Multi-Municipal Planning: Improving the Planning Process and Increasing Community Options by David J. Steil

The Honorable David J. Steil represents the 31st District in the PA House of Representatives and was a major force behind the amendments to the Municipalities Planning Code in the year 2000, Acts 67 and 68, allowing for multi-municipal planning. Steil has experience as a township supervisor in Lower Makefield Township and was a member of a local planning commission. He highlighted how multi-municipal planning aids local government administrators in addressing challenges in protecting their economic, social, and environmental assets. Steil explained how multi-municipal planning differs from traditional methods of regional planning, and gave an overview and update of efforts across the state since the amendments were passed. He also gave advice on where municipalities can receive technical and financial assistance for multi-municipal planning efforts, and how to avoid making common mistakes in implementation and in gaining support at the grassroots level.

 

Steil noted that the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) was passed in 1968. It was outdated and needed changed to reflect new challenges. There are over 2,000 municipalities in PA, all with subdivision and land development authority, and according to Steil, this can be a good and bad thing. Municipal officials feel that they know what is best for their municipality, but their decisions may not always be best for the community.

 

While addressing the MPC, Steil explained that the role of counties in planning is not strong enough, many communities in PA are without zoning plans, and infrastructure is not coordinated across municipal lines. Land planning is bipartisan, but breaks along the urban/rural lines, according to Steil. He found that in working together with the Senate to gain support for the amendments to the MPC, there were many people across the state that were for the changes, but also many that opposed them. Many were worried that their property rights would not be protected, but the amendments were meant to make sure that land use by some would not infringe on the rights of their neighbors. By bringing all stakeholders together, namely the municipal associations, the homebuilders associations, and the environmental groups, all concerns could be addressed in the objectives of Acts 67 and 68. The purpose was not to tell municipalities what to do, but to provide municipalities tools for the most efficient planning and land use processes.

 

Cooperative municipality planning options were the tools offered to municipalities. Allowing the option of traditional neighborhood development for integrated communities using multiple-use zoning as opposed to single-use zoning, and protecting private property rights, were key in passing Acts 67 and 68. Municipalities could decide the extent of their multi-municipal planning, whether it is a shared piece of equipment or a joint inter-municipal plan. Steil explained that municipalities need to focus on the issues facing their communities, not politics or individual motives.

 

At the time, Steil noted that over 550 communities in PA were cooperating in one form or another and most are using intergovernmental cooperation agreements. He explained the resources and tools that those communities had used in their efforts, including those offered by the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED). Steil felt that the $2.5 million in grant money awarded per year was still too low because the incentives for municipalities to work together are not strong enough.

The future challenges and opportunities for more cooperation, according to Steil, are legislative obstacles relating to impact fees, coordinated infrastructure and development planning, and outreach and education on the importance of smart planning relating to open space and managing density. Steil explained common-base zoning as another option that municipalities can use in planning and conceptualized what Lower Makefield Township could look like if common-base zoning were used, preserving areas of continuous open space. Steil advocated the use of incentives to guide municipalities to cooperate.