HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouthhampton Comp PlanSOUTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP FRANKLIN COUNTY, PENNA. 2001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDA TE PLANNING CONSULTANT: hl I martin and martin incorDorated ~~ ~ phone: (717) 37 south main street -suite A
264-6759 chombersburg, pennsylvonio . 17201 Ÿ? ?<???
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHAMPTON FRANKLIN COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mr. Paul Witter, Chairman Mr. Sam Cressler, Vice-Chairman Mrs. Linda Coover, Secretaq$Ireasurer TOWNSHIP PLA&G
COMMISSION Dr. John Benhart, Chairman Mr. Kwtz Handshew, Vice-Chairman Mr. Sam Wingert, Member Mrs. Haniette Horst, Member Mr. Wayne Alleman, Member Mr. Dave Rob, Member Mr. Darrell
Zimmerman, Member Mr. Elmer Gmver, Member PLANNING CONSULTANT Martin and Martin, Incorporated 37 South Main Street Chambersburg, Pennsylvania I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
RESOLUTION NO. 200 1-05 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN SOUTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP -FRANKLIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BE IT RESOLVED, That the Supervisors of Southampton Township,
Franklin County, Pennsylvania, and it is resolved by authority of the same. SECTION I That the Southampton Township Board of Supervisors has received and reviewed the Comprehensive Plan
for Southampton Township-Franklin County. This plan studies land use and development throughout the Township, and identifies alternatives for meeting current and future development needs.
The Plan serves as a guide to identify goals and objectives over the next approximate period of ten years. The Plan additionally addresses issues such as future zoning and will provide
for fbture ordinances regarding Township Planning. SECTION I1 That the Southampton Township Board of Supervisors has duly advertised and held a public meeting on June 12,2001 allowing
residents of Southampton Township residents and interested parties to review the Comprehensive Plan and to voice their opinions as to its adoption. Southampton Township Board of Supervisors
has considered all comments and suggestions at the public meeting and through written comments received at the Southampton Township. The Township Supervisors have heard comments fiom
Tim Cormany and have reviewed the transcripts of all proceedings. SECTION I11 There is adopted as a part of this Resolution the Southampton Township Comprehensive Plan containing explanations
and recommendations thereof. SECTION IV Southampton Township does hereby accept and adopt the Southampton Township Comprehensive Plan in its entirety.
Resolved ar;d 200 1. enacted into a Resolution this I I I I ATTEST: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SOUTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP
I, Linda J. Coover, Secretary of the Board of Supervisors of Southampton Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that attached hereto is a true, correct, complete
and conformed copy of Resolution No. 2001-05. 'I I I I I I D i D I I I D D I D 1 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN SOUTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP -FRANKLIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA which
was unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors at a public meeting of such Board, held on August 14,200 1, at which meeting three (3) members of a total of three (3) members of
the Board were present and voted; and that said Resolution is now in full force and effect as of the date of this certification. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my signature
as such official and affixed the seal of said Board, this /p d a y of , 2001. Secretary
1 I I I I I I I I I D 1 I I I D FOREWORD The Township Comprehensive Plan Update presently being developed for Southampton Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania is to be introduced
in two (2) phases. The initial phase, entitled “Comprehensive Plan 2001, Phase l”, is a compilation of the background information submitted to the Southampton Township Planning Commission
throughout the first segment of the Comprehensive Planning Program. Over subsequent months, the Planning Commission has been introduced to additional memoranda for review. This data,
or Phase 2, represents the Township’s chosen direction and policy concerning the hture physical development of Southampton Township, including mapping and recommendations for methods
of implementation and achieving select planning goals over the next 10-20 years. I I
A comprehensive plan is more than a document that publishes past and present land use trends while recommending future development concepts for a community. It is also a process of contemplating,
organizing and analyzing future growth patterns for a community. The comprehensive plan is a tool to assist governing bodies and planning commissions in determining future community
needs, which in turn enables them to then prepare development policies. When conducted in an orderly fashion as part of an administrative process, community planning serves to move a
municipality towards unified goals and interests which transcend the desires of any individual interests. Because of the diverse nature of all communities, it is necessary for them to
develop their own individual set of goals. The most important underlying factor of these goals should be the health, safety and welfare of the citizens in that community. Planning is
both anticipatory and reactive, requiring it to anticipate and develop responses for future problems, while at the same time needing to respond to current problems demanding immediate
solutions. Planning for the Township of Southampton must be concerned not only with both privately and publicly owned land uses, but also with the timing and sequence of development
on those properties. The influence of the Township over land use, permits it to manage finances for maximum economies while providing for adequate public facilities and services. To
ensure orderly development, planning should not be limited to just the preparation of a plan for current needs. Planning should be a continuing process, in which consideration is given
to each new decision as a means towards sustainable development, or developing the Township in light of past development with relation to present and future needs. Since municipal planning
is particularly concerned with land uses, any capital expenditure or municipal ordinance, which directly or indirectly affects the use of land, should be dealt with as part of the planning
process as well. Although planning is directly concerned With physical development, it must be remembered that decisions in this sphere will effect the way of life in the entire community.
For example, zoning exclusively for single-family residences on small lots is more likely to produce a community with a larger number of young families or relatively uniform income.
This outcome is opposite to a zoning pattern which allows for a variety of housing types ranging from houses on large and small lots, to apartments. Another example that concerns the
circulation of the community is the construction of a new major highway. The new highway may increase property values in one area by making vacant land more easily accessible, but the
new roadway would decrease propem values in an established residential neighborhood because of adverse effects of increased traffic.
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I The planning program for the Township of Southampton has been undertaken in part because local, state, and federal agencies, along with the planning
profession as a whole are aware that planning problems are not limited by political boundaries. Land use, traflic, and other deveIopmenta1 forces do not stop at borders, but must be
studied and dealt with on an area-wide as well as a local basis. For this reason, Southampton must give consideration to Franklin County's 20-Year Comprehensive Plan in order to develop
a community plan that is compatible with it's surrounding municipalities as well as the County. Granted the authority to adopt the planning tools for the Township of Southampton, its
Board of Supervisors, is the most important local policymaking body. The Planning Commission, on the other hand, serves to advise the elected members of the government. The Commissioners
report to the governing body on policies relating to the development of the community. As an advisory body, the Planning Commission can substantially influence the future character of
the community. Professional planners, or consultants in smaller communities, perform the technical work, which the Planning Commissions and governing bodies cannot prepare due to lack
of time, specialized training, and facilities. Professional planners gather data, prepare maps, and draft advisory reports. One of their most important duties is to present the various
alternatives open to the community for f h r e development and consequences arising from those alternatives. Planners are primarily advisors, with no political power to do the things
that cause change within a community. Their influence on a community's future stems from the capacity to articulate viewpoints and develop consensus among those who do hold decision-making
power. Because of the professional's knowledge of practical applications of various planning measures in other communities and general planning theory, their advice is most helpful.
A comprehensive comprehensive planning program has five stages: background studies, a statement of goals and objectives, plan formulation, plan implementation and plan review and revision.
A plan is only as accurate as the basic information it is based on. All pertinent information must be examined and analyzed before plans cm be formulated. This first step in a planning
program is the accumulation of background studies &om soutces such as historical documents, municipal records and census data. Also included in this step is the collection and analysis
of mapping data on natural features such as topography, soil and geologicai surveys, floodplain and wetlands, karst and sinkhole areas. The analysis should reveal the community's needs
and problems, and examine community objectives. Much of the information and data collected at the time of the 1981 Comprehensive Plan remains relevant to Southampton Townshlp today from
both a historical and current perspective, particularly the sections detailifig physical features and natural resources, For this reason, these portions of the earlier Plan are included
herein via reference as an integral element of this Update. The second step of a planning program is expressing a general statement of community goals and objectives. This statement
allows a planning agency to articulate the general values and goals of the citizens in regard to future development. Statements of the goals and objectives 'I I
1 I I ‘I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I need to be clear and concise since they will serve not only as guidelines for the decision-making process, they will also be a consensus of future development
policy formulation. Because the general statement of goals and objectives covers a broad range of data, it allows for intricate detailing during the formation of the plan. Once the goals
and objectives have been stated and the research accomplished, the fourth step, plan preparation can be undertaken. The final comprehensive plan attempts to indicate how private and
public action can achieve certain community goals and policies in the next 10 to 20 years. It also synthesizes the available information gathered in the previous steps, organizing it
into various options to remedy specific problems. A plan is not a rigid design for the future: it serves as a blueprint for a community‘s growth, suggesting solutions to specific current
problems and to those future problems that can be foreseen. It recommends possible solutions and proposes guidelines for actions for rectifylng hture problems in the community. The fifth
step in the comprehensive plan process is review and revision of the plan. For the plan to be genuinely effective, the community must carry it out incrementally over the expected life
of the plan, with review and corrective actions continuously taking place. Because communities are not stagnant environments, change is inevitable. Community planning is an organized
process of addressing that change. The Comprehensive Planning Program, as currently being developed for the Township of Southampton, will be prepared in three segments. This, the first
report entitled “Phase I Comprehensive Planning Program,” contains an inventory of data concerning all aspects of the current municipal situation. It is this data which will enable the
community to undertake an accurate appraisal of itself in light of past developments and external forces. The second segment of the planning program will be prepared in the form of a
separate Comprehensive Plan report. The “Phase 2” document will set forth the desired pattern of land development in the community and a program for its achievement. The plan will also
contain, where necessary, statements on the order of priority, or the sequence in which the goals are to be achieved. Such a Comprehensive Plan is intended as a guide for both private
and public activities. Future policies should be examined in terms of the objectives of the overall plan. It should be clearly understood that, even after its adoption, a Comprehensive
Plan is not an unalterable document to be followed regardless of unfolding events. On the contrary, a Plan of this nature should be periodically reviewed to determine its continued applicability.
However, to insure the eventually harmonious development of the Township, modification of the Plan should be preceded by a study of all the implications of such modifications and by
a readjustment of the whole to enable the Plan to absorb such change without losing its comprehensive character. The third phase of this program, “The Implementation Repor&“ will describe
qnd make recommendations on the first steps in moving from plan into reality. These steps will involve the adoption, by the governing body, of certain “planning tools” which are provided
for in the State enabIing legislation entitled “Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code” (Act 247) effective 1
I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I January 1, 1969, as amended. The Comprehensive Plan, a statement of policies and proposals covering all significant aspects of a community, is of
course, the most important of the planning tools since it forms the basis for all others, The other planning tools, however, all have the legal fkction of influencing or controlling
private or public actions in connection with community development. They are: Zoning Ordinance, through which the community exercises control over the use of all land; The Official Map,which
designates the public streets and their widths, shows the location of future streets and proposed widening of existing streets, and the location of existing and planned parks and drainage
rights-of-way; Subdivision and Land Develoument Ordinance, which sets forth the standards of layout for the new residential neighborhoods and business areas created through the subdivision
and development of vacant fand; Housing. and Buildin? Codes. which prescribe minimum occupancy and construction standards for buildings; Other Ordinances, which may describe standards
for, or prohibit the carrying on of certain private, manufacturing; or business enterprises and activities; A Capital Improvement Program, which sets forth the projected capital expenditures
of the community. All, or any of the measures listed above may be adopted by the governing body of the community as it is deemed necessary to implement the objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan. State and federal financial participation in local development projects continues to be a very competitive venture for municipalities. In many instances, funds are made available
only to inform municipalities which ask for them. The acute competition for funds available causes disbursing agencies to grant funds to communities exercising the strongest and most
continuous pressure for them. The responsibility for keeping informed as to new State and Federal legislation, or as to the availability of new appropriations that may be beneficial
to the community, rests largely with the Planning Commission. In summary, it is the objectives of this planning program to provide the necessary data, analyses, and planning tools needed
to structure the healthy economy of the Township along with the eficient provision of public services. In general, this means: A. The comprehensive plan should meet future residential,
commercial and industrial needs of the Township, while preserving prime agricultural and forest lands. B. Property owners and businessmen should be enabled to make a fair return on their
investment.
C. There should be a stab!e, diversified tax base. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 D. Measures should be taken to avoid blight and slums. E. Provide locations for multi-family housing units
as well as single rainily. F. Commercial and industrial development should develop so that they are good neighbors to adjoining residential, agricultural or recreational areas, with
sufficient land area available for each use. G. Future development should be located so that it can be served efficiently, and at reasonable cost by public facilities and utilities.
H. Encourage growth primarily in areas where public utilities (sewer and water) are currently available and the roadway network is adequate to handle increased traffic flow. I. Develop
an adequate highway network to meet future needs of the Township. J. Provisions should be made for the recreational and community facility needs of the Township. The Planning Commission's
contribution toward the achievement of community objectives in the Township of Southampton can be summarized as follows: 1. Represent the citizen's interest in developments having long
range physical and social effects. 2. Contribute the judgment, experience and special knowledge of members to such matters. 3. Secure information and analyses upon which to assemble
and periodically revise a Comprehensive Plan, which will include proposals for the accomplishment of its objectives. 4. Safeguard the community's interest in matters of land use and
physical development as may be provided in zoning and subdivision ordinances. The Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Section 30 1 (a), contains the basic elements for
a comprehensive plan. Listed below is a summafy of those elements; A statement of community development goals and objectives that chart the location, character and timing of fiture development;
A plan for land use identifylng the amount intensity, character and timing of land use: A plan to meet housing needs of present residents and those families anticipated to live in the
municipality as well as the accommodation of new housing in different dwelling types and at appropriate densities for households of all income levels;
I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 A transportation pIan; A statement of the relationships among the various plan components which estimates the environmental, energy conservation,
fiscal, economic development and social consequences on the municipality; A discussion of short and long range plan implementation strategies; A statement of the relationship of the
existing and proposed development of the municipality to the existing and proposed development and plans in contiguous municipalities, to the objectives and plans for development in
the county of which it is a part, and to regional trends. The comprehensive plan is not limited to the above elements. Achieving the objective of defining a community vision and then
establishing measures for attaining the community vision must be viewed as a corporate venture. Government can not be expected to carry the burden of all the varying roles needed to
achieve a successful comprehensive plan. It is imperative for the success of a comprehensive plan that its general goals and objectives are not only agreed upon by the governing body,
but also be established with input from its constituents as well. The governing body is responsible only for providing fiamework for change, not controlling the development process.
An effective planning process needs the support, understanding and cooperation of the citizens of the community. They must be an active part in the planning process and recognized as
the backbone as well as an essential ingredient to the planning program. It is the input of the citizenry that supplies the comprehensive plan with community interests and the expression
of community-wide values.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I regional setting The Township of Southampton comprises 35.2 square miles and is located in the northeastern portion of Franklin County. It is bordered
on the west by Lurgan and Letterkenny Townships, on the north by Cumberland County and the Borough of Shippensburg, on the east by Adams County and on the south by Greene Township. The
center of the municipality is approximately 10 miles from the Borough of Chambersburg, the seat of Franklin County. On a regional basis, Franklin County and particularly the Township
of Southampton are situated on the western most edge of the great megalopolis. Major urban centers are located within easy traveling distance of the Township. The potential increase
in population stemming from these developmental pressures suggest that in the future the Township of Southampton may gradually undergo a transition from a rural, open space Township
to a more suburban and commercially oriented conununity. It is crucial that future planning for the Township of Southampton carefully consider its regional context along with all of
its internal characteristics. Only in this manner will the community be one that is both orderly and meaningfbl to all of its residents. Within a larger regional context, Franklin County
and the Township of Southampton are located in the western fiinge area of the eastern coastal megalopolis. Megalopolis is a term that refers to the huge network of urban development
that has emerged between Maine and Virginia within the Atlantic coastal area, and which continues to expand westward. As a result of the extensive highway system that fias been established
throughout the megalopolis area, the Township of Southampton is situated in close proximity to several of the primary urban centers of the region, in terms of travel time. Specifically,
the metropolitan areas of New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. can easily be reached from Southampton Township. The continuous westward expansion of population
and related urbanhuburban land use will place increased development pressures on Southampton Township in the filture. RegionaIly speaking, the Township is located in close proximity
to several important urban centers. Pennsylvania's two largest cities are within easy traveling distance; Philadelphia is 144 miles due east, while Pittsburgh is 158 miles to the west.
Harrisburg, the State Capitol, is approximately 57 miles northeast. Baltimore and Washington lie 81 and 100 miles respectively to the southeast, and New York City is 244 miles northeast
of Southampton Township.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I Rwional Linkape The Township of Southampton appears to be closely linked to the Chambersburg Metropolitan Area. With the majority of the Township's
population clustered within the eastern half of the municipality, an orientation to the center of the County is evident. This orientation is explained in part by the direct access to
employment and shopping locations via U.S. Route 30. Furthermore, U.S. Route 30 links the Township to a larger network which renders efficient access to more metropolitan centers north
and south of Franklin County. The Township's location in the midst of the Eastern Megalopolis suggests that in the future there may be increasing development opportunity and/or pressure
in the municipality. This underscores the importance of developing a Comprehensive Plan for the Township of Southampton that will aid it in making future planning decisions that are
beneficial to all of its residents. The Township of Southampton should be prepared for the future pressure generated by urban expansion, Through the use of planning in the present time
frame, the transition from the current rural character of the municipality to that of a more suburbadcommercially oriented community can occur in a more controlled, orderly manner. In
this way, the economic and social interest of both current and future residents can be accommodated with a minimal amount of conflict that is often associated with urban development.
I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I community history Early Settlement During the 1600's, many Europeans, fleeing religious persecution, arrived in North America. Hoping for freedom in the New
World, these settlers, many of which were German and Scotch-Irish Protestants chose the inland areas of central Pennsylvania as home due to the abundance of game and the fertile soils.
Upon arriving to Pennsylvania in 1682, William Penn befriended the Delaware Indians and began to make land treaties with them. Bartering for land with the Indians was conducted in what
was called "the walking purchase", a length of land walked in a day and a half, approximately thirty miles, would constitute the purchase from the Indians. Later, Penn's son, Thomas
Perm altered the rules of "the walking purchase" in order to obtain larger land areas. He advertised for swift runners that could cover more ground in a day increasing the amount of
land that could be acquired. With the great gains of land acquired by the Penn's the Indians were forced to move westward. By 1772, all of the land between the Delaware River and the
Susquehanna River had been sold by the Delaware's. William Perm fiuthered his land purchases beyond the Susquehanna River through the Treaty of 1736, with the Iroquois Indians. Throughout
the early history of Pennsylvania, numerous Indian raids occurred on h e r s in South Central Pennsylvania. Many early settlers were either captured by the Indians and held hostage or
scalped. Consequently, a chain of forts were set up to protect the new settlers from Indian attacks. In many instances these forts served as the basis for villages and towns that exist
today. Land west of the Susquehanna River, which would become Cumberland and Franklin Counties, had originally been part of Lancaster County. The first settlers in Franklin County were
mostly Presbyterian Scotch-Irish who utilized the woodlands to build their homes, mills, and forts. They were for the most part an aggressive lot who were impatient with the delays of
land offices, and and who did not hesitate as early as 1740-42 to settle on lands to which the Indian title had not fully been extinguished. A much smaller population of Germans were
also among the first settlers in the two counties. The German settlers came to the area after the Scotch-Irish and settled in the abandoned clearings left by the Scotch-Irish. They took
advantage of the rich limestone soil and settled as farmers around 1754.
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Creation of Franklin Countv The separation of Franklin County from Cumberland County occurred on November 23, 1780. Because of this, a petition was
presented to the Assembly to create a new county. This petition led nowhere, and on March 2, 1782, another petition was set up. This bill was passed, but with much opposition because
of the fact that Hopewell and Lurgan Townships were left in Cumberland County. This issue caused a great deal of delay. Another petition was drawn up on March 18,1784 to again establish
a new county. The county bill finally passed a second reading and was printed. However, there wasn’t any action taken on the bill for five months. In that time, Shippensburg and Lurgan
townships asked to be included in the new county. In August of 1784, the Assembly took up a bill to change the Cumberland County line so Lurgan township would be excluded from the County.
Finally on September 9, 1784, a new county named for Benjamin Franklin was created. Creation of Shiopensburg The Borough of Shippensburg, established as e 17304s among the oldest rillages
in th Cumberland Valley. The borough was first a distribution center for early settlers and was latter to become a stopoffpoint for travelers to western settlements. The population of
Southampton Township in 1730 was approximately 100 people. Creation of Southampton Township Southampton Township was formed, originally, one year before the formation of Franklin County,
from portions of Lurgan and Hopewell Townships in October 1783. In September 1784, when Franklin County was created, Southampton Township was divided into two
parts at the Franklin and Cumberland County line. The population of Southampton Township at this time was approximately 140 people. The original Southampton Township had five villages
and one borough. The villages were Leesburg, Cleversburg, Middle Springs, which are on the Cumberlaad County side, and Mongul, and Southampton which are on the Franklin Courrty side.
Mongul was a small hamlet on the Conodoguinet Creek, while Southampton was a new rail station on the Baltimore and Cumberland Valley Railroad. The one borough is the Borough of Orrstown,
which also lies in Franklin County, five miles west of Shippensburg. The Borough changed its name f?om Southampton to Orrstown when it applied for a post ofice. Since there was already
a Southampton post of lice, the Borough’s name was changed to Orrstown after the founders, John and William Orr. They founded it in 1833. Orrstown was incorporated as a borough in 1847
and had a population of about 400. ‘I
1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I Settlers of SouthamDton TownshiD The settlers of the Township were predominately Scotch-Irish and English. The southwest portion of the Township was
settled earliest. This land lies between the southeast boundary of Edward Shippen's first purchase and the base of South Mountain. The South Mountain land was owned by John Reynolds,
Benjamin Blythe, Col. James Dunlap, John Cesna, and others. The owners of the land lying north and northwest of Shippen's second purchase were Scotch-Irish. (BrumEields, Duncans, Wherrys,
McCunes, Caldwells, Culbertsons, Morrows, Finleys, Montgomerys, and others). The accompanying map, taken from the "Atlas of Franklin County. Pennsvlvania", illustrates the developmental
characteristics ofthe Township in 1868. Sources Fenstermacher, Shirley and McDonnell, Margaret, 1975, Franklin: A Frontier Countv. Finafiock, John L., 1942, Notes of Franklin County
History, Kittochtinny Historical Society, Chambersburg, PA. Historv of Franklin Countv. Penns~lvania~l88C7,h icago: Warner Beers, & Company. Pomeroy & Beers. Atlas of Franklin County.
Pennsvlvania. 1868 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Historv of Cumberland and Adams Counties. Penns~lvania~l88C6,h icago: Warner, Beers, & Company. The Franklin County School Annual.
Propram of the Sixty-First Annual Session Teachers' Institute. November 19 15, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Kittochtinny Historical Society
I I I I I I D I I D I I I I I I I II physical features analysis The physical features of Southampton Township have not changed significantly since the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. Two new
areas of interest have emerged, however, that are significant as considerations in the development of our future land use plans. Wetlands Wetlands may be defined as areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration that support a prevalence of vegetation that is adapted to saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands are now recognized as ecologically valuable resources that merit Federal protection. Wetlands provide a habitat to many species of plants and animals.
They also act as natural flood control devices by absorbing large amounts of water during storm events. Wetlands also perform a valuable function as pollution filters. Wetlands may be
drained or filIed only by receiving the appropriate pertnits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmentai Protection PEP). Developers
are usually required to develop artificial wetlands in another area if they fill or drain naturally occurring wetland areas. Indiscriminate development of wetland areas is prohibited.
Identification of wetlands becomes very important when considering an area as a potential development site. Wetlands are identified by the type of vegetation, the hydrology, and the
type of soil present in the area. Vegetation indicative of wetland areas is termed hydrophytic vegetation. The hydrology of a wetland will include periods of or permanent inundation
or saturation of soil. Soil indicative of wetland areas is termed hydric soil. All three of these criteria must be met for the area to be identified as a wetland. The Southampton Township
Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance already requires all plans to note status of wetlands and perform a delineation if necessary. Hydric soils are saturated long enough during
the growing growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soils. Hydric soils are usually divided into two types: organic and mineral. In general, hydric soils
with at least 18 inches of organic material in the upper part and soils with organic material resting on bedrock are classified as organic soils. Soils composed largely of sand, silt,
and/or clay are classified as mineral soils. These soils usually support hydrophytic vegetation, which is another wetland identification criterion. In Southampton Township, some of the
soils do contain minor I
,I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I hydric components, but the majority of the soils are not classified as hydric soils in the Township as noted in the Soil Survey of Franklin County,
Pennsylvania. In Southampton Township, wetlands exist in relatively small, clustered areas Some of these wetlands are significant since they are in close proximity to developed areas.
The accompanying map “Wetlands and Floodplain” shows the approximate location of the wetland areas in Southampton Township. The map also indcates the proximity of many of the wetland
areas to the 100-year flood plain, demonstrating the value of the wetlands as potential flood control devices as mentioned earlier. The map is based on National Wetland Inventory data.
Actual site investigation is necessary to adequately determine the presence of wetlands in the Township. Sinkholes Sinkholes are subsidence fatares associated with carbonate rock. When
the underlying carbonate rock comes into contact with acid (usually carbonic acid from rainwater), rainwater), the calcite in the rock goes into solution. The rock is eventually worn
away along existing cracks or fractures, and channels are formed that begin to carry the overlying soil away. As the soil is transported out of the area, a depression begins to form
on the surface. Further subsidence occurs, and the area eventually collapses into the newly formed sinkhole. Sinkholes are part of the overall karst topography of a region that also
includes depressions, caves, and underground drainage. Limestone and dolomite are the major carbonate rocks in Pennsylvania. Both of these are sedimentary rocks (the carbonate is the
sediment). The material that binds the carbonate sediment together in limestone is calcite which, as mentioned earlier, is subject to chemical action by rainwater. Dolomite is the binding
material in dolomite rocks and is similar in composition to calcite and is also subject to the same chemical weathering. Both of these types of carbonate rocks usually contain impurities
such as clay, quartz, and pyrite. Development of karst regions is generally discouraged. Even when sinkholes are absent, houses or commercial buildings built in karst areas may develop
structural problems, such as foundational cracks, due to gradual subsidence. The geology of a region should be investigated carefully before it is developed if karst activity is suspected.
The Southampton Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance prohibits certain stormwater practices in limestone areas in an effort to reduce karst activity. Subsurface retention,
detention, or infiltration BMP methods are not permitted in limestone areas. A professional geologist licensed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must perform a site analysis discussing
the characteristics of the area. Guidelines also exist for surface detention and retention basins, such as the installation of an impermeable liner in limestone areas.
B 1 I I I I I I I I B I I B I Southampton Township has several significant areas-of karst activity, inlcated by the accompanying map “Sinkholes and Karst Features.” The map is based
on data from DEP. Actual site investigation is necessary to determine the exact location of the areas of activity. The area northeast of Exit 9 between Interstate 81 and Olde Scotland
Road is one such area. This is noteworthy since this area is a site of potential growth and development in the Township. Other areas of karst activity include the region near the intersection
of Mainsville and McCulloch Roads. This region includes a section of land that has already been developed. Another karst area that includes developed land is the region near Roxbury
and Orrstown Roads. Further studies of these areas may be necessary to determine if additional developnlent is warranted. It is important to be aware of the fact that remediation options
do exist for sinkholes. Remediation usually involves excavation of the sinkhole area. If excavation to the underlying bedrock is possible, the hole in the bedrock created by the chemical
weathering can be plugged with concrete or flowable fill. Flowable fill is low-strength concrete that contains flyash. This can be a viable low-cost alternative to regular concrete.
When the bedrock repair is complete, the remainder of the sinkhole can be backfilled with a more stable material such as clayey-soil, well-graded aggregate, or flowable fill. If the
bedrock is too deep to reach by excavation, the repair can consist of removal of the sofi or saturated soil and bacMilling with one of the materials just described
I I I I I I I I 3 I I I I I I I I I population analysis A component of the basic framework for the 2001 Comprehensive Plan is the analysis and understanding of the population trends
in Southampton Township. The population of the Township and the demographic analysis concerning it make up the driving force of determining future needs and services that Southampton's
governing body will need to provide and plan for. For kxample, as a population increases, there is a need for an expanded road system, utilities, and community services. A geographically
expanding community creates a greater possibility for incompatible land uses and conflicts arising from urban sprawl. Future population demands will dictate future housing needs, schools,
recreation facilities, municipal services, roads and public utilities. Such analyses should involve not only an examination of total population, but also inspection of demogmphic age
and sex composition, labor force characteristics, household income data, and educational background ofihe citizenry. With a complete analysis of population data, Southampton Township
will be well equipped to project future trends for land use, to provide of public service and to subsequently prepare to meet the needs of its constituency. The data used in this Comprehensive
Plan regarding demographic and population statistics of Southampton Township has been taken from the latest data available from the U.S. Census, as well as state and local agencies,
in order to make the plan as current as possible. CornDarative Population Trends An analysis of population trends indicates that all three of the political areas (the Township of Southampton,
Franklin County, and the State of Pennsylvania) compared have had significant increases in actual popul8tion in recent decades. Both the Township and County had substantial percentage
increases as compared to the State's minimal percentages. With the close of World War 11 the population increased very rapidly in Southampton Township, Franklin County. During this period,
the percent increase in population for Southampton Township (29.6%) was more than four times that of the State (6.0%). The percentage of increase of population during the period of 1960-1970
dropped; in Southampton Township, 1960 -30%, 1970 -23%, and in Franklin County, 1960 -16.1%, 1970 -14.4%. The reason for this decrease could be related to the national trend from rural
living back to inner city residing. In 1980, the population of Southampton Township increased by 1,3 12 to 4,604, an increase of 40% from the previous decade. This period from 1970-1980
marks the highest growth period of the
I I 129,313 139,658 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7% 6,138 12% 8% 6,690 9% Township. The Township grew more rapidly than both Pennsylvania and Franklin County. During this time,
the Township was one of the fastest growing municipalities in the County. 2000 2010 2020 Average Percentage of Growth From 1980-1990, the Township experienced its second slowest growth
period in which the population only increased at a rate of 19%. The total increase of population was 880 people. The decreased population growth was experienced in the state as well
as county for this period. Though population growth was slow, Southampton was among the top five in the County for growth. Basic 2000 Census data recently released indicates that Southampton
Township grew 12% from 1990 to a total of 6,138 persons. ~~ 12,281,054 3% 12,649,486 3% 13,028,971 3 yo 3% Population projections for the years 2010-2020, obtained fiom Franklin County's
20-year Comprehensive Plan, indicate an expected grown of 9% for the county from 2000-2020. This projected increase for all of Franklin County was used to compute the future growth of
Southampton Township. In each 10-year period the Township's population will increase by; 493,538, and 586, respectively. The projected 9% increase for the Township and County over the
same 20 year period, indicates that the rapid growth experienced in the 1970's which was of significant counmde importance, will not continue. 15033 1 A comparison of the population
growth in the Township, County, and State over the same period is illustrated on the accompanying graphs and the table entitled, Historic PoDuIation Change. 8% 7,292 9% I Historic Population
Change I I Population % Change 9,63 1,350 9.900.180 1950 10,498,012 6% 1960 11,319,366 8% 1970 11,766,412 4% 1980 11,864,720 1% 1990 11.881.961 0% county Township Population % Change
Population % Change 65,010 1 I 1,374 I I 1 -
I 'I I B I I I I I I I I B I 1 I B I Ape Group Comrr.osition The composition of Southampton Township's population is similar to that of Franklin County. Both the Township and the County
exhibit more females than males, although the percent difference is minimal. Census population figures show that of the 5,484 Township residents in 1990,2,809 were females and 2,675
were males. This is a roughly equal distribution. Percentage sex ratios for Franklin County are similar: 48.5% are male and 5 1.5% are female. In 1990 there are mQre females in the Township
over the age of 65 and in the 25-39 years old category. There is a significant factor to consider within the 25-39 age group. It is in this age category that there are 1.07% more femaies
than males in Southampton Township. Those persons who compose this age category are most likely to be actively employed in the labor force. The slightly smaller number of males could
be accounted for by the transition of the Township from rural in character to that of a suburban one. The larger increases in the adult age groups, ranging from 56% for 25-34 years old
to 44%, are a result of several factors. The young adults and middle-aged adults are attracted to suburban areas and their greater economic activities as a result of the nationwide suburbanization
process. However, this is only an assumption due to the lack of available data on this subject. Southampton Township's population increased by 40% bctwccn 1970 and 1990. The under 5
ago category increased significantly by 46% while the 5-14 age group (elementary and junior high school children) only increased by .08%. The 15-24 age group showed the second lowest
increase of all age groups, at only 21%. The lack of growth for the school age groups in all probability reflects, in part, the lack of births during this period in the Township. This
is only an assumption due to the lack of information available on this material. A large increase of 86% was experienced in the 45-64 age group and is due, most likely, to the increase
of births, or the "baby boom" generation ofthe 1950's. The 45-54 year old age group gew by 33%, and the 55-64 year olds increased by 53%. In support of this theory, the age groups that
probably contain the parents of those children have also registered significant increases over the ten-year period. Significant increases occurred in the 55 and over population and follows
a national trend that indicates continuing growth in the future. Persons 55 years and order within Southampton Township increased from 439 in 1970 to 1,119 in 1990, an increase of 60%.
From 1970 to 1990 the 55-64 age group grew by 53% and the 65 and over group gained by 69%. The over 55 years old age group constitutes 20% of the Township's population and is above the
County's and State's 15% total. U. S. Census estimates for 1996 indicate that the 15% population for the County and the State are considerably higher than the National averages. The
nation-wide trend of the
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I increasing senior population, has been spurred by advances in health services, medical research, and treatment, and the general rise in the standard
of living. It should be noted that the higher than average share of senior citizens in Southampton Township wilI affect the services demand for housing types, rehabilitation facilities
and recreation programs ofthe Township. In addition to the aforementioned patterns, the 65 and over age group also exemplifies another nationwide trend: the increased longevity of Americans,
especially among women who accounted for 56% of the senior population. Farnilv Income According to the 1990 U.S. Census of Population, the majority of the family household incomes in
Southampton Township range from $15,000 to $49,999. Of the 1,6 17 family households in the Township in 1989, nearly 65% had incomes of $25,000 or more and approximately 44% earned at
least $33,000. The vast majority of households, 68%, earned between $15,000 and $50,000 that year. The median household income for the Township was $25,660, falling between the median
income level for both Franklin County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Of the persons whose income could be determined, 9% or about 523 persons fell below the poverty level for
1989. This is slightly lower than the overall rate of 10% for Pennsylvania and slightly higher than the 8% for Franklin County. Education Educational characteristics are directly correlated
to the availability of earning a living, therefore it is vital to study the education of a community. The majority of Township residents who were classified as 25 years and older, 67.8%,
completed at least four years of high school. 32.2% of this age group never proceeded past an eighth grade education. 19% of this population cross-section claim a college education:
12.3% attaining at least an undergraduate degree and 6.7% completing a Professional or Graduate level Degree. The degree of formal education and job training obtained by a community
is undoubtedly related to the community's income level. In today's society, all municipalities should launch a concerted effort to provide a wide range of educational and training curricula.
Along with this it should follow the insistence that young people utilize minimum requirement in order to secure adequate employment.
I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I Total Persons I Less Than At Least High Professional or High School School At Least Graduate Graduation Graduation Earned BA Degree Southampton Township
Educational Attainment of Persons Age 25 and Older, 1990 3.531 I 32.2% I 67.8% I 12.3% I 6.7% Southampton Township Educational Enrollments, 1990 Public and Private I School Enrollment
# of Persons % of Enrollment1 Pre-Primary 1 99 I 9% Kinderciarten/Elementarv/Hiah School I 91 3 78% I I Colleae I 157 I 13% I I Total Enrollment I 1169 I 100% I Future Poeulation The
fkture of any community can only be planned for in relation to the expected population of that cofnmunify at a point in time in the future. Projections of future population should be
based on a wide-range of factors such as past trends of growth, regional location, the focal economy, etc. It also must be admitted that the rate at which a community achieves its future
population can never really be accurately predicted. This is due to the fact that population growth is subject to many hture variables that cannot be estimated. Such factors include
the general state of the economy, patterns of regional growth, transportation proposals such as new highways, the willingness ofthe owners of land to sell for development purposes, and
local government policies such as zoning. An examinatian of past trends for the Township of Southampton indicates that the rate of growth between 1950 and 1970 has been steadily increasing.
In the pas4 the Township has been increasing in the share of the total Franklin County population that it contains. Using these and other factors the Franklin County Planning Commission
has made its population projections. It should be noted that population studies and in particular population projections are based on the best available information at the time of the
study.
I i8 I I I I I 1 8 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I The last U.S. Census,.on which this study is primarily based, was taken in 1990. This data is now ten years old and may not be indicative of current
trends. A new U.S. Census survey was taken in the year 2000. It is suggested that as the 2000 census data becomes available, population characteristics of Southampton Township be reexamined
by the Planning Commission to determine if any unexpected trends are emerging among its population. Unanticipated shifts in municipal demographics could require the revision of primary
Township policies formulated and based on the available data used in the creation of this Comprehensive Plan.
housing analysis I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 Backmound Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) Section 301 (a) states that a Comprehensive Plan should, among other objectives,
" meet housing needs of present residents and those families anticipated to live in the municipality as well as the accommodation of new housing in different dwelling types and at appropriate
densities for households of all income levels." A detailed analysis of the housing supply available within a community is a vital component to Southampton Township's Comprehensive Plan.
Housing is generally one of the more significant indicators of growth or decline in an area. Developmental trends are reflected by the local housing supply, and the quality of life experienced
by the population of a community is heavily influenced by the condition of the housing. Quantity, quality, and type of housing are all factors providing valuable information upon which
to base planning decisions. Using various data about housing, Southampton Township will be prepared to meet the changing needs of the population in the future. Total Housiw Units The
following discussion deals with "housing units" as defined by the U.S. Census of Housing. A "housing unit" is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as a house, apartment, rooms, or single
room occupied as a separate living residence. The term "separate" in this context refers to housing in that the residents live and eat separately from other persons in the structure
and have dn-ect access to the outside from an individual doorway or from a common hallway. Thus, a single-family house and a housing unit are synonymous while a multi-family structure
may contain multiple housing units. Units in rooming houses, resident hotels, and those occupied by lodgers with separate entrances to living quarters even when there is no separate
cooking eqvipment are also included in the definition of "housing unit." Total Housing SUDD~Y The 1990 Census of Population and Housing indicates that 2,107 year-round housing units
existed in Southampton Township at that time. For the purposes ofthis analysis 2,107 is the number that will be used for calculation of housing supply.
I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 The 1990 Census indicates the most prevalent type of housing in Southampton Township was single-family housing, which comprised 66% of all housing. Multi-resident
housing units comprised 14% of the total. These multi-resident units were more commonly found to contain 5-9 apartment-style units. Mobile homes made up the remaining 19% of all housing.
Pennsylvania averaged approximately 6% of its total housing supply as mobile homes. The following chart entitled "Housing Units and Time of Construction'' indicates the growth of residential
development in Southampton from 1939 to 1990. Southampton Township's housing unit estimates for the 1980's show that the growth rate has decreased since the 19703, with the percentage
of increase lowering to 36% during the 1970-1980 period to the 1980-1990 period. This trend is reflective of Franklin County's. During the 1980s, housing units in the County increased
22% while the population only increased by 7%. From 1980-1990, there was a net increase of 8,700 housing units in the County while only 4,400 new housing units were reported from 1990-1997,
a decrease of 50%. The Census data indicates that in 1939, there were 345 available housing units in the Township of Southampton. As of 1949, there were 454, which represented a housing
increase of 3 1% of the total number of housing units. In 1959, there were 688, representing a 5 1 % housing increase from 1949. In 1970, there were 984 houses, a 43% increase in the
total number of housing units. From 1970 to 1980, the Township experienced it's greatest increase of housing units at 65% as the number of units totaled 1,627. This period was followed
by the lowest rate of growth at 29%; the number of units totaled 2,107. The trend of decreasing housing units being constructed was a result of various factors. These factors include;
average numbers of persons living in housing units due to increasing senior citizen populations, an increase of divorce and separation along with delays in marriage and decrease of children
per family. The accompanying chart entitled "Housing Units and Time of Construction" illustrates the growth of residential development in the Township since 1939. 'I ,I
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Housing Units and Time of Construction # of Cumulative % of Increase Housing Total Source: 1990 U.S. Census of Housing The following chart entitled "Southampton
Township Building Permits" reveals building permits issued per year for the 1983-1999 time period. The average number of building permits per year for this sixteen-year period was 106.25
for residential permits, 1.75 for commercial permits, and 9.37 for farm use. Unfortunately, building permit data was not available for the years 1980-1982. For the period from 1990-1999,
the housing supply increased by 1,079 residential units or 51% of the total housing inventory recorded in 1990. The national average for housing growth was 11% over the same time period.
1999 was by far the most prolific year for housing construction in recent history. These figures point to a potential forthcoming housing boom and the potential for demographic impacts
on Township services and facilities in light of a rising population. Carehl attention should be paid to continuing building trends that are in all likelihood the most obvious and genuine
indicator of growth in the municipality. A rising housing supply will indicate stress on community facilities such as recreation, utilities, schools, and emergency services.
I I I YEAR I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL 1 FARM USE I TOTAL Southampton Township Building Permits 1983-1 999 1 986 1987 1988 79 1 6 86 97 0 14 111 1 04 1 7 112
/I1984 I 76 I 1 I 8 1 8 5 1 1989 I 104 0 9 1 113 I 1991 I 99 I 2 I 5 I l O s I Source: Southampton Township Building Permit Data, March 2000 Housidp Condition The living conditions of
a community are reflected in the nature of the housing residents inhabit, In planning for the future, the community should be aware of its residents living conditions as well as the
nature and extent of the problems they represent. The Census uses three classifications of structural conditions. "Sound" structures are either ones that have no defects, or only slight
ones that can be corrected during the course of normal maintenance. Housing units categorized as "deteriorating" are those that require an unusual amount of repairs, beyond those that
would ordinarily be performed during
routine maintenance, in order to remain inhabitable. A "deteriorating" house is one which needs more repairs, or repairs of a more critical nature, than would be provided during regular
maintenance if it is to continue providing safe and adequate shelter. A "dilapidated" house may either be of inadequate original construction, or have critical defects of such magnitude
as to indicate it no longer provides safe and adequate shelter.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The overall condition of Southampton Township's housing units is sound. Field surveys conducted in January of 2000 found only isolated occurrences
of deteriorating housing units. No major areas of deterioration are located within the Township. As the housing stock within the Township ages, homeowners should maintain the conditions
of housing units to insure that deterioration does not occur to the degree at which damage is irreparable. The U.S. Census inlcates the median value of specified owner-occupied housing
units in the Township in 1990 was $72,000. This represents an increase of 7% over the 1980 median housing value. The median mortgage for owner occupied housing units in Southampton Township
was $32,917 in 1990. The monthly median payment of $609 equates to 18% of the median owner occupied incomes. Selected Housing Characteristics In general, most occupied housing units
in Southampton Township are equipped with plumbing facilities for the exclusive use of the occupants. Only 1.6% of the 2,112 housing units lacked exclusive use plumbing for owner occupied
units. 0.9% of all housing units were lacking complete kitchen facilities. In 1990 the Township's 2,112 total housing units included 67.2% on public or central sewer systems, 3 1.6%
on septic/cesspool and 1.2 on another type system. Only 2.6% of all occupied units existed without exclusive use plumbing. Act 537, The Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act, which requires
an approved sewage system proposal prior to the issuance of a building permit virtually assures that all future housing units will be equipped with appropriate plumbing facilities. The
majority of the 2,032 occupied housing units in 1990 were heated by fuel oilkerosene (40.9%), with 34% by electricity, 16.6% heated by wood or coal, 6.5% heated by gas, and 1.9% heated
by bottled gas or LP gas. The water supply for the 2,112 total housing units was 58.9% of year-round units being serviced by a public system or private company and 40% groundwater through
an an individual well. There were on 1.7% of all occupied housing units without telephone service. Occupancies and Vacancies Of the 2,107 housing units available in Southampton Township,
97% (2,032) were occupied and 3% (79) were vacant at the time of the 1990 U.S. Census. At that time there were 1,600 or 79% of the 2,032 units occupied by owners and 428 or 21% occupied
by renters. Of the 2,032 occupied units, there were a total of 5,479 people living in them as of 1990. While, of the totai number of Township residents, 80% (4,414) were living in owner-occupied
houses and 19% (I ,065) were living in renter-occupied units.
I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I ,I Of the 2,032 occupied housing units in Southampton Township, there -were some 20 houses up for sale according to 1990 U.S. Census Data, while 428 of
the units occupied were cash rented and 20 units were occupied without cash rent. The duration of vacancy for the 20 housing units for sale in 1990 was 10 at less than 2 months, 3 at
2-6 months, and 7 at 6 or more months with the average being 1.2 months. The duration of vacancy on the 9 housing units for rent was 6 at less than 2 months, 1 at 2-6 months, and 2 at
6 or more months for an average of 2.1 months. Mobile Homes As of 1990 there were 402 mobile homes in Southampton Township. This information was obtained from the 1990 State of Pennsylvania
U.S Census. Most of the mobile homes are four or five room units. Field surveys conducted in February of 2000 indicate that the prevalence of mobile homes within the Township continues
to increase. There are four major mobile home parks in the Tomship of Southampton: Mt. Rock, Lenwood Park, Wadel's, and Gardner & MOWS Mobile Home Park with a significant number of individual
mobile home units scattered throughout the Township. A fifth mobile home park, Maizefield, is presently under construction. While housing growth over the past decade has been concentrated
on single family residential homes, a steady increase of mobile homes has also occurred, and will likely continue or expand at a comparable rate in the near future. Mt. Rock Mobile Home
Park has 85 available mobile homes pads. Wadel's Mobile Home Park has 38 mobile homes. Gardner and Mohn's Mobile Home Park has 38 mobile homes as well. Two additional Mobile Home Parks
have been approved since 1994. Lenwood Park was approved with a plan for 9 1 units and Malzefield Mobile Home Park was approved with a plan for 83 units. Both of these developments are
currently under construction. Mobile homes continue to be an important housing type in Southampton Township. There are obvious economic reasons for the increased use of the mobile home
as an inexpensive housing unit and, inasmuch as thrs trend is likely to continue, the Township should continue to prepare for the growth of this housing type. Housiw Value In Southampton
Township in 1990, most of the housing units (63.4%) were in a value range of $50,000 to $99,999; 18.7% are valued at less than $50,000; 14.9% are valued between $100,000 and $149,999;
2.2% are valued between $150,000 and $199,999 and only 0.9% are valued over $200,000. Of the houses valued in these ranges, most had plumbing facilities.
I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I /I I I During the period of 1981 to 1985, the housing value fell mainly into the $50,000 or more range. This data is based on estimates because the housing
permits were not classified by the County into new building structures with their related value. However, the value ofthe new housing constructed during 1986 to 1989 was obtainable from
Southampton Township's Municipal Offices. The value of most new houses during this latter period has fallen into the $50,000 to $99,999 range. The value of all homes either new or existing
is, of course, subject to the rapidly rising and inflationary cost of building construction. Again the timing of this study is handicapped by the lag time between Census data procurement
and it is strongly suspected that present-day values will rise as further examination of the past five years data becomes public information. Summary Based upon 1990 U.S. Census data,
most of the housing in the Township of Southampton is of the single family type, sound condition, and is occupied by less than one person per room. The average unit has five to six rooms
and is owned by its occupant who is approximately 25 to 44 years of age. The value of the average housing unit is approximately $72,000 with the owner carrying a mortgage of $609 per
month. The average housing unit has fidl plumbing facilities, is connected to a central sewer system and central water system, and is heated by he1 oil or kerosene. These characteristics
illustrate marked changes since the time of the last Comprehensive Plan and the upcoming 2000 Census data will likely shed more light on evolving housing trends as construction continues
to expand and the economy strengthens. From a State and National perspective, Southampton Township's housing supply is slightly below average in terms of value and percentage increase
in value over the past decade. However, the volume of housing is escalating at an above average pace. Planning for the future of housing growth throughout Southampton Township is essential
in order to create a desirable pattern of housing development corresponding to available and planned infrastructure and services. The potential for incompatible uses existing alongside
residential housing units creates a need for planned distribution of housing in order to minimize conflicts.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I economic analysis Bacbround The economic growth of Southampton Township has been slow in comparison to the more concentrated areas of Chambersburg and
Carlisle. With the proximity of Southampton Township to these regions of economic growth, the Township should realize increased economic opportunities as populations and jobs expand
outside of the Chambersburg and Carlisle areas. It is also important to remember that the Township is included in the 1-81 corridor, which is an important economic development region.
The employment opportunities in a region determine both the occupation and income of many residents in the region. Businesses that provide stable income to area residents also help to
increase the tax base for the region, which sustains the local government services. Retail Economy Southampton Township has not had a significant retail industry in the past. This has
been attributed in the past to the low population density in the region The retail centers of the Shippensburg and Chambersburg Boroughs have drawn most of the shoppers in the Township
to these areas. With the increase in population that has occurred over the last 20 years, the Township may now be able to sustain growth in the retail sector of the economy. The 1-81
Exit 9 interchange and the Route 11 corridor are the areas most suited to retail development because of the transportation access and the proximity of the population center to the Borough
of Shippensburg. Manufacturing The manufacturing sector in Southampton Township is relatively small in comparison to other sectors of the economy, although it is now larger than the
farming sector. Southampton Township has only a small amount of the total manufacturing facilities in Franklin County. The potential exists for an expansion of this sector of the economy,
especially at the Exit 9 interchange and perhaps in the form of warehousing and transportation-related industry.
r-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Labor Force and Emplovment The labor force and employment figures for Southampton Township were taken from the U.S. Census of 1990. The term “labor
force” includes all people over 16 years of age whether employed or unemployed. In 1970, the working labor force in the Township was 1,404 people. By 1990 this figure had more than doubled
to 2,925 people. The involvement rate (the percentage of the population in the labor force) has increased from 42.6% in 1970 to 53.34% in 1990. Most residents continue to find work outside
of the Township, in the outlying communities or Shippensburg University. Labor Force Characteristics The occupations of Southampton Township residents have undergone a change in the
past twenty years. The percentage of people involved in farming has decreased (forestry is included in this category in the census data). Both the Technical Sales and the Service sectors
have seen steady increases. The number of people involved in the General Labor sector has has risen so that it is second only to the Technical Sales sector in percentage of people employed.
While this demonstrates the overall change of the Township economy from agriculture to industry and sem’ces, agriculture remains an important part of the economy. Although Letterkenny
has been downsized, a sizable portion of the workforce is still employed by the Federal government. The State government employs many Township residents through Shippensburg University.
The percentage of people employed by the State in Southampton Township is almost three times that of both Franklin County and the State of Pennsylvania. The percentage of workers in
Federal, State, and local government employment is 23.2%. These figures are shown on the graphs “Worker Classification in Pennsylvania, Franklin County and Southampton Township (1 990)”
and “Occupation Distribution of Southampton Township.” Both of these graphs were derived from 1990 U.S. Census Data. The national trend of moving toward a service-oriented economy has
occurred in Southampton Townshp, but not on a large scale. In 1970,5.4% of the Township’s labor force were involved in the service sector. According to the 1990 Census, over 10% of the
labor force were involved in the service sector. Amicult u re As stated earlier, the number of people involved in farming llas declined over the years. In 1970, almost 12% of the workers
in Southampton Township were engaged in some type of farming. According to the 1990 Census Data, approximately 7% of the employed residents in the Township were engaged in farming (this
figure includes forestry). A variety of farming products still exists including livestock, crops, and orchards. The trend of agricultural land loss due to development continues, as does
the trend of farm consolidation. This trend is expected to increase as population pressure increases for new housing developments. Through the use of proper planning, the best agricultural
land can ,I I
,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I be preserved for agricultural us5 for generations to come while other less productive farmland is developed for commercial or residential purposes.
Summary The economy in Southampton Township has undergone changes but at a relatively slow rate. The retail and manufacturing sectors have a great potential to develop in the Township.
The most suitable area for this development remains the Exit 9-interchange area. It can be expected that the economy will continue to change at a relatively slow but steady rate. The
service sector will continue to grow as the agricultural sector levels OR
existing land use analysis Introduction A prelude to community preparation for future growth and development is of necessity an awareness of the existing use of its land. Through careful
analysis of present land use patterns, Southampton Township will be better able to perceive the past and current trends shaping the future structure of the community. Data has been compiled
from consultant's field surveys, supported by tax maps, and Township data. From this information, a land use map showing existing land use within Southampton Township has been prepared.
The land use map and resulting information constitute a valuable public record, making it possible to determine at a glance whether a parcel of land is used for residential, commercial,
industrial, public, or agricultural use. Such a map is of vital importance to all planning and zoning discussions. It is strongly recommended that the Township regularly review and update
the map in order to insure that it reflects the latest developments within the Township. Residential Use Approximately 12 percent of the land in Southampton Township is in the form of
residential use. According to 1990 Census data, the 5,484 people that comprise the total population of the Township are housed in 2,032 occupied housing units. Farm type residences are
scattered throughout the Township with the exception of the forested area in the southeast. The majority of the other residences are not scattered, but are clustered in nodules. Major
clusters are found around the Borough of Shippensburg, in the Forest Ridge and Herwin Village Areas. The most discernable and widespread pattern of residential use in Southampton Township
is strip development. Major strips are located along U.S. Route. 11, Rice Road, Mt. Rock Road, Lindsay Lot Road, PA Route 696, Orrstown Road, Avon Drive, Roxbury Road, and Spring Ridge
Road. Strip development is not limited to these areas; it can start with a farmer selling off one or two lots at the edge of his fields adjacent to a road and can continue in subsequent
years as additional lots are sold. Many f m properties in the Township already have lots carved out of their peripheries. Another major residential use of land is the mobile home park.
Four major mobile home parks are located in the Township. Approximately half of the Township's mobile home or manufactured housing inventory is located randomly throughout the Township,
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I occasionally mixed in with site-built homes and farmsteads. The remaining units are found within the confines of the consolidated mobile home communities.
Few seasonal homes and multi-family housing developments exist presently within the Township with the exception of a few examples of townhomes and apartments along Roxbury Road near
the Borough limits, Olde Scotland Road west of Interstate 8 1 , and along U.S. Route 11 in the Mt. Rock area and seasonal dwellings primarily surrounding the State Forest areas. While
strip development remains a concern, the past two decades have also seen their fair share of large subdivisions utilizing an entire parcel with comprehensive road, drainage and utility
networks. Examples of these developments include the Kaphoe subdivision along Onstown Road, Apple Hill and Stony Point off of Lindsay Lot Road, the Forest Ridge subdivision along Hostetter
Avenue and Possum Hollow Road, and Wheatland, which is wedged between Interstate 8 1 and Olde Scotland Road. These developments, along with some smaller but similar undertakings, account
for hundreds of present and future residential lots within the Township. Public and Quasi-Public Of the total 35.2 square miles of the Township, only 0.2 percent is classified as being
included in public or quasi-public use. This percentage excludes the portion of Michaux State Forest found in the Township, which is addressed separately in the paragraph entitled Forests.
The diverse public uses included in this category are Township government and maintenance, schools, churches, cemeteries, sewage treatment plants, and the Shippensburg Fairgrounds. An
allowance for streets and highways in the Township was not included, which would significantly increase the impact of this category. Commercial Only one percent of the total land area
in Southampton Township is devoted to commercial use. It appears that major shopping is performed outside the Township, predominantly in Shippensburg or Chambersburg. Commercial uses
of land in the Township are largely limited to gasoline service stations or restaurants, but include numerous other small enterprises and home-based services, such as barberbeauty shops,
television repair, metal working, surveying, and trucking. Additionally, the commercial poultry operations near Pinola and other agricultural-based commercial activities reflect the
agricultural character of the area. Some significant retail development has occurred along South Fayette Street and U.S. Route 11 near the Borough in the past decade that signals a demand
for additional local services from the ever growing population and expanding residential development. As population expands, demands for domestic employment will also follow. The Township
must be prepared to assist in siting this inevitable development into areas of the municipality best suited for such growth.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I Industrial Industrial land use within Southampton Township constitutes 1.7 percent of the total land area of the Township. The largest single industrial
use of land in the Township is the Cumberland Valley Cooperative Feed and Fertilizer plant located along Interstate 8 1. Another feed mill is located near Pinola and a third is under
development near the 1-81 Exit 9 interchange. Quarrying was represented at two locations. Sawmills constitute another industrial use of land in the Township with one being located along
the Orrstown Road and another along White Church Road. Open Field Agriculture Open field agriculture is the largest single use of land in the Township. Nearly 23 square miles or 64.4
percent of the land area is devoted to this category. Most of the northwestern two-thirds ofthe Township is open field agriculture. As mentioned in the paragraph on residential land
uses, the agricultural area is interspersed with strip development created.as farmers parcel off their land adjacent to roads, lot by lot. This is a potentially harmful practice, due
to the resultant haphazard development and the high cost of supplying public services to the outlying strip development areas. Orchard Agriculture The second agricultural category, orchard
agriculture, uses 1.8 percent of the Township's land. Most of the orchard acreage is found at the western foot of South Mountain on deep, well-drained soil of shale and sandstone origin
underlain by limestone. The remaining orchard areas are located among open field parcels between Interstate 8 1 and U.S. Route 1 1 on soils of limestone origin. -Forest Forests are a
significant land use category in Southampton Township. Approximately 8 square miles or 2 1.9 percent of the Township is covered with forest. Virtually all of the forest is located in
the South Mountain area with the exception of small areas along streams, across ridges, and among fields. The portion of Michaux State Forest in Southampton Township comprises approximately
65 percent of the forested area of the Township.
I I I I EXISTING LAND USE IN SOUTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP (2000) 1 LandUse Amount I I Scluare Miles Percent I Residential 4.2 12.0 Public and Quasi-public 0.07 0.2 commerciat 3.5 1 .o Industrial
0.6 1.7 AgriculturdOpen Field 21.6 61.4 Agricdture/Orchard 0.6 1.8 t Forest 7.7 21.9 -1 I TotalLandArea 35.20 100 I * Some numbers may not add due to rounding. The northwest two thirds
of the Township contains the major areas of open farmlands. Several orchards dominate the Southcentral portion of the Township, providing a transition of sorts into the forested southeastern
area. The major portion of past development has occurred around the Borough of Shippensburg and in strips along Orrstown Road, Lindsay Lot Road, PA 696, U.S. Route 1 1, and Roxbury Road.
Recent developments have focused on residential growth along the Orrstown Road, Thornwood Road, Lindsay Lot Road and the Forest Ridge subdivision. Interstate 81 is also now experiencing
a variety of business growth around the Exit 9 interchange and related corridors. Care Care must be taken to insure that future development occurs in an orderly fashion at acceptable
cost levels for required additional public facilities and in consideration of compatibility with surrounding uses. Knowledge of the land use features incorporated by man over the years,
along with consideration for ~ t u r afle atures such as soils types, geologic limitations, steep slopes, flood plains, drainage, and wetlands is essential in planning for the future
environment. In spite of strip development and increasing development pressures where infrastructure expansion is being undertaken, the dominant land use activities in Southampton Township
remain agriculture and forest. I' I
I B B B I B B B 1 I I B B B 1 I I B ~I corn mu n ity facilities analysis Bacbround In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residents receive their local services from the city, borough,
or township in which they live. The services vary fiom protection, such as police and fire departments, to public education. Other facilities provided by the local governments are water,
sewage, recreation, and electric services. It is important to keep in mind that many local services, such as education, receive funds from state and federal sources. Open Space Facilities
As the urbanization of Southampton Townshp continues, preservation of open spaces becomes a hgh priority. Public areas are very important for the well being of the community, as they
provide a place for a variety of community functions. Recreation Standards The National Recreation Association recommends a minimum of 10 acres of local recreation space for each 1,000
persons. The Association also recommends an additional 15 acres of regional recreation area for each 1,000 persons. The planned recreation system should include two different types of
facilities: those that serve a limited residential area, and those that serve the entire municipality. Neighborhood parks and playgrounds are included in the first group. The second
group includes playfields, large parks, and special recreation areas such as swimming pools. The Neighborhood Park provides an attractive setting for passive recreation in a small area.
The park should be within easy walking distance of the people it is intended to serve. This type of facility is essential in dense residential districts. Neighborhood parks can be developed
separately, or as part of a playground or playfield. The parks may be as small as one acre, and the standard is one acre for each 100 residents. The Neighborhood Playground provides
a larger area for more active play of children in the general age range of 5-16 years. The playground should be Iocated in the center of the residential neighborhood. The playground
may include facilities such as swings, a multi-purpose playing field, benches and tables, paved areas for basketball and skating, and drinking fountains and restrooms. Playgrounds should
be distributed so that access is not made difficult for small children (i.e. not placed in high trafic areas), The size of the playground should be one acre per 1,000 residents in the
area to be served.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I The Playfield is a recreation area that is designed primarily for yourg people and adults. Part of the playfield may be developed for organized
sports and activities such as softball, football, or soccer. Since the playfeld is designed as a multi-purpose facility, it should serve several neighborhoods. Community parks should
be relatively large tracts of land forming a landscape unit including wooded areas and some water resource such as a stream, creek, or small pond. The purpose of the park is to provide
a natural environment for the enjoyment of many outdoor recreational activities which may vary depending upon the natural features of the area. Recreation Facilities The overall recreation
facilities available for residents of Southampton Townshp have not been developed to keep up with the growing population in the Township. Over 1,200 people have been added to the population
in the Township over the period between 1970-1990, but little development of new recreation areas has occurred. Township residents continue to have access to the 4,000 acres of Michaux
State Forest as part of the available recreation in the area. Even with the continuing urban transition, the rural character of the Township still helps to fulfill the recreational needs
of the residents. The urban transition also provides an opportunity to develop recreational land by requiring land developers to set aside certain portions of their developments for
recreational parks. This has occurred in the Southampton Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. Any subdivision or land development that provides housing facilities for
over 25 families should include acreage set aside for a playground. For example, the minimum amount of land for a playground in a development of 25-50 families is one acre. The amount
of land required can be as high as six acres, if the number of families to be served by the playground is 625-800. A proposal now under consideration is the Shippensburg Regional Park
and Recreation Commission. This Commission would include the municipalities of Southampton Township Franklin County, Shippensburg Borough, Southampton Township Cumberland County, Hopewell
Township, and the Shippensburg Area School District. It is proposed that the Commission would have the population necessary to financially support a park and recreation department whereas
the individual municipalities would not. Southampton Township should consider carefully if this would improve the recreation facilities in the Township or if an alternative individual
plan would be sufficient to meet the needs of the residents. a Education Facilities Southampton Township residents are members of the Shippensburg Area School District. Residents have
access to other educational resources including Wilson College in Chambersburg, PeM State Mont Alto (including the Chambersburg Mall extension), Gettysburg College, Dickinson College
in Carlisle, and Shippensburg University. These
I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I institutions provide valuable library resources as well as adult education, concerts and lecture series, and other cultural events. Libraries
The Shippensburg Public Library, located in the Borough of Shippensburg, services Southampton Townshp. Other available resources are the libraries found at the colleges and universities
listed under the Education Facilities. The Ezra Lehman Memorial Library at Shippensburg University is a particularly valuable resource due to its location and extensive
holdings. Religious Facilities Southampton Township continues to provide many opportunities for worship. Many of the older churches, mostly of the Protestant denomination, still exist
today and other newer facilities continue to develop and expand. Police Protection The Township is provided police protection by the State Police in the Chambersburg Barracks. Fire Protection
The fire companies located in Shippensburg Borough provide fire protection for Southampton Township residents. Sewage Systems Southampton Township is served by an extension of the Borough
of Shippensburg’s Waste Water Collection and Treatment Facility under the direction of the Cumberland-Franklin Joint Municipal Authority (CFJMA). As the accompanying map “Sewage Facilities”
indicates there are currently 11 pumping stations included in this system. The sewer lines extend along Mainsville Road, out to Orrstown along PA Route 533, south from Shippensburg along
U.S. Route 1 1, and south along PA Route 696 and Pineville Road. In 1998, the CFJMA released its Act 537 Comprehensive Sewage Facilities Plan Update. Of interest to Southampton Township
is the finding for the Pinola area. This area has groundwater quality problems and it is suggested that a community water system may be the best solution to the problem. The CFJMA also
made other recommendations for Southampton Township. The Township should encourage future development to take
I 1 I B I 1 1 u I I I I I I I I I I I place in areas already served by public water and sewerage systems. This can be accomplished through the enforcement of the Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance. Southampton Township should assist CFJMA and Southampton Townshlp, Cumberland County with the extension of public sewerage service to the San Jo Acres development.
The Township should work with CFJMA to closely monitor the performance of on-lot disposal systems in the Pinola area. These systems may be contributing to the groundwater quality problems
mentioned earlier. The Township should also consider implementing a comprehensive Sewage Management Program to monitor on-lot disposal systems in the municipality. Finally, Southampton
Township should consider implementing a Well Drilling Ordinance. Storm Water Drainwe With the increase in urbanization in the Township, provisions for storm water drainage become a priority.
The increased area of impervious cover that is associated with urbanization invariably increases the amount of storm run-off Progress in this area has been made with the provisions for
storm water management included in the Southampton Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance ( 1999). New developments must provide a Storm Water Management Plan if the construction
will create over 5,000 square feet of impervious and/or stone cover. The erosion and sedimentation control measures that are included in the plan are in accordance with the Department
of Environmental Protection Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program Manual. Water quality, in addition to water quantity, has also become a focus of the Township’s design requirements
in recent years. The introduction of best management practices as a design alternative provides the option for innovative control methods as well as environmental benefits. Electric
Services The Township of Southampton continues to be semiiced by the Pennsylvania Electric Company and the Adams Electric Cooperative. Water Suuply Southampton Township receives receives
water service fiom three sources: the Borough of Shippensburg, the Borough of Orrstown, and the Township of Guilford. The accompanying map “Public Water Service” indicates the areas
serviced by each facility. The Borough of Orrstown supplies water to a small area of the Township that is immediately surrounding the Borough. Guilford Township supplies water to Southampton
Township residents living along PA Route 11 fiom the Township line to Temporary Drive. The Borough of Shippensburg supplies water to many residents in the area. Service currently extends
along Roxbury and Mainsville Roads and extends to other developments in the area. The Borough’s Southside Reservoir, which has a capacity of 250,000 gallons, is located in Southampton
Township.
'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I transportation ana I ys is Backround The transportation history of Southampton Township, Franklin County, reflects the transportation history of the
United States with respect to the great increase in automobile traffic. The automobile has had significant impacts in many areas, both environmental and social. The automobile dominates
the transportation scene in Southampton Township. The roads that have traditionally carried the most traffic in the Township, U.S. Route 1 1 and 1-8 1 , continue to do so today. While
this increase in automobile traffic has created difficult situations in Southampton Township, it provides an opportunity to create unique plans for both the current and future traflic
issues in the area. It is also important to keep in mind that Southampton Township continues to undergo a rural to urban transition. The demands of this transition require special consideration
for transportation plans for the Township. Functional Roadwav Classification The study of a roadway system is based on a classification of the streets, in addition to the analysis of
traflic volumes and roadway capacity. In the properly planned street system, each highway should be designed in accordance with the function it will perform. For this purpose, a street
system may usually be divided into five functional street categories. The classifications can be seen in the accompanying chart. The first of these is the Interstate or any other limited
access freeway. The Township has one roadway that falls into this category in Southampton Township, that being 1-8 1. The next category is the Arterial Road. This category is divided
into Principal Arterials and Minor Arterials. The Principal Arterial Roads serve major centers of activity and carry high proportions of area travel on minimal mileage. The best example
of this type of road in Southampton Township is U.S. Route 1 1. The Minor Arterials interconnect with and augment the Principal Arterials. State Route 696 is a good example of this type
of road. The Collector Road provides both land access service and traffic circulation. Several of the roads in the Township fall into this category, including Orrstown Road and Mainsville
Road. The final category is Minor Streets or Local Roads. These roadways comprise all facilities not in one of the higher systems.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jurisdiction The roadways in the Township of Southampton, Franklin County, are maintained by either the State of Pennsylvania or by local government.
Generally, State roads carry larger volumes of trafflc than do local roads, which serve to provide access. With the transfer of roadway responsibility that took place between the State
and the Township, the State has responsibility 23.65 miles of roadway in the Township. An additional 54.29 miles of roadway in the Township are the responsibility of the Township Board
of Supervisors. The minimum width of those roads under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDot) varies from approximately 14-20 feet for the average
State Road to significantly wider for major arteries such as S.R. 696, U.S. 11, and Interstate 81. The roadways that are maintained by the Township vary in width from 8-1 8 feet for
older roads, with a useable road surface of 14 feet, to the new standard for roads in recent subdivisions. These new standards can be found in the Southampton Township Subdivision and
Land Development Ordinance. According to the Ordinance, Alley and Service Roads must have a minimum width of 20 feet. Collector Roads must have a minimum width of 22 feet and a minimum
shoulder width of 8 feet. Minor Arterial Roads must have a minimum width of 20 feet and a minimum shoulder width of four feet. A Cul-de-sac must have the same requirements as the Minor
Arterial in addition to the turnaround minimum of 80 feet. In the southern portion of the Township, an extensive road network exists in the Michaux State Forest. This road network is
maintained by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP). These roads are known as forest roadways and were origmally constructed for the purpose of fire protection.
Traffic Volumes Traffic counts provide the accurate, permanent, and comparable records of traffic volumes. These counts may also be used to measure the degree of traffic saturation on
any particular highway, and therefore indicate the additional capacity that a facility should be designed to accommodate, or to help decide whether the provision of a new facility would
be more desirable. These latter fitnctions are parbculatly useful, for as traffic volumes increase beyond practical capacity, traffic density increases sufficiently to cause substantial
delays. Although the resulting lower and more uniform speed may enable higher traffic volumes to be accommodated, ultimately congestion sets in, the speed drops greatly, and a sharp
reduction in traffic volume results. As anticipated, an increase in traffic volume has occurred in Southampton Township. A 1975 PennDot study showed that U.S. Route 11 had an average
daily traffic load of 6,800 vehicles. Interstate 81 had an approximate average of 14,000 vehicles daily. The current daily trafic numbers for 1-81 and U.S. Route 11 can be seen on the
accompanying map “1993 Traffic Volumes.” The figures used in the map were taken from a 1993 PennDot
I I I I I I’ I I I I I I I I I I I I traffic study.. U. S. Route 1 1 now averages between 10,100 and 12,000 vehicles per day. Interstate 8 1 now averages between 18,500 and 22,800 vehicles
per day. This includes an ever-growing number of tractor-trailers. Franklin County has developed recommendations through its Comprehensive Plan by increasing the highway to six lanes.
Also, the County recommends an upgrade of Mt. Rock Road so that it can handle a larger volume of traffic and provide better access to 1-8 1 fiom U.S. Route 1 1. The intersection of Mt.
Rock and Possum Hollow Roads would also need to be upgraded if this occurs. Traffic volumes will most likely continue to increase in the future due to increased population in the area
and the urban transition that the Township is experiencing. Traffic Accidents An examination of the number, location, and frequency of traffic accidents provides additional criteria
with which to evaluate an existing roadway system. While some accidents occur on local streets, such as residential areas, the vast majority of accidents occur along major roads. From
the accompanying map “Traffic Accidents from 1994-1999” it is clear that this is the case in Southampton Township. The figures on the map were taken from PennDot trafic accident information.
A very large number of the accidents occurred on Interstate 8 1, the Exit 9 interchange, and the roads surrounding the interchange. The Franklin County Transportation Plan contains recommendations
that include improvements to the 1-8 1 corridor, including the interchanges. The interstate would eventually be widened to six lanes and the on-ramps would be lengthened. These changes
would greatly reduce the number of accidents in the area. Other areas of concern include several intersections along U.S. Route 11 and other smaller volume roads of significance. Problems
with these intersections have not changed for many years and visibility remains the major issue since the intersections are often not at-grade. Many of the intersections are clearly
marked with road signs. State Route 696 had the largest number of accidents from 1994-1999. There are a large number of driveways and intersections (including Exit 9) along this stretch
of road and the area may benefit from a further reduction in the posted speed limit. This area would also benefit from integrated traffic studies and cooperative transportation improvement
plans. Railroad Transportation The railroad traffic in the area is entirely freight and coal transport. The volume of train traffic has had a traditional decline in the Township, and
passengers have not been carried through this area for quite some time. CSX is now the major d e r of train traffic in the region. The railroad crossings at several places in the Township
are areas of concern for traffic accidents, since many of the crossings are in areas of poor visibility and do not have signal lights.
BridPes I I Franklin County has jurisdiction over four of the bridges located in Southampton Township. According to the Franklin County Transportation Plan, there are no plans to upgrade
or replace the existing bridges. PennDot has jurisdiction over many other bridges in the Township. The bridges under the jurisdiction of the Township may need to be inventoried in order
to determine if repairs are necessary. I I I I Summary Automobile ownership continues to grow and have a significant impact on the Township. The County suggestions for commercial development
should be considered for all commercial planning. These suggestions include plans that would alleviate trafic problems caused by increased development. Traf€ic around the developed areas
would be controlled by limited access roads that intersect the main roads at controlled points that limit the effect of increased traffic on the main roadways. Cooperation with the recommendations
of the County’s plans will alleviate some of the current and fkture transportation issues in the Township. I I I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I planning goals and objectives Introduction As was concluded during the last comprehensive planning study for Southampton Township, until now much
of the development experienced throughout the Township has been the result of spontaneity and random selection. The ultimate goal and objective of any planning undertaking is to reduce
this frequency of chance development and provide a set of guidelines and alternatives that will strengthen a municipality’s ability to guide significant development to areas more readily
able to absorb the potential impacts that are introduced. Too often municipalities are faced with the hard fact that hindsight, rather than foresight, is the overwhelming contributor
to many of the Township’s burdens and woes. If only the responsible officials has planned ahead for the obvious eventuality that was foreshadowed by all too many indicators, later costs
and sometimes irreparable harm could have been avoided. The Comprehensive Plan has so far examined much of the background data necessary for a municipality to fully understand its position
in the overall scope of development activity. Now it is time for the Plan to forge ahead, using that wealth of information to determine with some precision the goals and objectives with
which the Township should concern itself. It is at this time that the second phase of the planning program begins. Choices must be made and courses charted for the good of the Township.
During the course of the next ten years, Southampton Township will undoubtedly find itself in the center of, and as the focus of, its fair share of municipal storms requiring decisive
and effective action on its part. The goals and objectives of this planning program are captured herein as a snapshot of the Township’s needs at this time. These issues can be expected
to change and evolve as the years progress resulting in the eventual need for an updated set of ideas and courses of action. Phase 2 of the Southampton Comprehensive Plan will offer
forth a host of ideas, recommendations and potential solutions that can only be realized through the implementation of regulatory tools and policies that the Township is willing to openly
share with its constituents, regularly discuss and debate, firmly believe in and, when necessary, enforce to the best of its ability. Many of these plan elements will take considerable
time to fblly implement. Some may occur with all due haste following the adoption of this Plan. Others may never come to fruition. Such is the life and fate of a Comprehensive Plan.
Regardless, the Plan remains a renewable and powerful statement for the responsible and equitable management of growth with the Township utilizing all of the Township’s resources and
assets, experience and viewpoints, success and failures, desires and displeasure, to formulate the best possible blueprint for the future development of a deserving municipality with
all of the inherent beauty and endless potential of which Southampton Township is able to boast.
I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I m I I PlanninP Obiectives The Municipalities Planning Code, which sets forth the legal framework whereby local municipalities are empowered to enact such
plans, demands a statement of objectives as an essential element of every Comprehensive Plan. These objectives are focused on the future development concerns of a municipality and may
include, among other issues, location, character and timing. The statement of objectives of Southampton Township’s planning program carries over significant items of concern from its
prior planning undertaking. It has also been updated to account for new themes observed to be emerging over the last twenty years of the Township’s life as well as new planning philosophies
that have been tried and tested elsewhere in recent years. Most importantly, however, the goals and objectives stated below represent those qualities of life deemed crucial to the continued
prosperity of Southampton Township. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The quality of life and rural character character of the Township must be preserved, maintained and enhanced; The environmental,
aesthetic, natural and cultural resources of Southampton Township should be identified and properly managed for the enjoyment and benefit of this generation and for generations yet to
come; Development within the Township must be guided in an appropriate manner whereby existing community resources are not unduly overtaxed beyond their tolerance or capacity, conflicts
between neighboring properties and neighboring municipalities are not promoted, and the people of the Township may continue to live and function in a safe, harmonious and stress-free
environment; Southampton Township must always strive for a balance between the inevitability of diversity and the ability of these sometimes divergent opinions to coexist and provide
for the ongoing care and service that each group needs to survive and flourish. Such balances will be struck between opposing land uses, housing types, environmental interests, demographic
sectors, sectors, and economic and political forces; Municipal services including transportation, utilities, education, emergency services, recreation, pedestrian safety and information
resaurces should be strongly considered and, when possible, supported or enhanced during all decision making in the development process. Each of the Township’s many services is as critical
as the next to the overall success of the Comprehensive Plan and the future of its growth management strategy. The Township must always emphasize the importance of the proper utilization
of its valuable, but in some cases limited, resources. Whether the issue is one of subdivision or land development, environmental protection, taxation, capital expenditure, or regional
cooperation; the Township must recognize its responsibility for good stewardship of all of its myriad of offerings within its boundaries and to its citizens and neighbors
I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I regional planning consistency Background As Southampton Township, Franklin County continues to move forward with a planning program for its future,
it is important to be aware of similar plans, both existing and proposed, in neighboring municipalities. The Comprehensive Plan of Southampton Township should make every effort to be
consistent and compatible with its neighbors, thereby providing a reasonable and rational connection or relationship between the Township and adjoining portions of its neighbors. Also,
knowledge of the neighboring plans provides the opportunity for proactive regional planning through better communication and an understanding of each other’s needs and requirements.
Southampton Township borders the folkowing municipalities: Greene Township, Letterkenny Township, and Lurgan Township in Franklin County; Shippensburg Borough, Shippensburg Township,
Hopewell Township, and Southampton Township in Cumberland County; and a point of Adams County at the southeast corner of the Michaux State Forest. According to the Zoning Map for Greene
Township, the Michaux State Forest forms a common boundary between both Greene and Southampton Townships. The other common boundaries of Greene Township and Southampton Township include
primarily an Agricultural-Residential District and, to a lesser degree, a Low-Density Residential District. According to the Greene Township Comprehensive Plan, two secondary areas of
potential development exist near U.S. 1 1 and Interstate 8 1. These areas are consistent with the anticipated areas of growth in Southampton Township, although no significant development
is forecast for the near future by either municipality at the immediate borders. Greene Township’s own planning study of surrounding municipalities indicates that the plans of Greene
Township and Southampton Township are compatible. Hopewell Township borders an extremely remote portion of Southampton Township at its northernmost extent. Hopewell Township has adopted
a Zoning Ordinance, and Southampton Township borders districts designated as A-1 and FP. The A-1 district is an Agricultural District that discourages dense development. The FP district
is a Floodplain Conservation District aimed at maintaining the integrity of the floodplain. The Comprehensive Plan of Hopewell Township takes note of the bordering areas in Southampton
Township and does not mention any areas of conflict. The two Townships appear to have compatible plans for their limited common areas Southampton Township, Cumberland County does not
have a Zoning Ordinance at this time, but a Comprehensive Plan exists. The two Southamptons share a considerable amount of their borders and particular emphasis should be given to maintaining
a positive working relationship with each other, as well as with Greene Township. The Land Use
I I I I I I I I i I 1 I I I I I i 1 Map in the Comprehensive Plan indicates that Southampton Township, Franklin County borders three land use designations within Southampton Township,
Cumberland County. The Woodland Conservation area is the designation given to Michaux State Forest. The Agriculture Preservation area is a lowdensity development designation specifically
designed for 1-2 dwelling units per acre. The Residential area adjacent to the Township is designated for 2 -4.4 dwelling units per acre. The Middle Spring region is designated as an
area that is subject to development pressure. The Comprehensive Plan of Southampton Township, Cumberland County states that the protection of farmland must be balanced against the pressures
of development. The Townships share similar issues and the approaches taken by each to date to solve these problems are compatible. Shippensburg Township borders limited portions of
the west central boundary of Southampton Township. It has a Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Ordinance divides the Township into seven districts including three residential,
one commercial, one mandacturing, and one agricultural district. Southampton Township borders small areas of Shippensburg Township that are designated Residential and Commercial. These
areas are compatible with areas in Southampton Township that are experiencing the same type of developmental pressure. Shippensburg Borough has a Zoning Ordinance and a Comprehensive
Plan. The Borough Zoning Ordinance of 1964 was repealed and replaced with a new Ordinance in 1995. Fourteen Zoning Districts are designated including seven residential, two commercial,
two manufacturing, one oEce/light industrial, one institutional, and one agriculturaVopen space. The variety of Zoning Districts in part reflects the urban features of the Borough and
the effects felt by the presence of Shippensburg University. The Central Business District, the Historic District and student and fraternity/sorority housing are examples of issues that
the the Zoning Ordinance addresses. Southampton Township borders many of these different districts. These areas of residential and commercial development, such as the U.S. 11 business
corridor and the expanding housing developments along Roxbury and Orrstown Roads, are compatible with similar land use patterns being experienced by Southampton Township and With the
proposals of this plan. Letterkenny Township does not currently have a Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance. The Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance of htterkenny Township was
enacted in 1979 and updated in 1988. The Ordinance contains provisions that are consistent with those of Southampton Township. Similarly, Lurgan Township does not currently have a Comprehensive
Plan or Zoning Ordinance. The Subdivision Ordinance of Lurgan Township is from 1967 and has not been updated The Subdivision Ordinance provisions are consistent with those of Southampton
Township.
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I Franklin County has also recently undertaken a massive planning effort in the form of the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan. In an effort to achieve
consistency with this volume of county-wide significance, Southampton Township must bear in mind its responsibility to its citizens beyond the steps of simple planning and look toward
tangible implementation strategies to accomplish its concluded objectives. This plan has attempted to take into account many of the same issues brought to light in the County Plan as
concerns of immediate significance which cannot be overlooked any longer and which require ample thought and action in the coming years. The implementation of additional development
and land use regulations, the foresight to actively participate in regional issues that extend beyond municipal boundaries, and the boldness to initiate needed capital improvement projects
will serve not only to provide this level of consistency but will augment this plan with effective tools to further the goals of both the Township and the County beyond these pages and
into the lives of its residents. The Comprehensive Plan of Southampton Township, Franklin County as proposed is currently compatible with the plans of the surrounding municipalities.
The areas of development in this region coincide with similar areas across municipal boundaries. All of these municipalities share mutual concerns with regard to future development patterns
and pressures; the impacts of this development on shared transportation facilities, utility systems and the municipal tax structure; and changes being introduced into our communities
that may enhance or threaten our existing resources, lifestyles and economy. As the region continues to grow and change, Southampton Township has the opportunity to coordinate its planning
efforts with the County and other municipalities that will bring a regional planning focus to the area.
transportation and community facilities pian Transportation As population increases and development marches on in Southampton Township, one of the most easily recognized and visible
signs of development is an increase in traffic volumes, roadway construction and maintenance, and the resulting congestion. State and Township road crews spend innumerable manhours resurfacing,
plowing snow from, maintaining drainage structures, painting lines, erecting signs, inspecting, and grading and mowing alongside the inventory of streets and highways within the boundaries
of Southampton. With growth continuing, the mileage of roads will grow while increasing traffic erodes away at road improvements all the more quickly. These are facts of life in the
realm of road maintenance and the Township must be sufficiently prepared to address these issues as they emerge and, more importantly, to plan ahead to avoid many of life’s hard lessons
already learned. Certain roads and areas of the Township are recommended for continued vigilance and significant improvement or realignment in the not too distant future. As mentioned
in the future land use plan, the Interstate 81 Exit 9 interchange demonstrates great potential for increased development. With
this fact in mind, the area’s roads must remain under constant review to assure that the utmost in safety is provided to the Township’s motorists and pedestrians. Mt. Rock Road, Olde
Scotland Road, Possum Hollow Road, Pineville Road, Seibert Avenue, Mainsville Road and the Interstate itself are all critical pieces of the transportation puzzle that makes this area
attractive to real estate developers and important in the lives of the area’s residents. Specific considerations of this plan include an eventual realignment of Mt. Rock Road with Olde
Scotland Road. The current sharp curve in close proximity to this intersection is unacceptable in light of proposed f’uture development. Also at issue is the design of the interchange
itself with entrance and exit ramps of varying lengths that may not be appropriate for the expected increases in traffic volumes. Olde Scotland Road is reaching a point where continued
commercial and industrial development requires improvements ranging from additional lanes to signalization to sight distance improvements. At the same time there is a mindset that certain
roads bordering these areas, specifically Seibert Avenue and Mainsville Road, should be kept free from the impacts of this ongoing development and all access should be routed to State
Route 696. This is a sound strategy to protect the established residential neighborhoods from undesirable conflicts.
Tying this area into the remainder of the Township, Possum Hollow Road and Mt. -Rock Road provide a circuitous connection from the Exit 9 area to the Route 11 corridor. The Township
should remain cognizant that a successful development strategy at the Interstate may someday reach a level demanding additional traffic relief routes outside of this area. Adding traffic
to the Interstate and Olde Scotland Road with the understanding that significant improvements are required is dramatically different from similar additional traffic burdens being placed
on the more narrow and lower functioning rural Township roads. The Franklin County Comprehensive Plan foresees this same scenario evolving and calls for improvements to Mt. Rock Road
through widening to allow for this predicted additional traffic to more safely and efficiently pass from the interchange area to Route 1 1. The Township would prefer not to see this
additional burden placed on Mt. Rock Road due to its potential negative impacts on residential character as the road approaches Route 1 1. Rather, there is a recommendation that the
Township give serious consideration to a reservation of a new future connector road branching off of Possum Hollow Road at its existing sharp bend and eventually intersecting with Route
1 1. Such a proposal could eventually tie-in with Rice Road and perhaps Clearfield Road providing future additional lands for expansion of business development districts within the Township
and at the same time solving some existing alignment and sight distance concerns. The downfall to either of these alternatives is the availability of funds for such an ambitious capital
improvement project. The Township is not presently in a position to undertake such a task, however there are avenues available to have future private developers and landowners set aside
sufficient rights-of-way to someday achieve this goal. While this Comprehensive Plan will serve its purpose as an official declaration of this recommendation, supplementary procedures
including the adoption of an Official Township Map, additional subdivision and land development requirements, and a focused traffic engineering study dedicated to this concern will serve
to solidify the Township’s commitment to a solution of some type to this impending impasse. The Township must also continue to review its existing Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance
to ensure that it is not unduly burdened with the cost of improvements that shouid have been the responsibility of developers. The requirement for professional and meaningful traffic
impact studies, the adoption of specific and updated street construction and design standards, and the continued awareness of the importance of proactive transportation planning should
also continue to be a significant element of routine Township management and development discussion. Recreation Existing conditions within Southampton Township with respect to recreation
rely on outside agencies to provide facilities to the Township residents usually outside the boundaries of the Township. Another option is to require developers to set aside their own
lands for playgrounds and other facilities. With an increasing demand for leisure and recreation opportunities, the Township recognizes that it must play a stronger role in providing
these amenities and planning for their development. I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I A number of recreation alternatives are available to Southampton Township at this time. A Regional Park and Recreation Commission is presently under
consideration whereby the greater Shippensburg area would benefit from a mutual relationship and a multimuniicipa agency dedicated solely to the management of the area’s recreational
resources. There is also the option for Southampton Township to form a separate Recreation Board and plan for its own individual Township facilities. The ongoing efforts of the Franklin
County Planning Commission in assessing the County’s recreation needs, resources and capabilities will also prove invaluable to the Township in any future attempt to address its recreation
demand and potential. No matter which scenario is selected, the organizing body should prepare a formal Recreation Plan identifying the needs of the service area and implementing a funding
mechanism to achieve its goals. The Township should participate at a minimum through efforts to permanently preserve open space in outlying rural areas and through the requirement of
a fee in lieu of recreation. This fee would be assessed to developers in the Township as applications for subdivision or development are presented. The h d s would then be earmarked
for recreation purposes only and transmitted to a separate account where they must be utilized within a prescribed period of time or otherwise returned to the Developer. Such a step
requires strong positive efforts on behalf of the managing body of the recreation department to realize its desired goals and objectives. The track record for such programs is highly
successful but requires significant motivation, support and diligence. Sewage Facilities and Public Water The provision and extension of public sewer and water service to an area is
usually a harbinger of development. The Township must therefore effectively communicate its growth management proposals to the appropriate water and sewer authorities to avoid conflicts
in goals and objectives. Certain areas of the Township may ultimately require service due to public health concerns or other State mandated orders, even though a resulting conflict in
planning philosophy is consummated. The overriding factor for all decisions must remain the public health, safety and welfare. In the event of such conditions, appropriate secondary
planning strategies must be crafted to alleviate these unexpected conflicts. Equally, utility companies are required to communicate to the Township when extensions of service are proposed
within its boundaries and potential resulting development concerns must be taken under advisement prior to a final decision. Public water is presently available in the Township from
three different sources: Shippensburg Borough Authority, Guilford Water Authority and the Borough of Orrstown. Although none are currently proposing significant expansion through the
municipality, there will be the inevitable extensions simply as an effect of continued subdivision and development along major Township growth corridors. While Southampton Township appears
to be in exceffent condition at the present time with regard to public water service, there remain historical problems associated with water supply for the Shippensburg region. These
problems range from domestic issues to fire protection concerns. The Township should remain informed about any forthcoming developments related to the various water systems serving the
municipality and should be
proactive in participating i.n any forthcoming regional decisions concerning the area’s water quality and continuing demands for greater supply and improved service. Sanitary sewer service
is provided in the Township exclusively by the Cumberland-Franklin Joint Municipal Authority (CFJMA) utilizing the Borough of Shippensburg Wastewater Treatment Plant. A recently completed
draft of the CFJMA region’s Act 537 Oflicial Sewage Facilities Plan calls for one significant project within the Township. The Pinola area has been identified with substandard quality
well water and the provision of either public sewer or public water to this area is recommended The source of this contamination (malfunctioning systems versus apcultural practices)
has not been pinpointed therefore the introduction of one or the other utilities may not prove to be the ultimate solution to the underlying problem. It is recommended that the Township
work closely with its Sewage Enforcement Officer and with CFJMA to gather additional information regarding these findings prior to making any significant decisions on capital expenditures
in t€us regard. As with the water providers, sewer will for the foreseeable future continue to be extended as the system’s capacity allows and as the developers’ real estate market dictates.
The Township should be aware of its current requirement for subdivisions to extend utilities to the Whest point of their holdings as a result of any development. Any venture into growth
management via zoning and an attempt at agricultural preservation may conflict with this requirement. A balance must be achieved between protecting the environment and providing adequate
services for Township citizens while also attempting to promote the desired conservation objectives of this plan.
I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I future land use plan Bacbround Much of the character of Southampton Township is easily deduced from even a cursory view of its landscape during a short
drive along Route 11 or on Interstate 81 through the municipality. The same can be said for a quick review of the existing Land Use Plan that was produced as part of the first phase
of this Comprehensive Plan. The vast percentage of the landscape in the Township is dominated by agricultural fields and forested areas immediately validating the Township’s reputation
as a rural municipality with a strong farming economy, incorporating all aspects fiom livestock to open field cultivation to orchards, and a significant expanse of the Michaux State
Forest. Although development has been ongoing throughout the Township over the past twenty years, the main patterns of development have not changed dramatically since the time of the
Township’s first Comprehensive Plan. Much of the residential development in Southampton has been relegated relegated to the main traffic arteries in the Township, radiating out &om the
Borough of Shippensburg in all directions, At the same time commercial and industrial development has been somewhat limited. However, the long dormant Exit 9 interchange of Interstate
8 1 has seen an injection of activity in the past several years that is proving to be an attraction for a variety of businesses and a dominating topic of discussion in most political
and social circles of the Township. These basic observations are simple facts easily seen by even the novice planner or the newest Township resident. The more diflicult task at hand
is to find specific areas with definable limits throughout the Township suitable to the wide variety of land uses that are pervading our society today. Many physical land characteristics
lend themselves well to all forms of land use. Prime agcultural ground is usually the most attractive property for developers as well as fkrmers. Proximity to goods and services, transportation
and utilities, utilities, natural resources and other amenities are often equally important to the individual homeowner as they are to the real estate developer. Our goal in this chapter
is to use the information previously assembled to find the best and most widely acceptable design for the placement of these divergent land use categories throughout Southampton Township.
In the following paragraphs, four different land use categories will be discussed in terms of their composition, importance, compatibility, needs, impacts and locational placement for
future growth management purposes.
Apricultural and Woodland Conservation With approximately 85% of the land cover in Southampton Township devoted to forest, agriculture and open fields, it is impossible to ignore the
heavy influence which these land uses impart upon the residents of the community. While economic factors related to agriculture, such as labor force percentages and incomes, have declined
over the years farming continues to play a vital role in the Township’s ever-evolving character. Lay people are beginning to recognize with more frequency the advantages and benefits
that the farming industry and agriculture provide. There is also an awareness that these areas are subject to environmentally sensitive areas such as sinkholes, floodplain and wetlands.
Similarly, there is a growing movement afoot to permanently preserve the best . agricultural soils and to salvage the institution of the locally owned family farm. No better example
is available of this progressive philosophy than the County’s burgeoning program for the purchase of of permanent agricultural easements. Two farms in Southampton Township have already
become active participants and, in tandem with the Township’s strong Agricultural Security Area, there is an obvious desire by the farming community to maintain its vital role in the
area’s economy and culture. It will come as no surprise that the implementation of agricultural preservation practices as well as the conservation of open spaces, environmental areas
and woodlands is a primary thrust of this Comprehensive Plan. While farming and open land have been and remain a consistently strong asset in Southampton Township‘s history, increasing
development pressures threaten to erode away and undermine these resources. Productive agricultural lands are particularly vulnerable as the extension of utility services invade these
sectors of the Township along with improved highways, increased population and a booming housing market, A municipality experiencing these development patterns must plan for and carefully
manage a balanced growth strategy. This strategy should be one that will do everything in its power to maintain the integrity of the agricultural community and the Township’s valuable
and irreplaceable natural resources while allowing the Township’s other emerging elements to prosper and endure in their own right. The targeted areas for the Township’s agricultural
and woodland conservation program are widespread throughout the Township. Much of the forested ground is overseen under the guise of the Michaux State Forest although some privately
held land exists on its periphery and in small spots elsewhere. The thriving agricultural community is best identified through a review of those properties participating in the Township’s
Agricultural Security Area program. The south and west quadrants of the Township are home to the majority of these areas including the Pinola, Mt. Rock, Orrstown and Mongul communities.
Development pressures are most obvious at this time along major traEc arteries such as Onstown Road, State Route 11, and Roxbury Road in proximity to the Borough of Shippensburg. The
Orrstown Road and Roxbury Road corridors are also ironically home to the two farm properties currently subject to agricultural conservation easements purchased by the County for permanent
preservation of this valuable land. There is no better example of the conflicts between dissimilar uses currently at work within Southampton Township than this. A more pronounced example
might be the
existing changes that are occurring in rapid succession around the Interstate 8 1 Exit 9 interchange. Here the pressure of Interstate access and the availability of rail transportation
has already seen the disappearance of significant quantities of farmland in lieu of warehouse and distribution facilities, adult entertainment establishments, and emerging offices and
highway commercial uses. Another form of growing concern and discussion in Franklin County is the recent emergence of concentrated animal operations (CAO’s) or “factory farms” as they’ve
come to be known. While agricultural in nature, these high-tech, large-scale operations are on the rise to such a degree that the traditional family farm or small operation pales in
comparison. These facilities are also of such a diverse character that they oftentimes result in a higher degree of conflict with adjacent existing neighborhoods than the traditional
fanning operation. Care must be taken in future land use planning to account for these types of agricultural practices while maintaining a balance with the existing farm community, the
natural environment and surrounding residential neighborhoods wherein all of the parties can not only coexist but also prosper. The most universal and proven method for effective preservation
of the Township’s remaining agricultural resources lies with the introduction of a nual-oriented zoning ordinance. Various zoning methods have been developed over the years to cope with
different municipalities’ needs. The sought after land use balance for Southampton Township can best be accomplished through the institution of an agriculturaVwoodland conservation district
that allows the landowner ample development opportunities, suitable yet without conflict, and simultaneously achieves many of the goals and objectives called for in this plan. Uses should
be limited primarily to agricultural and forest-related activities and single-family residences with appropriate secondary uses including churches, schools, recreational facilities,
and farm businesses. By incorporating a combination of mandatory large minimum lot sizes with the voluntary option of modest density bonuses for a clustering scenario, undesirable development
will be curtailed in these vast areas of Township environmental significance and the continued viability of limited residential subdivision in a rural setting will remain. Encouraging
the developer to participate in a cluster project by creating incentives for additional housing lots and potential investment returns will also result in the preservation or creation
of additional Township amenities such as permanent farmland easements, open space, recreation facilities, environmental areas, woodlands, and watersheds. Residential With a growing Township
population comes the inevitable boom in real estate and housing. Over the past decade, finding the appropriate locations for this increasing inventory of single family homes and mobile
homes has proven to be a most challenging and daunting task. Space is ample throughout the the green expanses of Southampton Township, however not all of these spots are desirable to
builders, developers and prospective residents while others are not equipped or eager to handle the additional .burdens of tramc, stonnwater runoff, and sewage disposal. The same balance
that was
sought for preservation of the Township’s rural qualities must be equalized with the manifest need for living space. The Township’s housing demands and supply have to date not expanded
much beyond the need for traditional single-family dwellings and manufactured housing. Few townhouse or multi-family developments have reared their heads although the fickle real estate
market can alter its demands with little advance notice. The Township should also be aware of available public or private incentives, subsidies and sponsorship that can be utilized to
encourage varied forms of housing to provide for the wide array of incomes and social strata dispersed through the Township. Southampton Township must be sure to account for each possibility
as it crafts its future plan for residential land use. A review of existing trends in residential development indicates a radial pattern of housing subdivisions dominating the Township
arena. Primary traffic corridors emanating from the heart of Shippensburg have seen a strip strip pattern of development in all directions over the past 30 years. These corridors include
Roxbury Road, Orrstown Road, State Route 1 1, Possum Hollow Road, Mainsville Road and Lindsay Lot Road. Subdivision in the remaining areas of the Township has been sporadic and minor
in nature in comparison. These subdivisions surrounding Shippensburg have, for the most part, been predictable in terms of the attraction of public utilities, typical small lot sizes,
and planning a development to its utmost capacity with little regard or cause for any conservation offerings or resulting benefits to the community as a whole. Without the aid of progressive
growth management techniques, Southampton Township is open to rampant development with the resulting pressures placed upon all of its precious public services. The continued addition
of more utility lines at significant length through the Township in lieu of upgrades to existing stressed facilities places more financial burden on the responsible authorities and foils
foils the efficiency of those systems. The same theory holds true for the Township’s road system. As more and more miles of roads must be maintained, the existing street inventory will
suffer from untimely neglect and the need for constant increases in maintenance equipment and manpower will erode municipal resources to undesirable levels. Development not properly
located may also be routinely situated in geologic or topographic settings conducive to frequent drainage problems. The resulting e f f i may not only prove to be ongoing maintenance
problems for municipal oficials but inconvenient and costly for homeowners as well. For these reasons and others, it is prudent for the Township to propose growth controls through a
zoning program geared towards the proper siting of these developments that are often severely taxing on a municipality’s resources. Only one residential district is proposed at this
time due to the assessed character of the Township’s building status over the past twenty years, Individual pockets of this district would be found in a variety of established residential
areas including Mt. Rock, Mainsville, Orrstown, Pineville Road, and Forest Ridge. Additional areas would follow the aforementioned radial patterns along Roxbury Road, Orrstown Road,
State Route 1 1, Possum Hollow Road, and Lindsay Lot Road. These areas must not only account for existing development but must plan reserve lands for additional buildout in the coming
years. Such areas may be available
I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I along modest extensions of these same traffic comdors as well as some nearby roads such as Rice Road, Thornwood Road and Old Mill Road. In addition to
siting of these residential neighborhoods, this plan must account for possible and appropriate secondary uses therein. With the exception of certain suitable home occupations, the district
would not permit commercial or industrial development in an effort to protect the desired family flavor of the area. Compatible uses such as churches, schools, and municipal facilities
would be permitted under specific review criteria. Density must also be discussed and would likely be based upon two factors: type of housing proposed and availability of public water
and sewer. The current Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance allows a minimum lot size of one acre when no public sewer service is provided and 10,000 square feet when
both water and sewer are available. These numbers may prove to remain the desirable levels once a zoning program is effectuated, however the corresponding figures for the lower density
conservation district must be adjusted accordingly so that the assumed benefits are not lost. Retail Commercial and Professional Office The Township’s plan for the management of business
development is separated into two levels of intensity. The first proposed district would emphasize retail commercial, business service and professional ofice establishments. While a
number of areas within the Township have proven to be attractive through the years for a wide range of commercial and industrial land uses, the Township is prepared to focus its efforts
on separating certain sectors of the Township in this regard. Although the Interstate 8 1 Exit 9 interchange and the Route 11 corridor have both been subject to their share of nonresidential
development, the two areas have different elements in terms of neighborhood character, traffic considerations, and overall compatibility. For example, the Route 11 corridor demonstrates
potential for the growth of a variety of uses including agriculture, residential and commercial. To permit the development of high intensity uses such as expahsive shopping centers,
heavy industry, or truck terminals here would introduce long-term damaging effects to the Township that would prove excessive in cost and recovery time. In order to avoid the associated
headaches brought by sudden large scale development, portions of these areas should be targeted for less intense commercial development that will blend in with the surrounding and prosperous
residential and agricultural community. Such a district would ideally be limited to nonresidential development and may include allowances for other non-business uses like schools, hospitals,
government facilities, and churches. Serious consideration must also be given to the need for proper transition between uses as conflicts may arise in some circumstances between neighboring
properties. Effective buffer zones, ampIe setbacks, suitable landscaping and lighting, parking requirements, stormwater runoff impacts, mutual access considerations, pedestrian safety,
and waste disposal arrangements are a few of the issues that will
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I require the Township’s diligent review and approval through the course of future ordinance preparation and later plan assessment. The Township has several
areas suited for the type of development referenced in the preceding paragraphs. As was mentioned earlier portions of the Route 11 corridor have already shown some potential in this
regard. The east side of Route 11 heading south out of Shippensburg has experienced modest amounts of commercial development over the years. However the area rapidly turns to agricultural
and residential again within a matter of a mile or so. A small area within the Mt. Rock commwLity has also shown potential for modest amounts of commercial development in a manner compatible
with its residential neighbors. With the residential growth along Orrstown Road in recent years, a number of business establishments have sprung up to provide services to this growing
sector of the Township. For now these areas have been relegated to scattered properties along the highway and more focused development around the Township complex at Municipal Drive.
There is the potential for continued limited business growth in this portion of the municipality as it becomes a more established community with its own identity. Similar opportunities
may someday exist in the Orrstown area or the Mainsville area, but for now these areas display a predominantly residential and agricultural flavor. Highway Commercial and Light Industrv
A more intensive development scenario is forming in the area of Interstate 81 Exit 9 and the State Route 696 corridor. Plans have continued to appear before the Townshrp from the Mt.
Rock/Possum Hollow Road area, around the interchange, and along State Route 696 to the Seibert Avenue intersection. The area is proving attractive for higher intensity uses involving
significant truck traffic, large areas of impervious surface, meaningful employment opportunities, and regional transportation and utility improvements. Taking these business arrivals
into account it appears that their impact upon the Township is best managed in one area already subject to these pressures, with long-term expectations for intense development, and concentrated
at the location presently best-suited for large scale commercial and
light industrial activity. Compatibility with these types of uses is often the most challenging and divisive issue with which a municipality is faced. By utilizing proper growth management
techniques, the Township will find itself prepared to encourage this type of development while avoiding the conflicts traditionally associated with its proposal. Since development opportunities
for business as a whole are somewhat limited in Southampton Township, based upon the earlier devised strategies of widespread agricultural preservation and residential harmony, this
proposed district of higher intensity business activity should also allow for smaller retail commercial, business service and professional office enterprises. In this segregated area
of the Township, the opportunity for a mix of these uses with those higher intensity uses already existing or planned will offer alternatives to serve not only the established and emergent
residential communities but also the growing business community and travelers utilizing the interchange.
Recent developments in this Exit 9 area of the Township have illustrated a need and a desire to function together as moderate-sized business campus settings with shared road networks.
This is an encouraging trend that the Township should promote and participate in for the sake of all parties involved. Development proposals should be asked to analyze regional planning
concepts to address not only transportation, but also issues like stormwater management, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, buffering and landscaping, and utility extensions
and improvements. Tools aside from the obvious zoning regulations should be updated or adopted to assist the Township to these ends. A Township Official Map, the Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance, special municipal task forces, and similar undertakings can provide a Township with a strong foundation to further ensure that all of its varied and bona fide
concerns are adequately addressed rather than conveniently overlooked. Other recent trends have included a proliferation of adult-entertainment facilities on the east side of the interchange.
Public outcry against these uses has been strong and persistent. The Township should also examine the advantages of zoning as a growth management tool to assist in the discouragement
of additional similar facilities and proper oversight of the existing establishments.