable Shale . . 92 Class V Developable Limestone . .92
Part C: Schedule of Future Activities. .93 Part D: A Postscript on the Joint Comprehensive Plan . . . . 94 iv
LIST OF FIGURES AND PLATES Figure IV-1 Total Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2A 1990 Housing Units. . . . . . . . . . . IV-2B 1990 Owner Occupied Housing . . . . . . IV-3A 1987
Per Capita Income. . . . . . . . . VI-1 1981 and 1989 Revenue From Total Taxes IV-2C 1990 Housing Density. . . . . . . . . . Page ..... ..... ..... 22221 27153 . . I 5 4 VI-2 1989 Per
Capita Revenue and Expenditures. . . 57 VI-3 1989 Total Expenditure . . . . . . . . . . . 58 VI-4 1989 Total Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 VI-5 1989 Real Property Transfer Tax
. . . . . . . 60 VI-6 1988-1989 State Highway Funding for Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Plates (Maps Located in Pocket in Back) 1. 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Community
Facilities and Transportation Zoning Environmental Conditions: Floodprone Areas and Sinkholes Environmental Conditions: Wetland Environmental Conditions: Drainage Land Use Soil Septic
Suitability Prime Agricultural Land Utility Service Areas General Planning Map V
LIST OF TABLES Table Page IV-1 Population Characteristics. . . . . . . . . 18 IV-2 Housing Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 20 IV-3 Labor Force Characteristics . . . . . . . . 28
IV-4a Employers in Waynesboro, PA . . . . . . . 29 IV-4b Employers in Greencastle, PA . . . . .. . . 30 IV-4c Employers in Shady Grove and Marion, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 IV-5
Population Projections. . . . . . . . . . . 33 V-1 Rural Two-Lane Non-Signalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 V-2 Two Lane Highway Segments-LOS . . . . . . . 38 V-3
Urban Two-Lane Signalized Intersections . . 39 V-4 Signalized Intersections-LOS. . . . . . . . 40 VI-1 Financial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 XI-1 Planning Instruments in Contiguous
Municipalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 XI-2 Correspondence of Proposed Strategies with Franklin County Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 vi I C . . . .
. , i ... , ~ .. . . . . . I. PROLOGUE The comprehensive planning process involves an assessmeen of what is and what ought to be. This comprehensive plan includes including : Additionally,
include : an in-depth analysis of the natural resources soils bedrock geology surface topography wetlands agricultural land the plan examines the human resoi land use population housing
transportation community facilities financial resources rce base to A comprehensive plan is a \big plan' in the words of Daniel H. Burnham, one of the founders of the American Planning
movement. He said in a 1910 speech that a comprehensive plan "aims high in hope and work, remembering (that) a logical diagram, once recorded, will be a living thing". A comprehensive
plan, in spite of it visionary tendencies, must display a practical and reasonable balance between conservation and preservation on one hand and the individual's right to a reasonable
return from their land. The Comprehensive Plan for A n t r i m Township and Greencastle Borough assumes that each viewpoint is a legitimate entity in the community. Without conservation,
development becomes i . I
shabby and inferior. Without development, individual freedoom are stifled with callous and calculated forethought. The following plan for Antrim-Greencastle attempts not only inventory
what is, but also to look beyond the to the year 2005 or 2010. As such, the plan is not to present merely a crystal ball with the fingerprints of planning genies and green 3-D glasses,
allowing the viewer to see what others may not see, allowing the wearer to see the world in a new and different way. etched on it. Rather it is more like a pair of red .. . ... 2 I
Ix. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE23 .!. . The following objectives are formulated with the intention of balancing conservation and anticipated future growth in the Antrim -Greencastle
community. The balancing will hopefully maintain the unique small town rural flavor of the community while assuring a positive outlook for growth. The community development goals are
as follows: a) That future residential, commercial and industrria development concentrate in an orderly way in areas accessible to public sewer and central water. b) That the impact
of new traffic become a major consideration in site approval for new development. c) That the street and highway networks provide efficient circulation through and around the existing
commercial centers of the community. d) That provisions are made for a safe and reliabbl water supply for the current and anticipated populatioons e) That community facility planning
become coordinaate between the two communities in order to more efficieentl serve the needs of an anticipated economically diversified population. f) That future planning decisions take
into considerratio the increasing attractiveness of the region for commercial and residential development spreading outward from the metropolitan areas of Washington and Baltimore. 3
g) That the community develop and maintain a land management data base to help in a coordinated governmental approach to land regulation and development in the area. h) That the community
manage open space and agriculttura land with the intention of preserving these essential ingredients that produce the rural nature of the area. i) That future housing development meets
the varied needs, preferences and incomes of the existing and future residents of the community. j) That the resident population have access to the full range of needed goods and services
existing both in the commercial nodes and outlying commercial establishments. k) That implementation strategies such as zoning and subdivision regulations insure that future growth occurs
in area where the positive features of the developmeen far outweigh the negative features. 4 c
111. COMMUNITY FACILITIES See Plate 1-Community Facilities and Transportation Map The Community Facilities section of a comprehensive plan examines the existing public infrastructure.
Included in the community facilities section are the following: A. educational resources B. fire and police services C. public sewer services D. public water services E. local recreation
services F. local library services G. solid waste H. recycling facilities A. Educational Resources The Borough of Greencastle and Antrim Township have combined their educational function
under the auspices of the Greencastle -Antrim School District Authority. The district has about 2139 students (1990) in grades K-12. There are three elementary schools (K-5) with an
enrollment of 978. The Middle School (6-8), and the Senior High School (9-12) building each have approximately 462 and approximatell 680 students respectively (1990). There are 269 f
u l l and part-time employees and the operating budget in 1990, was $10.5 million. School capacity is a factor affecting the development approval process. A large residential development
may increeas the population of a local school. Based on 1991 estimates,the existing capacity of the five school buildings is as follows: 1) South Antrim -67% 2) Shady Grove -67% 3) Greencastle-Antrim
Elementary -80% 4) Greencastle-Antrim Middle -60% 5) Greencastle-Antrim High School -85% The school district annually makes estimates of the 5
kindergarten class six years hence from the recorded live births of the current year in Franklin County. The 'State of Pennsylvania also makes an estimate using the same data. Live birth
estimates do not factor in the number of preschhoo children who are born outside the county and move into the county before beginning kindergarten. The ratio of live births period 1979
to 1991 has a range from .74 to 1.02. The last two school years (1990-91 and 1991-92) had a live/actual ratio of .93 and 1.02. The grade level enrollment projectiion from 1990 to 1995
expressed as a percent change are presented below: to actual kindergarten enrollment for the 1) K to 5 +13.9% 2) 6 to 8 +13.3% 3) 9 to 12 -6.8% Vocational education is met by the Franklin
County Area Vocational Technical School located approximately eight miles north of Greencastle Borough in Guilford Township along US Route 11. In 1990, 79 students or approximately 17%
of the senior high students were enrolled in the vocatioona education programs. The unused existing capacity of the five schools in the Greencastle-Antrim School district appears to
be adequate for the next fifteen years; The K to 5 subgroup has the largest projected increase but even that increase is less than the unused existing capacity in the three elementary
schools, the two middle schools and the high school. The above conclusion is based on the assumption that a major immigration of young families does not occur during the next fifteen
years. 6
B. Fire and Police Services primary fire services for the t,wo municipalities are provided by Rescue Hose Company No. 1 which is an all volunteeer non-profit organization. With about
88 active membeers medical services to borough and township residents. Advanced Life support services are provided by the Waynesboro Area Advanced Life Support Unit located in Waynesboro
and the Chambersburg Area Advanced Life Support Unit located in Chambersburg. Hospital facilities are also located in Chambersburg, Waynesboro and Washington County, Maryland. Rescue
Hose provides fire-fighting and emergency Greencastle Borough provides twenty-four hour a day law enforcement services for its residents. As of 1990, the Greencastle Police Department
has one full time chief and two f u l l time patrol officers along with five part-time temporary officers. Chambersburg, provide law enforcement services for residents of Antrim Township.
Pennsylvania State Police stationed in During the next fifteen to twenty years, the outward spreading effects of urbanization and its accompanying societal problems will impact the area.
Urban related crime will most likely increase along the 1-81 corridor. A GreencasttleAntrim regional police force may represent an appropriiat future response to an anticipated increase
in local criminal activity. 7
C. public sewer Services Both municipalities maintain a separate public sewer system, in 1958, with a design capacity of 400,000 gallons per day (gpd). 1990. 300,000 gpd which gives
the system an excess capacity of 500,000 gpd. The average residential unit consumes 152.6 The Borough of Greencastle's plant began operation An upgrade to 800,000 gpd was completed in
July, An average daily volume of the Greencastle system is w d Antrim Township has an average daily flow of 291,000 gpd. The average residential unit consumes 130 gpd. The actual design
capacity of the system is 700,000 gpd. Reserve capacity in Antrim Township is approximately 409,000 gpd which includes the Waste Management Landfill reservation. Both sewage treatment
plants are located on the Conococheeagu Creek (see Plate 1 Community Facilities and Transporttatio Map). secondary treatment and do not treat heavy metals. Because of the close proximity
of the two municipalities, an agreemeen was established in 1990. sanitary sewage service to some of of their citizenry through a utilization of Greencastle Borough's excess sewage capacity.
The two plants perform both primary and Antrim Township provides The Waste Management Landfill located north of Upton, (Montgomery Township) has plans to treat leachate in the Antrim
Township Plant. The landfill will consume about 50,000 gpd of excess sewer capacity once connected to the Antrim system. Excess sewer capacity is one measure of a community's potential
for growth. Few units in both communities are 8
metered and therefore the vast majority of users pay a flat rate. An estimate of the potential for growth in both communittie is obtainable by dividing excess capacity by average usage.
Greencastle has a potential to increase its capacity by approximately 3200 equivalent dwelling units (edu). Antrim has a potential to increase its capacity by approximattel 3146 edu.
Excess sewer capacity is a mixed blessing for a municipallity On the positive side the capacity appears to satisfy the projected growth in housing (Table IV-2). However, certain non-residential
activities such as meat and food processors along with waste processors might be attracted to areas with excess sewer capacity. Recent federal Clean Water legislation reduce their point
discharge of toxic substances into surfaac streams and use municipal sewer facilities. As a consequeence some industrial activities may have to leave certain urban locations where excess
capacities are not found and move to areas where excess capacities are found. may mandate that many industrial activities If either municipality would consider a future sewer facility
upgrade or major interceptor expansion, then they would have to compete for limited funds with much larger metropolitan areas. Federal construction funding for sewer lines and plant
expansion is currently biased to communities with a population in excess of 500,000 people. Limited sewer upgrade funds for small communities are available from the U.S. Farm and Home
Administration (FmHA). Funds are also available from the Pennsylvania revolving loan funds (SRLF). Future planning in both communities needs to cau-9
tiously and wisely allocate excess sewer capacity so that a mixture of.land uses is achieved and one type of land use does not dominate. An upgrade of sewer facilities does not appear
of sewer lines into areas not currently sewered is more likely careful scrutiny. Conclusion #2 in Chapter XI addresses the issue more fully. fiscally practical in the near future. An
expansion but the procedure and location of the lines demands D. Public Water Service The Greencastle Area Water Authority was established in 1977 to serve the Borough and selected areas
of Antrim Township. The Authority uses three surface water supplies: Moss Spring, Ebberts Spring and Eshelman-Spangler Spring. The three locations are shown on the Community Facilities
Map. Eshelman-Spangler Spring is the main reservoir. Two of its main springs are located on a 75 acre farm owned by the Authority. million gallons per day (mgd) with a supplemental well
of 300 gallons per minute (gpm). Moss Spring has a ground level holding tank of 500,000 gallons and Ebberts Spring has a 20,000 gallon holding tank. Eshelman-Spangler Springs has a capacity
of 13 In 1990 the Greencastle Water Authority served approximaatel 3950 people utilizing 1469 taps. About 83% of the taps are located in the Borough with the remaining 17% in Antrim
Township. Ninety percent of the taps are residentiial nine percent are commercial and only one percent are industrial or institutional taps. The operating cost /revenue rate is about
0.76. Many improvements in the system 10
I, B E I are planned during the first half of the decade of the nineties. removal, a problem related in part to nutrient runoff from agricultural fields in the carbonate area near the
three springs. Lincoln Utilities, a Public Utilities Commission approved private water company, is located in the southern portion of Antrim Township. It serves customers in the Hykes
Road area and at the time of this publication, no specific data was available. One of the major improvements includes nitrate Antrim Township is unique in that public sewer is provided
to many of its residents while a much smaller number of its residents use municipal water. Many of Antrim's residents live on carbonate terrain and rely on groundwater for drinking water.
Groundwater contamination normally occurs from several different sources but one major source in the local area is nutrient runoff from agriculturaa operations. Individual water treatment
systems can be encouraged by the municipality. existing water systems, particularly corridors corridors is another long range alternative. Conclusion in Chapter XI addresses A planned
expansion of the along the major growth #Z? the topic in more detail. E. Local Recreational Services Neither Antrim Township nor the Borough of Greencastle directly owns or manages major
recreation facilities. Most Of the facilities which do exist, are privately owned and managed by public-nonprofit associations. The following list details the local recreational facilities
and their respective owners: ( See Plate 1 Community Facilities and Transportation Map) . 11
1.) Jerome R. King -Greencastle, (pool, tennis courts, picnic pavilions, ball fields) Managed by Jerome R. King Playground Association. 2.) Enoch Brown Park -Antrim, (4 acres, picnic
pavilioons historic monument) Owned and Managed by Antrim Township. 3 . ) Ball Fields managed by the Ruritans in State Line, Kauffman Station, and Shady Grove. I I 4 . ) Greencastle
Sportsman/s Association (fishing, archery, picnicking, rifle and pistol shooting). 5.) preservation) . Martin's Mill Bridge Association (covered bridge Many state parks are located within
easy driving distannce Cowans Gap, Caledonia, Buchanan Valley and Pine Grove Furnace are all located within one hour's driving time of the municipalities. Recreational facilities appear
to be adequate for the current period. If significant immigration would occur, then an expansion of public recreational services may be demandeed Future recreational development may
include: community swimming pool, multi-use community park and a community activities building. F. Local Library Services The Lilian S. Besore Memorial Library, located in the Borough
of Greencastle provides public library facilities to the region. Built in 1963, with off-street parking, the library has 35,000 volumes within a building of 5,000 square feet. During
a summer 1990 expansion, 1,800 square feet was added to the structure. It now has a larger first floor and an unfinished basement. The library is part of the Franklin County Library
System and the State of Pennsylvania Library system. 12
G. Solid Waste Manaqement A major regional landfill is located in the western portion of Antrim Township near the village of Upton, in Montgomery Township. Waste Management Inc. over
the next few years may occur in the direction of Antrim Township. Environmental Resources (PADER) permitted Waste Management to accept up to a maximum of 1250 tons per day with an average
daily volume of 1000 tons. Antrim Township emplloy two licensed landfill inspectors as specified under Pennsylvania Act 101 of 1988. The same act authorizes a benefit fee of $1.00 per
ton of weighted solid waste, paid to the host municipality. Since the landfill is in two townships, the fee is apportioned based on the percentage of permitted area within each municipality.
When expansion occurs, then it is likely that more of the benefit fee will be received by Antrim Township. As of 1991 about 34% of the permitted area of the Waste Management Landfill
was located in Antrim Township. Greencastle Borough and Antrim Township are both participants participants in the Franklin County Solid Waste Management Plan. The landfill is owned and
operated by Additional expansions of the landfill In 1990, Pennsylvania's Department of be In the future, Antrim Township may be viewed as a desirable community for future waste disposal
facilities. The Township possesses some of the following advantages a) Within a two to three hours shipping time from the Baltimore, Washington and Philadelphia metropolitan areas; b)
Within a twenty mile radius of major north-south and east west interstate highways; 13
c) Abundant and relatively low cost land; d) Excess sewer capacity. Future planning in the Township needs to carefully control the existing waste disposal facility. Every means to legally
restrict additional expansion of the landfill should develop a strategy to prohibit new facilities from locating in the area. H. Recvclinq Facilities Neither Antrim Township nor the
Borough of Greencastle is mandated by Pennsylvania Act 101 to develop a community re-cycling plan until July, 1993. However, both municipalitiies in cooperation with three other jurisdictions,
have formed a coalition for regional recycling. The coalition will share costs for containers and makes recycling informattio available for their residents by July,1992. 14
IV. DEMOGRAPHICS, HOUSING AND LABOR PART A. -DEMOGRAPHICS . Antrim Township in 1990 had 10,071 residents and Greencastle Borough had about 3595 residents. Antrim Townshhi increased its
population from the previous decade by 7.9% which is about one-quarter of the growth it had in the previous three decades. The 7.9% population growth rate for Antrim Township was the
lowest growth rate since the decade of 1940 (Table IV-1). Compared to certain contiguous municipalities in Franklli County, Antrim’s population change was noticeably lower. Hamilton,Guilford,
and Washington Townships all had a relative population change from 1980 to 1990 at least one and half times to two times larger than Antrim Township. Montgomery, Quincy, Peters and St.Thomas
Townships had relative population change significantly lower than Antrim. In spite of its low relative growth rate, Antrim Townshhip during the decade of the 1980s, achieved its largest
population. The population base has consistently increased since 1940 to the present level of more than ten-thousand residents (Figure IV-1). Greencastle Borough had a negative rate
of population change during the decade of the 1980s. Greencastle steadily increased its population every decade from the 1940s through the 1970s (Figure IV-1). During the previous decade,
Greencasstl Borough lost 84 residents from its largest populatiio base achieved during the decade of the 1970s (Table 15
IV-1). Greencastle's population decline for the period 1980-1990 is similar to two other Franklin County boroughs, Orrstown and Waynesboro. Chambersburg, Mercersburg and Shippensburg
during the same period. experienced a positive population growth Population density or people per square mile, increased in Antrim Township by 7.4% and decreased by 2.2% in Greencasstl
Borough (Table IV-1). The large population density of Greencastle is normal for boroughs in Pennsylvania which traditionally have limited area with large populations. The positive percentage
increase in population density for Antrim Township is rounding townships (Table IV-1). Two higher density townshiips Guilford and Hamilton Townships, adjoin Antrim Townshhi on its northern
border. The bulk of Guilford's population is located in the northern portions of the township closest to the Chambersburg urban area. about one-third as large as the sur-Hamilton's and
1 ' i j. 16
1940 -1290 I1 9 lo I 0 1940 Figure I V -1 TOTAL PERSONS 1950 1960 1970 CenGus Year Antrim bxy Greencastle TOTAL PERSONS. 1980 1990
TABLE IV-1 POPULATION CfIARACTERISTICS 9356 3679 10071 3595 +7.9 -2.2 9.4 5.9 22.2 12.2 28.7 10.2 26.4 11.7 134.0 3065.8 144.2 2995.8 +7.4 -2.2 -trim Greencastle Contiguous' Township
Borough Municipalities 5954 7252 +21.8 NA NA NA NA 132.1 161.0 +21.9 Total Population 1980 1990 Percent Change Percent Change Population 1940-1950 1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980 20756
2.0% ~~ Population Density (sq. mile) 1980 1990 Percent Change Mean Per capita Income ($) 1980 20368 19156 6.8% 6.4% Income/Family ($) Families 1980 Below Poverty 1980 6643 I 8038 6447
Source: 1980 PA. Population and Per Capita Income Estimates; 1980,1990 General Population and Housing Characteristics; Values for con,iguous municipali ies are determined by calculating
the average from the following townships which are abutting the study area: St. Thomas, Quincy, Hamilton, Montgomery, Peters, Guilford and Washington . 18
PART B. -HOUSING AND INCOME Antrim Township and Greencastle Borough both increased their housing stock for the period 1980 to 1990 Figure IV-2-A). However, the increases were lower than
the average of the nearby municipalities. Based on the 1990 census, owner occupied dwellings increased more in Antrim Township than in Greencastle Borough (Figure IV-2-B). The Antrim
Township
increase exceeded the average for nearby locations by a significant fifty percent. Antrim Township increased its housing stock primarily by the growth of owner occupied dwellings (Figure
IV-2-B) . (Table IV-2, Housing values are interpreted with a degree of cautiion Interpretations should be made only for the same time period. Housing values less than $20,000 in 1980
less than $50,000 in 1990 indicate the lower end of the and values housing market. Antrim Township has fewer low income units than Greencastle Borough and together both municipalities
have more units in the higher end of the market than surrounding locations. Housing density or people per household has decreased since 1980 (Table IV-2). Household size is also decreasing.
More and fewer people. The decrease in household density in Antrim Township was one and half times larger than similar values for nearby locations. Recreational and educational resources
may need reallocation in the future due to these trends. One conclusion from the data is that average family size is larger in Antrim than in Greencastle. However,income per family and
per capita income is slightly higher in more houses in the study area are occupied by 19
TABLE IV-2 3050 3652 19.7 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Antrim Greencastle Contiguous2 1528 2294 1614 2875 5.6 25.3 Township Borough Municipalities I 1 I 22.5 11.3 Total Housing 1980 1990
% of Change Owner Occupied % 1980 1990 % Of Change Housing Value 1980 < $20,000 1990 < $50,000 Housing Value 1980 > $50,000 Median Housing 1990 > $100,000 1980 Value 1990 Value 19.3
21.2 11.9 10.2 Housing Density (Persons/") 1980 1990 % Of Change Future Housing Demand 2000 2010 % change -1990 % change-1990 3877 1700 +6.1% +5.3% 4345 1760 +18.9% +9.0% 78.3 82.5 5.3
57.9 59.2 2.2 76.9 79.6 3.5 3.17 2.88 -9.1 2.52 2.30 -8.7 2.96 2.73 -7.7 2Values for contiguous municipalities are determined by calculating the average f r o m the following townships
which are abutting the study area: St. Thomas, Quincy, Hamilton, Montgomery, Peters, Guilford and Washington 20
I .. . .: .. . -. ._ .,>! ._ ._ . . . . . :. . ... . ... . . .... ... .. . . . : .'z .. . , . ._.. . .. . .: . . . ~ .,:: . , i ! 1. 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 I990 HOUSING UNITS Total,
Owner, and Occupied . . An trim Greencastle contiguous Total housing units Owner occup, units pTA Total occup, units Figure IV-2A. 1990 Housing Units.
. .. .. . . ..t . .. . ... . .. .. ' . : 'N N : . -. . : -I . .._. . . . . ... ... . , .. 1990 OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING TI al 0. 3 .-U u . 0 L al 5 0 L 6) n E 3 Z 450 400 350 300 250 200
150 100 50 0 Antrim Green c astl e Less than $50,000 hxy More than $100,000 Contiguous ' Figure IV-2B. 1990 Owner Occupied Housing. ... .
&&&lil&wa,k--G DENSITY . e 1990 Persons Per Household. 3.2 3 2.88 2.73 2.8 ... .. 2.6 . ... . . 2.4 2.30 .2.2 2 1.8 '. . .. . .. . , ,. N w 1.6 1.4 I .2 I al Q VI 0 . . .. .. . c r?
b) Q 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 I An trim Greencastle Contiguous Person /Household . . Figure IV-2C. Housing Density! .. . .,. .. .. . . . .. -. . _ .
Greencastle. Income per family is about equal ( Figure IV-3A). Antrim. Township in 1990 has an average of 3 . 4 3 people per family while Greencastle Borough has 3 . 3 people per family.
About 29% of Antrim’s total population is classifiie as a family while 30.0% of Greencastle’s total population is classified as family.3 Future housing demand is calculated by referencing
Table IV-2 and Table IV-5. Using the average projected population for the decades 2000 and 2010 and dividing it by the 1990 housing density for each municipality, yields projected new
housing units of 3877 ( 2 0 0 0 ) and 4345(2010) for Antrim Township. Similar projected values for Greencasstl Borough are 1700 (2000) and 1760 (2010) units. Based on the above assumptions
and using 1990 as the base year, Antrim Township will need to increase its housing stock by 6.1% by the next decade and by 18.9% by the decade of 2010. Greencastle Borough will have
to increase its housing stock by 5.3% by the year 2000 and 9.0% by the year 2010. The General Planning Map (Plate 10) defines areas of future land development. If all future residential
developmeen were to occur within C l a s s I areas, then there appeear to be adequate land within Antrim Township to meet the anticipated growth in housing units. In the Borough, the
anticipated growth would have to occur by increasing lot density where developable land is not available. A family consists of a household and one other person who is related by blood
or adoption. 24
22 20 18 16 v) 14 I 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1987 PER CAPITA INCOME -ANTRl M GREENCASTLE C ONTl GUOUS PENNSYLVANIA ..1.9 87 Mean.P.C.1. Income Per Famiiy-*Figure IV-3A. 1987 Per Capita Income
Ie 1 I e PART C. -LABOR FORCE Antrim Township and Greencastle Borough have a similar labor force composition (Table IV-3). Both municipalities are slightly lower than the surrounding
municipalities in service oriented employment but significantly higher than the surrounding municipalities in manufacturing employmeent Retail and wholesale employment is also slightly
larger in the study area than in the surrounding areas. When a community possess a relatively large amount of its labor force in manufacturing, they normally have higher incomes since
incomes in manufacturing normally exceed incomes in the retail and service sectors. On the negative side, manufacturing employment tends to fluctuate, often based on international or
national market conditions. Serviic and some types of retail oriented activities tend to be more immune to short term market perturbations. Tables IV-4a, b and c, list the major industrial
emplooyer in the Greencastle and Waynesboro area. The largest employer in the region is Grove Worldwide with approximately 2000 to 3000 employees followed then by four other firms employing
600-800 employees. are small with an average labor force of 111 employees per establishment in Waynesboro and 75 per establishment in Most of the other employers Greencastle. The relatively
large proportion of the total labor force employed by the’ five largest firms presents of economic vulnerability for the region. in employment in one firm would impact the local area.
However, the laborshed for the large employers goes well a degree A major cutback 26
beyond the boundaries of the Township and the Borough. Unemployment rates in Franklin County have traditionally been in the range of 4.6% to 6.3%. ployment in Franklin County has placed
it in the upper quartile of counties in Pennsylvania since 1988. The low rate of unem-27
1 3 Service (%) Labor Force 9.4 9.5 Retail-Wholesale (%) Labor Force 16.5 17.1 Manufacturing -(%) Labor Force 40.3 41.7 TABLE IV-3 10.4 13.0 34.3 LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS 1980 Antrim
Greencastle Contiguous Township Borough Municipalities 28
. . . . . . . .. . . , ., .L".3.. . . . . INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYERS IN WAYNESBORO, PA Table IV-4a Employers: f Frick Co. Regenency Thermographics of PA Litton Industrial Automation Systems
Teledyne Landis Oster Amp. Inc. Connie Sportswear Elite Personalized Creations Homes by Keystone SPI Fire Apparatus Beck Manufacturing Inc. Benju Corp. Wayne Tool Co. Record Herald Publishing
Co. Bonded Applicators TRI Fab Inc. Waynesboro Pipr. Products Sesco Electrical Systems Mull Machine Shop Antietam Dairy Waynesboro Ice and Cold Storage Window Stor and More American
Analytical Testing The Colorworks Mohn's Lumber Mill South Potomac Lumber Ray Eyler Paving Leos Candy Factory Waynesboro Marble and Granite Works Ernest Whitney Pressure Pro. A. E. Sollenberger
Investment Casting Allison's Harness Manufacturing of Employees 822 800 695 350 135 131 100 97 63 50 50 42 38 30 31 14 16 10 9 8 8 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 Average = 111 for area ~ Data
Based January, 1990 Estimates 29
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYERS I N GREEMCASTLE-A]NTRIM AREA Table IV-4b Employer: Corning Glass Works Jerr-Dan Corp. Foremost Industries Anvil Products Inc. Baer Packing Corp. Lucchino Industries
Co. Precision Manufacturing and Engineering Strait Manufacturing and Welding Mitchell Machine Shop Contech Construction Products Eshland Enterprises Inc. Appalachian Lamb Co. Graphics
Universal Castle Machine Shop Danco Products Better Foods Foundation Greencastle Metal Works Echo Pilot Pen-Mar Wood Works Craig's Concrete Panel Structures Inc. Bock Oil Investment
Casting # of Employees 620 215 ' 169 159 156 55 54 40 37 35 33 27 24 20 20 15 10 9 6 6 6 3 3 Average = 75 for Area 30
_ ” I INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYERS IN SHADY GROVE AND MARION AREAS Table IV-4c Employers in Shady Grove Grove Worldwide Shady Grove Planning Mill Employers i n Marion Williard Agricultural Service
Statler Body Works ’ Ira Lesher and Son Inc. Village Printing 31 # of Employees 2,000 -3,000 8 # of Employees 9 5 3 1
PART D. -POPULATION PROJECTIONS Small area population projections are often very tenuoou in nature since it considers only gross changes in population. Population change arises from
changes in either net natural increase or net migration. Small area projectiion sometimes are more than the natural increase component. impacted by the migration component Three population
projection models are used and produuc varying results (Table IV-5). The linear model assumes constant average change and data came from the period 1940 to 1980. The linear model assumes
that the rate of change in the past decades will continue into the future. The exponentiia model assumes that growth continues relentlessly and a population gets bigger and bigger. The
ratio model assumes that the population growth in the Greencastle and Antrim area is part of a larger growth pattern in the surrounding Franklin County area. Population projections at
the local level provide a broad picture of possible future scenarios for the communitty Each scenario provides different implications. However Antrim has land for expansion which is
lacking in Greencasstle Provided that long term economic downturns do not occur, then Antrim Township can absorb a larger population in the next two decades. The projection for Greencastle
signals a far more restrained growth year 2000. particularly after the The fundamental issue which continually arises in light of services. Both communities currently have the population
growth is the provision of public 32
POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2 0 0 0 , 2010 -2.2% 10071 Table IV-5 7.98% 1990 Actual Census Bureau Count Linear Projection 2000 2010 Exponential Projection 2000 2010 Ratio* 2000 2010 3595
3843 4088 3867 4088 4028 3900 6.8% 11229 6.4% 12387 11.4% 10.3% 7.5% 11974 7.6% 14237 12.0% 10297 -3.0% 10924 *Used weighting of decade with larger weights going to more recent changes
18.8% 15.8% 2.2% 5.7% 33 ---. Average of Three 2000 2010 3912 4049 8.8% 11166 3.5% 12516 10.8% 12.0%
capability t o provide needed p u b l i c s e r v i c e s such as cen- r a l water, sewer, police and recreation decade. Beyond a c e r t a i n threshold, however, provide the needed
services, some through the next i n order t o I 3 , form of p u b l i c s e r v i c e expansion may be needed.
V. TRANSPORTATION The transportation section sections : is subdivided into the following A. Intersection Survey B. Transportation Management Issues C. Transportation Partnership PART
A. INTERSECTION SURVEYS A-1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF INTERSECTION SURVEY The purposes of the intersection survey are4: A. To determine overall movement patterns within the municipalities
and to develop base line data for surveys. future B. To assess movement problems at principle intersectiion which have been noted as congested by ties. both communi-The intersection
survey section is subdivided into rural nonsignalized and urban signalized intersections. Nine major intersections were selected by the local officials and traffic flow data was collected
on a mid-week day in July, 1990, for two A.M. peak periods, two P.M. peak periods and two non-peak periods. length, and counts included volumes in both directions. A sample period was
15 minutes in Tables V-1 and V-3 show the percent of total vehicles per hour’ on the prime routes. The secondary routes for both 4An intersection study is a sample investigation of traffic
movement at an intersection over a period of time. Qehicles per hour is the sum of all vehicles entering the intersection in both directions. The percentages represent the portion of
the total vehicles per hour (VPH) moving through the 35
peak and non-peak volumes represent an average of the A.M. and P.M. sample values. Table V-1 devotes itself to nonsignaalize intersection, while Table V-3 concentrates on signalized
intersections. It should be emphasized that the detailed traffic data is most useful for developing a baseliin for future traffic decisions. Level of service is a measure of traffic
flow effectiveeness It is a qualitative measure of operational conditiion within a traffic stream (Highway Capacity Manual, 1985, p. 1-3). levels of service for rural two lane and urban
signalized intersections. determined from the Hicrhway Research Manual criteria in order to facilitate roadway intersection conjunction. more detailed traffic analysis of the intersections
could define more precise levels of service. Tables V-2 and V-4 summarize the major The level of service was qualitatively c A The following example will provide the reader with an understanding
of the traffic data contained in Tables V-1 and V-3. The intersection of Kaufman Road and Route 11 is chosen for the example and Route 11 had an estimated total of 783 vehicles per hour
(VPH) in both directions in the peak period and 500 VPH in the non-peak period (Column 8 of Table V-1). intersection or turning. Since there are different totals the percentages will
not equal 100% 36
Location 3 7 . 4 1 2 . 1 9 2 . 1 7 3 . 6 8 3 . 5 8 2 . 2 9 5 . 0 9 4 . 8 Table V-1 RURAL TWO-LANE NON-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Percent of Total VPH 783 500 2212 900 2296 602 3488 1066
Level of 5 4 . 8 7 3 . 9 Primarv) Throuqh Turns Differences volumes service ->S ->N from t o through turns d i r e c t i o n primary both 562 -20-B 148 .05-A (->E) (-a.Kauffman P 32.9
Route 11 NP 34.8 Rabbit P 9 4 . 1 Route 16 NP 88.2 Hykes P 82.4 Route 11 NP 78.3 1 RHooulltoe w1e6l l NPP 8 7 . 0 1 94.9 Hollowell P 5 7 . 1 P = Peak NP = Non-Peak >W) primary pr 2 6
. 6 ~~ 9 7 . 6 1 2 . 9 94.6 4 . 1 8 4 . 8 1 1 6 . 5 86.1 17.8 2 0 . 8 9 5 . 0 77.7 100 100 100 100 12.7 27.7 75.6 87.7 N-S) fr 4 . 7 8 . 2 3 . 5 6 . 4 2 . 4 2.8 3 . 8 0 . 4 12.1 3 6
. 9 ~ 2 . 0 22.0 2m/to primary I rPH/28 00 -27-B -17-A ~ -79-0 32-B 82-D -2 l -B X1.0 -E .38-C ~~~ 3 7 . 3 -1 442 5 . 3 74 .10 25--AA Source: Authors, 1990 37
TABLE V-2 420 pcph = 60 mph < 1.0 750 pcph <= 55 mph <=1.0 C 1200 pcph < 52 mph >=1.0 D 1800 pcph <= 50 mph very difficult TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENTS LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) < 30% < 45%
< 60% < 75% E Source: Hishway Capacitv Manual Transportation Research Board ' 1985, pp. 8-5 -8-6 2800 pcph < 50 mph impossible < 75% (25 mph) 38
TABLE V-3 I URBAN 'lWO-LANE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Location Percent of total VPH (Pr imarv) through turns differences ->S ->N from t o through turns (->E) ( ->W) primary primary Baltimore
(PA-16) P 46.3 49.6 52.1 45.7 3.3 6.4 Antrim W. (US-11) NP 46.1 48.2 51.7 50.6 2.1 1.1 Washington . P 95.0 89.6 . 7.5 63.0 5.4 55.5 Baltimore NP 88.2 88.6 11.5 69.9 0.4 58.4 C a r l
i s l e P 85.5 83.1 ' 10.9 59.2 2.4 48.3 Ba 1 t imore NP 82.0 76.8 20.8 67.2 5.2 46.4 TABLE V-4 39
-A < 5.0 Favorable B 5.1-15 Good C 15.1-25.0 Fair D 25-40.0 congestion E 40.1-60.0 Poor F >60.1 . Oversaturation Source: Hishwav Capacity Manual Transportation Research Board 1985, pp.
9-4 -9-5 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) . . *--_ _ 40
Approximately 32.9% of the VPH (Column 2) came from the South while 37.6% of the VPH came from the north. Thus 70.5% (37.6% + 32.9%) of the VPH in the peak period passed through the
intersection and 29.5% of the total VPH came from either side of Kauffman Road. 49.7% (column 4) of all turns at the intersection came from Route 11 with the remainder (100%-49.7%) of
all turns coming from Kauffman Road. 87.1% (coluum 5) of all traffic on Xauffman Road turned onto Route 11 and 12.9% (100%-87.1%) passed through the intersection. Column 6 and Column
7 indicate the differences between the north-south and turn movements. Thus 4.7% (37.6% -32.9) represents the difference between north onto Route 11 and traffic coming from the south.
About 37.4% primary. Large values in the difference columns signify more of an unbalanced flow and the most meaningful comparisons are the ones between the peak and non-peak. Therefore,
a difference of 25.3% (37.4% -12.1%) signifies that turning movement at the Xauffman -Route 11 intersection is heavily influenced by the work trip. traffic coming from the of all turns
came from the primary and turns to the 41
A-2. ANALYSIS OF RURAL TWO-LANE NON SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIION A. Kauffman and Route 11 Traffic movements at this intersection indicate a sizable turning volume to and from Route 11. Residences
either side of Route 11 and accessible from Kaufman Road help to account for the sizeable turning volume. Peak and non-peak differences are not very pronounced on Route 11, particularly
in the southward direction. Peak and non-peak differences are also not as noticeable in turning movement. This consistency may be due to the large number of residencee nearby. Overall,
the intersection in peak hours reflects a small bias for northward movement on Route 11 to Chambersbuurg Traffic volumes to capacity values ( 2 8 0 0 VPH) indicaat a level of service
of l1Blt for peak hours and llA1l for non-peak times (Table V-2). No major recommendations are made regarding this intersection. B. Rabbit Road and Route 16 This intersection reflects
a pronounced imba1ance.h flow with few vehicles turning onto Rabbit Road, and most , traveling through. Turning volumes from Route 16 to Rabbit Road vary little from peak to non-peak
periods. volumes to capacity ratios for Route 16 indicate an Unsatis-.Traffic factory level of service during peak hours (Table V-2). On Rabbit Road, roadway width and the overall peak
volume of 88 vehicles per hour indicates how a rural local road often functions as a rural collector. A future roadway 42
modification to Rabbit Road may be needed to accommodate increased flow. C. Hykes and Route 11 Route 1l.and Hykes Road south of Greencastle carries a larger peak volume of traffic than
does Route 11 north of Greencastle (Table V-1). The level of service on Route 11 on the peak hour is one of the lowest (Table V-2). Possibly employment opportunities in Hagerstown are
more numerous than employment opportunities in the Chambersburg area. Turns from Route 11 to Hykes Road have a consistent flow with small peak to non-peak variation. Residential development
in this part of the township has greatly impacted the Hykes Road traffic volume. In the future increased residential development will only serve to further aggravate the situation. Hykes
is an adventure, particularly during the peak period. Turning from Route 11 to The primary route driven must stop in the traveling lane in order to complete the turn. One recommendation
is the installlatio of turning lanes particularly on the northbound part of Route 11 at the Hykes Road intersection. D. Hollowell Church and Route 16 Route 16 has the highest peak hour
flow of the six rural intersections and the poorest peak hour level of serviic of all roads studied. moving eastward..Turns to Hollowell Church Road are proportionnall equal to non-peak
hour turns. the turns to Hollowell Church are around 100 VPH. Turning Most of the peak hour flow is Peak hour totals for 43
lanes installed on Route 16 in both directions, would allow through traffic to continue without delay. E. Hollowell Church and Leitersburg Pike This section of the Township is closest
to the Maryland border, it has some of the lowest hourly totals for peak and non-peak periods. Most of the movement on both rural collecctor is balanced or straight through. The peak
hour factor increase is one of the largest of the six intersecttions The installation of a larger shoulder would allow through traffic to continue unimpeded by the left turning traffic.
F. Hykes and Williamsport Pike The intersection has a low absolute volume flow, but a highly unbalanced flow. Williamsport Pike is a rural colleccto serving the small rural settlements
in Southern Franklin County and Northern Washington County. fic is straight through with only an occasional turn to Hykes Road. However in the future, as residential develop-Most trafmeen
expands parallel to Hykes Road, increased turning movement can be expected. Future road planning planning may considee shoulder enlargement to accomodate turning traffic. 44
A-3. ANALYSIS OF SIGNALIZED URBAN INTERSECTIONS The following signalized intersections in the Borough of Greencastle are also studied similarly to the rural nonsignaalize intersections.
A. Baltimore and Antrim Way B. Baltimore and Carlisle Street6 C. Baltimore and Washington A. Baltimore and Antrim Way Baltimore Street (PA Route 16) and Antrim Way (US Route ll), have
a balanced flow both north and south and also in the turning movement. about 25% of all vehicles entering the intersection turn with approximately one-half of all turns occurring against
approaching traffic (Table V-3) . Stop delays7 for non-peak periods are low, but delays for opposing approach turns are high. In some cases, during non-peak periods, turns are only completed
once the opposing approach traffic is stopped for a red light during peak hour. In both peak and non-peak periods, B. Carlisle and Baltimore The intersection of Carlisle and Baltimore
reflects an unbalanced flow. Most of the traffic passes through the intersection on Baltimore. are highest for traffic’from South Carlisle crossing Balti-Stop delays for non-peak periods
The intersection of Carlisle and Baltimore is not technically signalized, but given its orientation and locatiion it was considered with the other two signalized intersecttion Stop delays
are defined as the time in seconds a vehicle takes to enter and leave the intersection during a green light. 45
more and continuing on North Carlisle. ment from South Carlisle is evenly divided between left turns, right turns and straight through for both peak and non-peak periods. (peak 1418
VPH, non-peak 312 VPH), it is recommended that a traffic signal be installed. Most traffic move-I Given the volume of traffic on Carlisle 4 31 C. Washington and Baltimore Washington
and Baltimore reflects a more unbalanced flow than the Baltimore-Carlisle intersection. Most of the turning movement occurs from Washington to Baltimore. Stopped delays are tolerable
for non-peak periods, and through peak movement is acceptable (Table V-4). 46
PART B. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMErJT ISSUES INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to detail some solutions to the traffic congestion problem that exists primarily along the corridors
of US Route 11 (Antrim Way) and State Route 16 (Baltimore Street). It is assumed that congestion is never eliminated but municipalities need to make attempts at relieving it. then it
should elaborate what could be done to solve traffic congestion. The following solutions examine specific traffic management improvements. Engineering solutions are often short lived,
whereas traffic management solutions, since they affect more directly people's mobility, normally have increased longevity. However, before solutions are propossed a summary of the local
traffic congestion situation is presented. Since a comprehensive plan is visionary, SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION ISSUES IN THE AREA The following generalizations are based on quantitative
data and field observations made over different times, differren days and different seasons of the year. Generalization #l. -The highest traffic demand is work based and weekday peak
periods have the largest daily volummes Generalization #2. -Most traffic on the two major corridors is passing through with a destination of the work place or home. 47
Generalization #3 -Employment centers and residential centers are decentralized in their location with the result that trip length is comparatively large, and trip mode is the automobile.
Generalization #4 -Future residential and commercial developmmen in both Greencastle Borough and Antrim Township should focus on undeveloped areas within close proximity to Route 11
and Route 16 and existing water and sewer lines. ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION The following are short term traffic solutions that . may improve movement in the
study area. They are presented here because of their close relationship to the traffic data and are not repeated in the conclusions section. A. Channelization of traffic to allow left
turn lanes I ! would be most effective at the following intersections: a. Hykes Road and Route 11 b. Hollowell Church and Route 16 c. Kauffman Road and Route 11 d. Rabbit Road and Route
16 B. 'Public use of under-utilized rear parking areas could be encouraged in the Borough of Greencastle. Periodic review of the zoning ordinance in Greencastle Borough should also be
done to address the issue of the lack of parking. C. Maximization of pedestrian mobility and safety on Baltimore Street by installation of larger crosswalk markinngs yellow caution lights
and signs crossing priority are needed. 48 warning pedestrian
D. Extension of sidewalks along Baltimore Street eastward beyond the 1-81 overpass to include new commercial development in Antrim Township is needed. E. Installation of bike lanes (5-6
feet) along both sides of PA 16 eastward from 1-81 would be effective. F. Establishment of maximum parking time requirements along Baltimore Street is needed during the hours of to 6
PM, Monday through Saturday. 8 AM G. Construction of parallel feeder roads for new large commercial establishments along Route 16 would reduce short trip entry onto Route 16 in Antrim
Township. H. Construction of a connector road between Exits 2 and 3 of 1-81, parallel and east of 1-81 would relieve some traffic congestion on Route 11. I. Incorporation of appropriate
road signs along 1-81 to encourage truck traffic wishing to go west on PA route 16 to use either exit 2 or exit 4. Reducing through truck traffic along Baltimore Street (Route 16) will
enhance the overall quality of life and increase the economic viability of the Greencastle core area. 49
PART C. TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP Establishment of a transportation partnership is a long term strategy to improve traffic flow 'in the Greencastle Antrim area. A partnership is a public-private
coalition built upon the following assumptions: 1) Public sector controls impact facility siting and movement along roads. 2) Private sector (employers and developers) impact individual
travel decisions such as work hours, parking availability and individual expectations. The State of Pennsylvania through the Transportation Partnership Act (1985, 53 p.s. 1621 et. seq.)
encourages municipalities to organize to deal with traffic congestion problems. The 1985 Act allows the formation of Transportatiio Development Districts,(TDD). hensively approach traffic
management in the local area. The Act encourages private sector's participation both for physical improvements and traffic management. A TDD can then compre-If a TDD were developed along
the Route 16 -Route 11 corridors, then the following management strategies could be employed: 1) special assessment districts for road wideninngsignal installation and sidewalk construction
along the corridor; 2) preferential assessment for some types of nonresiddentia development that has lower trip generation rates such as professional offices; 3 ) formulation of traffic
congestion plans for pro-50
posed development along Routes 16 and 11; 4) density bonuses and accelerated permit review for I new developments that encourage non-auto types of travel; 5) establishment of municipal
impact fees as authorized by Act 209 to public facility improvements along major corridors. Transportation Development Districts (TDD) recognize that a private-public coalition is needed
to manage and plan traffic movements in an area of limited public resources. Comprehensive planning during the next ten years will recogniiz this fact. 51
VI. FINANCIAL RESOURCES Identification of the key financial resource is a necessary part of the information gathering process for community planning. It is not the intention of this
section to perform a detailed analysis of the financial worth of the two municipalities. It is the intention of this section
to identify those financial factors which have impacted communiit planning. In order to assess the future one must obseerv the general trends. Table VI-1 and Figure VI-1 contaai a detailing
of the most important financial factors for both Greencastle and Antrim Township. Franklin County is used as a comparison. During the past decade, the percentage change in total revenue
for Antrim Township was +218.2% and +70.5% for Greencastle Borough. The total expenditures during the same period increased by 73.1% in Antrim and 5.5% in Greencastle. Revenue and expenditures
per capita increased in both municipallitie but the percentage change in per capita revenue in Antrim exceeded the percentage change in per capita capita revenue in Greencastle by three
times. The percentage change in per capita expenditures in Greencastle was higher than per capita change in revenue. one-third Real estate tax increases are one indicator of the latent
growth potential in a community. During the decade Of the 1980fs, Antrim Township increased its real estate tax 52
Table VI-1 Township 629 , 072 2 , 002 , 789 +218.2 529,739 916,477 +73.16 51% 43% -15.6 67.45 204.16 +202.6 56.80 93.42 +64.4 43 , 502 199,813 +359.30 123 , 570 199 , 813 + 61.7 18.1
8.9 -50.5% FINANCIAL RESOURCES Borough county 594 , i o 8 13 , 160,158 1,013 , 665 15,389,168 +70.5 +16.9 916,477 10,823,917 967,680 16,138,928 +5.5 +49.0 46% 26.8% 41% 23.4% -10.8 -12.6
161.49 115.82 259.25 135.43 +60.5 $16.9 136.29 95.26 247.49 142.3 +81.5 $49.0 153,365 3,299,374 199,969 3 , 251,250 +30.3 -1.4 35,675 1,198 , 697 199 ,9 69 3 ,1 73 ,0 33 +460.5 +259.0
23.0 19.9 -61.3% -54.3 8.9 9.09 ~ Total Revenue 1981 1989 % Of Change Total Expenditure 1981 1989 % Of Change Taxes as % Revenue 1981 1989 % Of Change Revenue Per Capita 1981 1989 %
Of Change Expenditures Per Capita 1981 1989 % Of Change R e a l E s t a t e Taxes 1981 1989 % Of Change Market Value Real Estate ($1000) 1981 1989 % O f Chancre Assessed Value To Market
Value 1981 1989 % Of Chanae Source: Local Government Financial Statistics PA. Dept. of Community A f f f a i r s 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 1987, 1988, 1989 53
n W I I 0.9 ' 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0. I . c . . 1981 And 1989 REVENUE FROM TOTAL TAXES COLLECTED ANTRIM I GREENCASTLE 1981 Tox bTv 1989 Tax Figure VI-1. 1981 and -1989 Revenue
From Total Taxes
revenue by over 350% while Greencastle Borough increased its real estate tax revenue by 30% for the same period. The market value of the real estate increased more than 400% in Greencastle
Borough compared to a 61.7% increase in Antrim. The ratio of assessed valuation to market value for the period 1981-1989 decreased by more than 50% in Antrim compared to a 61% decline
in Greencastle. The current revenue and expenditure picture for both municipalities show that 1989 revenue for both municipalitiie is significantly higher than surrounding communities
(Figure VI-2). The higher expenditures for Greencastle are partly explainable by the police based expenditures (Figure VI-3) Revenue from the total taxes collected for Antrim is similar
to other adjoining townships in Franklin County (Figure VI-4). Real property transfer tax in Antrim is similar to Guilford and Washington Townships (Figure VI-5). State highway funding
for the years 1988-1989 for Antrim also reflects a pattern common to other municipali-. ties in Franklin County (Figure VI-6). Most municipalities are receiving less funding for road
maintenance activities. Antrim and Greencastle belong in two different financiia classes. In Antrim Township, revenues are increasing at a faster rate than expenditures. Real estate
taxes represeen a growth source of'revenue and should increasingly be looked upon as a source of revenue for Antrim Township. However, national economic fluctuations could make this
revenue source less than reliable. Real estate revenue is less positive for Greencastle as a growing source of revenuue Property reassessment is a county responsibility which 55
would financially benefit a municipality like Greencastle. The finite amount of undeveloped land in the Borough will inhibit future increases in market value assessment. -Both municipalities
need to adjust to the possibility of reduced financial growth during the decade of the 90s. Additional sources of revenue will be needed in order to provide needed public services. Higher
user fees for public services such as sewer and water along with impact fees within selected areas are new sources of municipal revenue. Periodically both municipalities should review
their schedules for building permits and zoning variances in order to verify that the incurred costs are covered. fee 56
c Ulo 0 0 4 -I 280 260 240 220 200 180 160’ 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 ’. 1989 PER CAPITA RWENUE AND EXPENDITURES ANTRIM I G REENCASTLE ST. THOMAS I t QUINCY Revenue Per Capita bT\q Expenditure
Per Cap F i g u r e VI-2. 1989 Per C a p i t a Revenue and E x p e n d i t u r e s .
1.989 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 -1 -0.9 0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 0.1 ---0 T O T A L E X P E N D I T U R E S -----ANTRIM I ST. THOMAS I HAMILTON I PETERS I WASHINGTON GREENCASTLE
QUINCY M 0 NTGO M ERY GUILFORD Values are Expenditures Per Capita Toto1 Expenditures
T O T A L ' R E V E N U E 2.2 I 2.1 -2 -1.9 1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 1.3 -1.2 1.1 ----1 -0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 ----01.124 0.1 t 0-$204.1 6 $159.8 1 $259.25 ANTRl M G RE ENC ASTL E $92.43 ST.
THOMAS I t QUINCY Values ore Revenue $93.00 $143.07 $173.12 Total Revenue Figure VI-4. 1989 T o t a l Revenue. ~AMILTON I PE-TERS I WASHI~GTOI GUILFORD ' MONTGOMERY Per Capita
'1.98 9 m 0 12c 110 100 90 80 '' 70 60' 50 40 30 20 10 0 REAL PROPERN TRANSFER TAX ANTRIM I . ' GREENCASTLE 1988 Property Tax rq 1989 Property Tax F i g u r e VI-5. 1989 Real P r o p
e r t y T r a n s f e r Tax. I WASHINGTON UI LFORD . .. . --.. . -. . .
210 200 190 I80 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1988 And 1989 STATE HIGHWAY FUNDING FOR COMMUNITIES ANTRIM I S GREENCASTLE T. TF~OMAS I HAM~LTON I PETERS
I WASHINGTON QUINCY M 0 NTGO M ERY GUILFORD 1988 Ky 1989 Figure VI-6. State Highway Funding for Communities. _ .
VII. ZONING See Plate 2 -Zoning Zoning for the two municipalities control over unwanted land use development. The purpose of this section is to provide an analysis of the zoning map
for Antrim Township and Greencastle Borough. The permitted uses within each of the zoning districts depicted on the zoning provides some map are detailed. tiveness of the zoning ordinance.
Refer to Plate 2 -Zoning for a cartographic display. The analysis evaluates the overall effec-Part A: ANTRIM TOWNSHIP Antrim Township has seven districts defined within its ordinance.
They are: a) Residential -Low density -R-1 b) Residential -Medium density -R-2 c) Agricultural Residential District-AR d) Community Commercial District -CC e) Highway Commercial -HC
f) Industrial District-I g) Flood Hazard -FH Permitted uses within the Agricultural Residential district are detached and semi-detached houses per acre. Other non-residential uses permitted
within the zone include: agricultural activities, extraction activitiies landfills, recreation and campgrounds. Minimum lot sizes water and sewer availability. up to three range from
12500 to 25000 square feet depending on The Low Density Residential and the Medium Density residential districts differ in and also in the density of residential structures. Two family
detached houses and townhouses are the permitted in the R-2 while the R-1 permits only single their minimum lot sizes structures 62
family detached and semi-detached structures. Each district permits similar non-residential activities. Minimum lot sizes water and sewer to 7,500 square feet in the R-2 with central
water and sewer. vary from 30000 square feet in the R-1 with on-lot The Community Commercial classification permits not single family and high density residential (garden planned residential
developments. only apartments), but also Retail and personal businesses are also permitted uses in this zone. The Highway Commercial classification permits most of the uses in the Community
Commercial. Automobile related activities are also permitted in this zone. Medium Density residential and in the The Industrial District classification permits normal maufacturing activities
and storage oriented activities such as lumber yards. Warehousing activities and truck terminals are permitted in both mercial District. the Industrial and the Highway Com-The Flood
Hazard zone is actually an overlay zone which places more stringent regulations on within the 100 year flood elevation. Hospitals, nursing structures located homes and jails are prohibited
outright and other uses are only permitted if structural modifications are made. Mobile homes and customary home occupations are two activities that are difficult to plan effectively.
Mobile homes or manufactured homes are permitted in the AR,R-l and R-2 zones. Customary home occupations are permitted as accessory uses within a single dwelling. 63
Part B: GREENCASTLE BOROUGB See Plate 2 Zoning The Borough has seven defined districts and they are as follows : a) Residential -R1 b) General Residential (R2) c) Residential-Mobile
Home (RM) d) Community Commerical (CC) e) Community Commercial (CC-11) f) Highway Commercial (HC) g) Industrial (I) lar to one another in terms of the permitted uses. The residential
structures and smaller lot sizes than the special exceptions in the General Residential district. The Community Commercial and Highway Commercial clascoor of Greencastle. Residential
uses are permitted in both districts. A minimum lot width of 80 feet and lot depth of 150 feet along with off-street parking separate the Highway assembling and other related handling
activities. Single family detached homes are permitted as a special exception. 64 -. . . .... -__. .. . , . __ . . .. ---I . .. ------._ _ . __ . . .. ..
single family detached and semi-detached units, townhouses, garden apartments and individual home park is a special exception. mobile homes. A mobile PART C: GENERAL CONCLUSION A primary
goal of a comprehensive plan is the developmeen zoning ordinance. It is beyond the immediate scope of the document to specifically comment on the number of needed zoning classifications
or the degree of specificity of each zoning classification. of a road map for the evaluation of a community's One overriding conclusion is derived from an analysis of the zoning map
(Plate 2) and the General Planning Map (Plate 10). It is assumed that both communities want to maintain in the future the essential quality of life and Sense Of community present currently.
zoning map should judicially allocate the best developable land (Class I and Class 11) in such a way that public health, public morals and public safety is given.at least Then any future
equal weight with individual land rights. 65
VIII: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF FLOODPRONE AREAS, SI"OLEs, WETLANDS, AND DRAINAGE Part A: BEDROCK Bedrock geology is one of those unique environmental factors which plays a crucial role
in the economic utilizatiio of the land. The eastern three-fourths of the study area is underlain by faulted and fractured carbonate rock, specifically limestone and dolomite formations.
one-fourth of the study area is underlain by the burg shale formation. The two contrasting rock types have caused different relief features, s o i l s , subsurface water patterns. Carbonate
and shale bedrock have also determined the agricultural productivity of the land. The western Martinssurrfac water and Carbonate terrain is characterized as rolling land with gentle
slopes overlain with deep and very fertile soils. Carbonate bedrock also contains abundant subsurface drainage channels interspersed with sinkholes and solution cavities (See Sinkhole
Section below). Shale terrain is characterized by steeper slopes and shallow soil. Shale soils, due to their reduced profiles, are more prone to dryness when precipitation does occur.
Surface runoff is also larger on shale soils than on carbonate soils. Additioona interrelationships between bedrock and the physical environment are discussed in the sections that follow.
66 . . . . . .. --
PART B: FLOODPRONE AREAS See Plate 3 -Environmental Conditions: Floodprone Areas and Sinkholes Map. The flood hazard areas are mapped from'information provided by the National Flood
Insurance Program. areas are delimited by the Federal Insurance Administration as locations adjacent to probability of inundation. Hazard the streams which have the highest The most
extensive flood hazard area consists of a swath averaging 1000 feet in width along the Conococheague Creek. A similar swath averaging 200-300 feet wide exists along the Muddy Run and
Rush Run tributaries. Overall the vast majority of the 2171 acres designated as flood hazard in the study area are the Conocoheaque Creek. located on the broad floodplain of An additional
136 acres are designated as a flood hazard area in the eastern portion of the study area. eastern area consists of swaths averaging 300 feet wide paralleling Marsh Run and its smaller
tributaries. Nonagricuultura use of intensity, non-structural uses. The flood hazard areas is limited to low 67 .. . ---
PART C: SINXHOLES See-Plate 3 -Environmental Conditions: Floodprone Areas and Sinkholes Map. Sinkholes are vertical solution cavities in limestone bedrock which occur at or near the
surface more horizontal underground caverns. Quite often, sinkholes are buried beneath a soil mantle and are therefore visible only as surface depressions. study area have been identified
and mapped by the Pennsylvanni Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Topograaphi and Geologic Survey, using existing literature, updated aerial photography and extensive field
investigatiion as opposed to Closed depressions within the A total of 848 sinkholes, mostly dlosed depressions, are identified within the study area. Overall, sinkholes are widely distributed
across the carbonate terrain with several noticeable areas of clustering in areas of easily weathered limestone formations north and east of Interstate 81. Sinkholes often collapse or
cave-in, thereby causing overlying surface structures such as roads and buildings to subside. Groundwater in areas of sinkholes can quickly become contaminaate from surface applications
of manures, hazardous waste spills or other biochemical materials. Sinkholes are open channels to the groundwater. fertilizers, 68
PART D: WETLANDS . > See Plate 4 -Environmental Conditions: Wetland Map Wetlands occur when the soil is classified as hydric meaning that it is seasonally or annually saturated with
water. The presence of hydric soils fosters the growth of water tolerant plants lands are cal Survey on its seven and half minute topographic maps. The National Wildlife Inventory Maps
also has identified wetlands utilizing large scale color infrared photography. called hydrophytic vegetation. Wetnormmall identified by the United States Geologi-Wetlands are important
for local governments. They provide a setting for outdoor recreation, reduce surface runoff and flooding, improve water quality, and recharge the groundwater. Wetlands also help to maintain
the intrinsic beauty of the community. Wetland regulations in the 1990s have entered a period Of stringent permitting requirements. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
(PADER) is charged with the state wide enforcement of wetland regulations. permit. a) discharges as part of channel construction; b) construction of dams, dikes or levees; C) filling
to construct any structure requiring d) filling rock, sand or soil; for recreational, industrial, commercial or residential uses; adjacent property. (Adapted from PADER e) riprap, groins
or other devices to protect Environmental Planning Information Series Report # 7) 69
The legal basis of PADER regulations, Chapter 105 Dam Safety and Encroachment Act and Clean Water Act do not preempt local regulations. Local governments have the prerogative to disapprove
a project even if PADER approves it. Additional local authority for wetland preservation Code (MPC) as amended 1988. The MPC identifies wetland protection as a legitimate purpose of
zoning. Section 404 of the Federal is found in the Municipal Planning The most extensive area of wetlands is found in the shale portion or the western one-fourth of the study area. Some
of these wetlands are riverine wetlands associated with the Conococheague Creek or Muddy Run Creek. Other wetlands occur upland from the streams in a more forested environmeent The increased
subsurface drainage so of carbonate rock reduces the number of wetlands in the area east of Greencastle Borough. characteristic Wetlands unquestionably need protection. Plate 4 identiffie
the most important wetlands in the region. Future preservation of wetlands necessitates that close cooperation is established between local governments, the agricultural community and
the development community. The Franklin County Soil Conservation Service can provide technical advice on wetland delineation and regulation. Alternative uses for wetlands other than
agriculture may include natural preserrve or community recreation areas. 70
PART E: SURFACE DRAINAGE See Plate 5 -Environmental Conditions: Drainage Map Surface and subsurface drainage are interrelated and factors that influence one oftentimes impact the other.
following section identifies factors which in the study area. The affect drainage The study area is divided into two drainage basins. The larger one, the Conococheague Creek Basin drains
all of the northern and most of the central and western part of the area. The basin covers approximately 80 percent (37151 acres) of the total area. The Conococheague Creek and its major
tributaries, Muddy Run and Rush Run are principle drainage lines. largest number of stream channels per square mile, is found The greatest stream density, that is, the in the western
one-third of rain. accompanying larger runoff. Carbonate rock has the opposiit characteristics. this basin on the shale ter-Shale bedrock has a slower water infiltration with an A small
section in the southeast, about 18 percent (8000 acres) of the study area, is part of the Antietam Creek drainage basin and is drained by the Marsh Run tributaary There are few surface
streams in this area since subsurface infiltration is more rapid through the limestone solution cavities. Surface flow between the Conococheague and Antietam Creek -The drainage divide
which separates Basins closely follows Ridge Road and Hades Church Road. 71
PART F. SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE See Plate 5 -Environmental Conditions: Drainage Map. By definition, groundwater is subsurface water which moves under hydrostatic pressure through crevices
and pores in the bedrock. Where the crevices and pores are small, as in shale bedrock, groundwater movement is very slow. Where crevices are larger, as in carbonate bedrock, groundwater
flow is much faster. Groundwater flow in the study area is divided similaarl to surface water along the general trace of Ridge Road and Hades Church Road. East of the divide, groundwatte
moves, toward the south east. West of the divide, the gross movement of groundwater is westward toward the Conocochheagu Creek. However, west of the Conococheague Creek, groundwater
movement, in general moves easterly in the direction of the Conocoheague Creek. Fracture traces influence the quantity and volume of groundwater. Linear features such as fracture traces
or faults represent weak ter tends to collect and move. A total’of 91 fracture structure zones along which groundwatraace are mapped ranging in length from 1200 feet to 8000 feet. About
ten major fault lines are mapped with lengths exceeding 25,000 feet. The faults generally trend in a northeast-southwest direction. Wells located on fracture traces and faults may yield
larger quantities of groundwater but may also contain water of questionable quality. Sediment and surface pollution 72
easily enters the groundwater through these conduits. The drainage map ture traces and faults. raphy augmen* ted with field identification can more accuratell locate these fractures
on the ground. PART G. L m USE -' shows the approximate locations of the frac-Professionals using aerial photog-See Plate 6 Land Use Map The map illustrates the overall distribution
of major land uses. In rural areas, the use of the land often correspoond with the predominant land cover. For example the appearance of forests, cultivated crops and pastures correspoond
with the actual use on the land. In more urban areas, there are normally differences between cover types. uses and the actual The land use map was initially constructed by photointerprretatio
of color infrared aerial photography. The scale of the air photographs was one inch equals about onethhir of a mile. The area was photographed in April 1988 and May 1989 and a small
portion around State Line came from October 1987. Extensive field work verified and updated the interpretation. Nine classes were functionally defined. The difference between residential
and residential-multiple family depends on the structural density. Institutional land uses include public buildings, churches, school and community facilities. Commercial uses include
fast food restaurants, car dealershhip and other type of consumer oriented establishments. Industrial land uses include firms which produce a product 73
such as Foremost Industries. Commercial-industrial undifferentiiate land uses are represented by activities which combine features of industry but are fundamentally oriented to the consumer.
The Food Lion Warehouse represents an example of this class. When the tree cover was dense then the area was interpreted as a forest. classified within the agriculture -vacant land class.
I The area was then The existing pattern of land uses in the study area is not completely random. The present pattern represents both market conditions, infrastructure assets and past
decisions of the elected officials. In order not to build upon mistakes made in the past, it is recommended that future implementation strategies consider the existing zoning as a basis
for the future. Any future use of land is modifiable by the reality of the infrastructure and the existing environmmenta limitations of the land. 74
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL INTERPRETATIONS PART A: SOIL SUITABILITY FOR SEPTIC EFFLUENT See Plate 7 -Soil Septic Suitability Map Septic effluent is related to the conditions of the soil and the
structural integrity of the disposal system. A soil survey is a professional means of assessing broad area suitability of the soil to discharge the effluent. The soil survey report,
as published by the U.S. Departtmen of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), provides scientific information on the nature and properties of soil and land resources. In addition,
the SCS interprets and evaluates soil types for specific applications. Onsiit analysis is always beneficial. However,Soil Survey Reports are a legally recognized document and should
be used in macro level site plans and effluent evaluations. Dozens of soil types within the study area are interpreete for suitability for septic effluent. Factors such as soil depth,
drainage, slope, sinkholes, change the overall suitability of the soil to discharge effluent. are then then rated overall as having slight, moderate, or severe limitations for effluent.
The soils By far, the most extensive or continuous extent of land rated with severe limitations is located on the shale terraai in the western one-fourth of the study area. These soils
are either poorly drained, too shallow or they are located on steep slopes. generalization are upland shale soils that tend to be deep, well drained and gently sloping such as the Bedington
Series which is rated as having only slight limitations. Noticeable exceptions to this 75
A large part of the eastern three-fourths of the study, area is located on the carbonate terrain which is rated by the SCS as having moderate limitations. In many eastern areas the soils
are well drained and deep, and the local relief is level to gently sloping. The Hagerstown Soil Series is an example of one soil type in this area and it also is rated with moderate
limitations. A few carbonate areas are rated as having only slight limitation since the soils are deep and well drained and the slopes are level. Septic effluent is potentially a problem
in areas like Kauffman Station where existing sewer facilities currently do not extend. Many of the tanks are antiquated and some of the lots are under sized based on current Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resource standards. The Soil Septic Suitability Map illustrates the generaa effectiveness of the soil for septic operations. Certain areas do not have suitable
soil for on-lot systems. A future infrastructure priority should be the development of public sewer lines in areas with continuing and reoccurring septic problems. A sewer lateral extension
to an existing sewage treatment facility may be prohibitive. In such a case, a pocket sewage treatment plant in the affected area may become more practical. The Soil Septic Suitability
map does not take the place of on-site testing which is needed to make a more specific evaluation of a site specific suitabillity 76 \
PART B: SOIL SUITABILITY FOR AGRICULTURE See Plate 8 -Prime Agricultural Land Map. Prime agricultural land is described as land having few limitations that restrict their agricultural
use. Moderaat conservation practices are needed to achieve high yields. Major limitations still exist on prime soil and examples of the limitations may'be erosion, wetness, surface drainage,
draughtyness, shallowness, and consistently stoniness. The most extensive and continuous tracts of prime agricultural land occur on the carbonate terrain in the eastern three-fourths
of the township. soil deep, well drained and only gently sloping, but it also retains moisture and nutrients. agricultural land in the shale terrain narrow 500 to 1000 feet swaths which
follow the ridge lines. Prime agricultural shale soils are deep and well drained with gentle slopes. possess the capacity of the soils on the carbonate terrain. Not only is this Areas
classified as prime occur as somewhat However, shale prime soils do not natural fertility or have the moisture holding Competition for land classified as prime agricultural is pronounced.
valuable for agricultural purposes such as level to gently sloping, deep and well drained soil, also make it desirable for most other non-agricultural uses. nor is it feasible for Antrim
Township to attempt to preseerv all of its prime farmland. The vastness of prime farmland would greatly inhibit any future growth of the Township. Small tracts of of prime farmland within
500 feet Many of the qualities that make the land It is not practical 77
l i of existing water and sewer lines are difficult to maintain as agricultural land. Large tracts of prime farmland located beyond the 500 foot buffer maximum public protection. Conversion
of large tracts of prime farmland to non-farm uses requires careful public scrutiny in order to maintain the resource for future residennts line from water and sewer need
See Plate 9 -Utility Service Areas The existing sanitary sewer lines and water distributiio lines were located and mapped. Then a 500 foot buffer zone was determined for each of the
two systems. result is a map which shows all existing system. The land within 500 feet of an The total acreage of the study area is about 44,480 acres. 5.00 feet of an existing sanitary
sewer line. Most of the built-up portions along including Greencastle and State Line, are defined within the buffer. The buffer zone also extends southwest of Green-Of that total, 12.1%
or 5422 acres is located within State Route 16 and US Route 11, castle along the Williamsport Pike with connections to Worleytown and Coseytown. An east-west line traverses along Hykes
Road connecting the Worleytown area with the State Line system. The existing water system is limited principally to the Greencastle area. A short 1.5 mile line connects the system to
the reservoir which is located in Antrim Township. Anothee 1.25 mile line extends southward of Greencastle Borough along Route 11 near the'corning Plant. The total acreage within the
study area that lies within 500 feet of an existiin water line is 1566 acres or 3.5% of the area. 79
XI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PART A: INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS A comprehensive
plan is a \big plan' in the words of Daniel Burnham. Big is also defined as large in size and in many cases, a comprehensive plan Big may also mean broad in context. A comprehensive
plan brings together many diverse aspects of the natural and human environment within a community. A comprehensive plan attempts to define visionary pathways for the community for the
next twenty or so years. is a voluminous document. This chapter is subdivided into four sections. Section one contains eight general planning conclusions derived from an analysis of
the human and natural environments in the Antrim and Greencastle region. Section two includes recommendaation based on the best land to develop in the next twenty years. Section three
provides a schedule of short term activities and section four analyzes the current documeen in relationship to the surrounding area. The conclusions represent an evaluation of the Antrim
and Greencastle area based on the current data and scientiifi observation by an outsider. An outsider is like a satellite which observes and evaluates from a distance. Satellite images
of the earth's surface provide unrivaled perspectives on the land and water features which then can be compared with the local perspective. An outsider's perspective provides images
which may or may not coincide with the local area or the insider's perspective. The insider's perspectives are often based on specific knowl-80
edge gathered from daily interaction with a portion of the community. Both perspectives have merit in their own way. Neithhe job of the elected and appointed municipal officials to determine
which perspective has the most local community over the next twenty or so years. Once a conclusion is adopted, then the elected officials must develop and fund an implementation strategy
tively carry out the approved conclusions. is more right or more wrong than the other. It is the benefits for the soon to more effec-CONCLUSION #1 PUBLIC -PRIVATE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
(Long Term Strategy) Public investment in infrastructure (roads, Sewer lines, water lines and sidewalks) spurs the growth of the community and increases property taxes. Greencastle Borough
and Antrim Township have entered a period of reduced federal and state tenance. economic growth, public -private cooperative are needed. the corridors of Routes 11 and 16, could achieve
funding for infrastructure development and main-In order to maintain a continuing climate of agreements These partnership agreements particularly along the followwin ends: a) roadway
widening b) water and sewer line extension c) sidewalk construction d-\-, DA. arallel feeder road development e) recreational development Local governments need to consider the establishment
of public-private agreements based on the existing state enabllin legislation. 81
CONCLUSION f2 CLUSTERING OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG SELECTED CORRIDORS (Long Range Strategy) Antrim and Greencastle have well defined primary and secondary growth corridors. Routes 11 and
16 are the primary growth corridors and the Williamsport Pike, Leitersburg Pike and the Williamson Road are secondary growth corridors. Interstate 81 is intentionally not defined as
a growth corridor since development is limited to areas of entrance and exit which is either Route 11 or Route 16. It is recommennde that the bulk of future water and sewer line improvemeent
be concentrated along a 500 foot buffer either side of the primary growth corridors and along a 300 foot buffer either side of the secondary growth corridors. In addition, special priority
for water and sewer line extension should be given to areas like Kauffman Station, where the septic tanks are antiquated and some are malfunctioning. Some of the primary drinking wells
in this area have high levels of nitrates. Future expansion of sewer and water lines should consiide the implication of the area wide growth it spawns. Sewer and water line expansion
affects the land values and the environmental quality within a local area. Sewer and water line expansion can also engender land use conflicts. Sewer and water line expansion must begin
as a joint project between the developer and the local community. Maps such as the Land Use, Prime Agriculture, Utilities and Septic Suitability provided in this document are designed
to permit a case by case evaluation of where sewer and water 82
lines should expand. Ideally, expansion should occur within the Class I and Class I1 areas indicated on the Plate 10 map. Practically however, sewer and water lines have been constructed
along the path of least resistance. Paths of least resistance are normally determined by the using the shortest distance between two points. Clustering of future activities in and around
areas of current activities is one viable method of reducing the straight line distance mentaliit and replacing it with the area-wide approach. Additionally, higher zoning densities
and clustering of commercial and the primary corridors of Routes 11 and 16. The increased traffic can be roads to Route 11 and Route 16 which would intersect the primary road every-Interstate
81, connecting Route 16 to Exit 2 of Interstate 81 is also suggested as a congestion reliever. A feeder road is required by the density increase proposed for the Route 16 area. Higher
zoning densities and more mixed residential developments along the primary corridors of Routes 11 and 16 would free prime agricultural land beyond the 500 foot build zone from development
pressure. Antrim Township has vast acreage. on the carbonate rock classified as prime agricultural land. It is impossible to development on all prime agricultural soils but it is possiresiddentia
activities should occur along effectively handled by a series of parallel half-mile. A feeder road east of commercialpreeven ble to to areas served by existing water and Sewer lines.
Concentrratin future development along the primary and secondary growth corridors will save the vast acreage of limit future commercial and residential development
.-I prime agricultural land private property. while maintaining the integrity of CONCLUSION #3 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (Short Term Strategy) Private property is a right well
protected by the Constitution and the American legal system. ownership of land end result is either costly litigation to ownership other. However private may run counter to the public
good. The define the or the assumed dominance of one sector over the The comprehensive plan has defined many areas as containing unique or special value to the public sector. For example
wetland fringe areas, sinkholes, flood fringe areaasand freshwater springs preservation in order to all the residents of the area. privately owned. these unique natural systems can be
transferred to other areas which are less valuable to the public good. The conceep is called transfer of development rights or development potential and it is version of the Pennsylvania
Municipal Planning Code. require some form of local function as natural systems for Many of these areas are The development potential associated with legally recognized in the updated
Transfer of development rights provides a 'win-win' strategy for both the private and the public sector. The private landowner is allowed to realize a basic property right to sell land
to the highest bidder and the public can Protect environmentally sensitive areas without outright Purchase. Local government must establish an adminisaa
trative system to development potential. CONCLUSION #4 UNDE7ELOPED LAND (Long Term Strategy) define and allocate the transferred PUBLIC PURCHASE AND LEASE BACK OF Local governments historically
have avoided direct purchase of undeveloped land in order to influence the character of development in the community. nities the municipal budgets are too tight and the long term purchases
could tie up needed operating funds and never produce a return for the local government. Local governments can purchase certain tracts of prime undeveloped land and then lease the land
back to the private sector for development. Local government tions on the leased land ture unpaved areas and vegetative buffers. and then leasing of prime undeveloped land governments
to influence the overall character of commerciial industrial and ments without making major monetary outlays. backed land benefits to the local government. Selective purchasing and then
leasing could be considered along certain tracts of undeveloped land along the Route Route 16 area east of Intersttat 81. If the local government did not want to extend its borrowing
For most commuthhe places legal restriccontrrollin such aspects as strucsitting building density, use or function, paved and Selective purchase allows local even high density residential
develop-The lease remains on the tax rolls thus doubling the capacity to purchase prime undeveloped land, then the establishment of an authority to purchase and lease the land, can be
considered. 85
CONCLUSION #S TIERED UTILITY RATE STRUCTURE (Short Term .Strategy) Utility rate structures are sometimes unfair to establisshe users because top heavy with capital improvements expenditures.
Newer users One solution is to more equally transfer the burden of capital improvements for public utilities for all users is to use a multiple tier rate structure. However, under Pennsylvvani
Utility Commission regulations, only operating authorities have the power to develop a tiered rate structuure In Greencastle Borough water and sewer rates could be structured so that
all residents pay a certain proportion for improvements. A customer's bill would clearly show the various proportions. Additionally metering of commercial establishments should be mandatory
in order to more accurattel charge customers. utility rates paid by them are often may pay proportionally less for capital improvements. system maintenance and another proportion for
capital 86
CONCLUSION #6 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANNING (Long Term Strategy) A capital improvement plan infrastructure development with the local population. The local governments of Greencastle
and Antrim need to develop a capital improvements plan. The plan would specify the type of public improvement, where the public improvement will be made and when it will be constructed.
Armed with a capital improvements plan, local decision makers could review and decide a new development's impact on the existing and anticipated facilities. attempts to match long term
the anticipated growth of water and sewer CONCLUSION #7 ZONING Zoning is one implementation tool to carry out a comprehensive plan. An effective zoning ordinance is flexible to change
but also has sufficient regulatory power to achieve the desired objective The following concepts are proposed by the new comprehensive plan. Specifii ordinance wording related to these
changes is beyond the scope of this study. a) Periodically evaluate the zoning ordinance and the subdivision ordinance every three to five years. An update checks for: internal consistency
within the ordinances; amount of land in each zoning category; viability of the fee schedules; and external consistency with the adopted compreheensiv plan. (short Term Strategy) a7
a I p b) Review of site plans for any rezoning request of vacant land. The review may possibly reduce or mitigate potential conflicts with adjacent properties.(Short Term strategy] height
limitations imposed in a certain area because of the unique nature or special circumstances. Overlay zones could effectively protect areas of mutual public concern such as wetlands,
sink holes, and fracture traces. (Short Term Strategy) c) Zoning overlays are sets of restrictive uses or d) The pedestrian, formerly vanished from the heavily traveled core area is
making a return. The zoning ordinance needs to reflect the increasing popularity of pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks, bike paths, and community walking areas.(Long Term Strategy)
of area wide regulation of land uses. Antrim Township borders only two townships with municipal zoning: Quincy and Washington Twonships. The vast majority of land at the mutual borders
is zoned as agriculture. Commercially zoned land coincides along Routes 16. Each municipality should should make every effort to to make their zoning borders coincide in terms of permitted
uses and restrictions. Where zoning coincidence is not practical, then mandatory vegetative buffers to reduce noise and visual impacts should become an alternative.(Long Term Strategy)
e) Zoning border conflicts frustrate the effectiveness f) Prime agricultural land is an invaluable resource for a community. The large percentage of prime land in Antrim Township creates
many challenges to the local government. Large lot zoning in unsewered areas is one method to preserve prime agricultural farmland. In addition, the local governments can support state
programs for agriculuutura preservation districts. (Long Term Strategy) I 88
CONCLUSION #8 IMPACT FEES AND TAPPING FEES (Short Term Strategy) The property tax is no longer a sufficient mechanism for municipal capital improvements. Developers increasingly are
responsible for not only on-site impacts but also a 'pro-rata' share of off-site costs development. attributable to their Antrim Township and Greencastle Borough are now legally allowed
to enact and collect impact fees (Act 209 of 1990). The Act enables a municipality to collect impact fees from developers for off-site road improvements within specifiicall defined service
areas. In the case of contiguous municipalities such as Greencastle and Antrim, two abutting service areas along Route 16 could effectively coordinate road improvements. The use of tapping
fees for municipal sewer and water services is closely related to the impact fee issue. Act 203 of 1990 defines the components of tapping fees which may be charged for the authority's
water and sewer services. Tappiin fees should be fully utilized as a source of revenue. Careful scrutiny of Act 203 and periodic updates will allow the authority to judicially utilize
the fees as a sustaiinin source of revenue. 89
PART B: BEST DEVELOPABLE LAND See Plate 10 -General Planning Map The General Planning Map can assist the local officcial in making land use related decisions. The map cartographhicall
portrays a ranking of land based on its overall worth for future development. The ideal growth strategy for the municipalities is to encourage future development on those tracts of land
ranked as the best.In addition, the municipalities should discourage development on the least desirous vacant land. The general planning map was derived using the followiin environmental
criteria: ous or non-frawented prime agricultural land a) preserve as much as possible large areas of contigu-( Prime Agricuitural Map) ; b) avoid areas that are subjected to flooding
(Floodpllai Map) ; c) avoid areas of dense sinkhole concentration (Sinkhool Map); d) recognize the location of large wetlands (Wetland Map) ; The overall assumption utilized in the general
planniin map is that any future large scale development should be directed to areas already having utilities. Furthermore, borough is vacant land within the 500 foot buffer of both water
and sewers. Vacant tracts within a 500 foot buffer strip of municipal sewers are less likely to have groundwatte contamination than areas serviced only by public water. Five classes
of developable vacant land are depicted on the General Planning Map. The areas are ranked from best potentiial Class 1)to poorest potential (Class v). 90
CLASS I -VACANT AREAS WITHIN 500 FEET OF WATER AND SEWER About 1342 acres, primarily the area next to Greencasstl Borough, has both water and sewer facilities. The land has the highest
potential for development because the safe drinking water and the water contamination afforded by the public sewers. of low possibility of ground-CLASS I1 -VACANT AREAS UITHIN 500 FEET
OF SEWER About 4292 acres have a sewer system within 500 feet. The major concentration of the land consists of narrow areas radiating east,west south and southwest from the Borough of
Greencastle. Other areas are found in the villages of State Line, Shady Grove, Worleytown and Coseytown and in the generra Hykes Road area. Since public water is not available, developers
of the vacant land would have to provide some method of purifying the drinking water. CLASS I11 -VACANT AREAS WITHIN 500 FEET OF PUBLIC WATER A small area of 282 acres is contained within
this class. Most of the area consists of a narrow swath extenndin east of the Borough of Greencastle into Antrim Township. Another area is found south of the Borough. Developper of vacant
land in this area would have to utilize alternate septic systems such as sand mounds. 91
CLASS IV -DEVELOPABLE SHALE LAND BEYOND 500 FEET OF WATER AND SEWER Approximately 4860 acres are contained within this class and it is concentrated within the western portions of the
Township. Some prime agricultural land is included in this class but the land is somewhat fragmented or clumped in narrow swaths. Developers need to exercise careful planniin to are
scattered throughout the area. reduce the erodability of the soil.Many wetlands CLASS V -DEVELOPABLE LIMESTONE LAND BEYOND 500 FEET OF WATER AND SEWER About 2940 acres are found within
this class which is located in the central and eastern portions of the study area. The land is classified as least recommended for developmmen because of the following reasons: a) b)
high probability of hidden sinkholes not yet detecteed c) high natural fertility, high productivity and lower erodability of limestone soil particularly when compared to shale soil,
except in areas of outcrops. high susceptibility of groundwater contamination in limestone areas; The General Planning Map functions as a cartographic model to assist the local decision
makers in the management of land uses. It is not'intended to cover specific plots of land but deals with larger areas and it portrays future developable land. 92
PART C: SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE ACTIVITIES The following schedule is proposed as a tentative list of needed activities which should occur after the comprehennsiv plan is formally adopted
by the elected officials, The list is proposed in order to maximize the effectiveness of the comprehensive planning process. a) Develop and adopt an impact fee ordinance.The procees
may involve: establishing a committee;defining areas; performing sufficiency analysis and developing a capital improvement program. adopted comprehensive plan. The process may involve:
redefinnin community development objectives; evaluating permittte uses and conditional uses; incorporating siting criteriia transfer of development applications and pedestrian concepts
in the districting schemes; defining overlay distriict for environmentally sensitive areas; and minimizing zoning border conflicts. ordinance in light of the adopted comprehensive plan.
process may involve incorporation of cooperative agreements and implementation of incentives. service service b) Revise the current zoning ordinance in light of the c) Revise the current
subdivision land development The vegetative buffers, clustering d) Develop a capital improvements program to more effectively plan and to develop priorities for major infrastrructur
improvements over an extended period of time. municipal planning ordinances and fees. e) Establish an ongoing schedule of internal review of 93
PART D: A POSTSCRIPT ON THE JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A comprehensive plan is a visionary document designed to propose and establish policies for future land managemeent Antrim Township
and Greencastle Borough are not isolaate islands. They are localities reacting to larger developmmen trends. Many of the implementation strategies propoose in the joint plan are visionary
and are not currently utilized by adjoining municipalities. Four contiguous municipaliities St. Thomas, Hamilton, Guilford and Montgomery Townships do not have enacted zoning (Table
XI-1). Washingtto and Quincy Townships municipalities to Antrim Township, with the exception of Washington Township, have not taken the preferred method of formulating an implementation
strategy after the adoption of do have zoning. Most contiguous a comprehensive plan. Franklin County has a comprehensive plan adopted in 1977 but has not developed an implementation
strategy. The Franklin County plan sets forth some implied objectives which coincide with many of the suggested implementation. strategies in the Antrim-Greencastle Plan (Table XI-2).
The lack of update of the Franklin County plan better correspondence. prevents a Some of the long range strategies proposed in the conclusions sections are not currently practiced in
the contiguous municipalities. This fact should not diminish the value of the strategies. A comprehensive plan is a proposal type of document. An adopted comprehensive plan is the first
step in the long and involved process of ing a viable only developaan sustainable implementation strategy. 94
CONTIGUOUS ~-~ ~ TABLE XI-1 PLANNING INSTRUMENTS IN CONTIGUOUS MUNCIPALITIES a a 1l a MUNCIPALITY S t . Thomas ~~ Guilf ord Washington Hamilton Montgomery COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1980 1978
NO 1986 NO 1974 ZONING ORDINANCE NO NO 1983 1988 -NO NO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE 1990 1988 1983 1990 1965 1991
TABLE XI-2 I _ CORRESPONDENCE OF PROPOSED STRATEGIES WITH FRANKLIN COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANTRIM GREENCASTLE PLAN STRATEGY CLUSTERING PUBLIC PURCHASELEEAS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING
ZONING STRATEGY A UPDATE ZONING ORDINANCE ZONING STRATEGY F PRESERVE PRIME AGRICULTUURA LAND FRANKLIN COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Reduce piecemeal and hap hazard development WORK ELEMENT
204 Encourage municipal purchaas of open space WORK ELEMENT 205 Encourage capital improvemeen and budgeting WORK ELEMENT 207 Provide sufficient land use diversity WORK ELEMENT 207 Preserve
agricultural land WORK ELEMENT 204 Source: Franklin County Comprehensive Plan,1977 96
An adopted and visionary comprehensive plan solutions. Without an awareness of new solutions, old probleem continue to persist. provides new 97
111 . ----
. -Z O N I N G
ANTRIM TOWNSHIP AND EOROUGt-I OF GREENCASTLE FRAN K LI N C O U N T Y . P E N N S Y L V A N I A . .
ANTRIM TOWNSHIP AND BOROUGH OF GREENCASTL FRAN KLI N COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA b. LEGEND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WETLANDS
ANTRIM TOWNSHIP AND BOROUGH OF GREENCASTLE FRANKLIN COUNTY. PENNSY L V A ~ I A Iz-**,?h ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS: Drainage ,Do0 . m t. OQI c -----SCALE 'IN FEET .,". ..Q.U.W..L.-P ..
..O. .l.n..l.lf. . V.._. ... . . -_.
a RESIDENTIAL LEGEND COMMERCIAL LAND USE ,co&o . I . -. . Io_00 --. t* Iup SCALE IN FEET -. . . . . .
i c .a Slighl Limitations ' Moderato Limitations 1 I Severe Lirnitatians SOIL SEPTIC SUITABILITY IC00 0 1cm le oca -I----. SCALE IN FEET
-__ -A N T R I M TOWNSHIP AND BOROUGH OF G ~ E E N c A S T L E FRANKLIN COUNTY. PEN NSY LVAFI IA PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS' ,a4 * Ia4 I. DI* CI --------SCALE IN FELT
ANTRIM TOWNSHIP AND BOROUGH OF GREENCASTL FRAN K LI N COUNTY. PENNSY LVAN.IA LEGEND Areas Serviced By Sewer Zyystems (500' Buffer) Area Serviced By Water Systems (500'Buffer) UTILITY
SERVICE ARE. too0 . YLD c ----E SCALE IN FEET &u-.l P. Dnrm --1-. . . . . . . . . .. . -. ... .. . .