Paragon planners urge caution after Liverpool Township seeks spot rezoning of farmland

The Paragon Planning Commission voted May — in a unanimous motion — to send letters of review advising Liverpool Township against a proposed amendment to its future land‑use map that would enable rezoning of two parcels from agricultural to commercial.

Commission staff and several nearby landowners told the commission the change would create a small island of commercial zoning surrounded by agricultural uses and could open the area to dozens of commercial uses, with consequences for traffic and farm viability.

The commission’s staff noted that “the change will generate additional traffic to SR 17,” and recommended that any such amendment be undertaken as part of a full 10‑year comprehensive plan review under section 301(c) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code rather than as an isolated map change. The staff report also said the area contains prime farmland and soils of statewide importance.

The primary public speaker on the item, Rhonda Sailor, identified herself as part of a fifth‑generation working farm that surrounds the subject parcels and urged the commission to oppose the change. She told commissioners the applicants had previously applied for rezoning and that the township planning commission had recommended against rezoning. “We feel it is detrimental to the surrounding agricultural community,” Sailor said, citing the presence of high‑quality soils and the lack of site‑specific information such as traffic studies.

Sailor said the applicants reduced the proposed area from roughly 70 acres to a narrower band of frontage — about 400 feet along Davidson Road and Valley View Road — and that a second parcel of about 12 acres would remain unchanged. She said one local vehicle dealer had described potential needs for additional showroom space but that, under existing ordinance provisions for nonconforming uses, expansions up to 6,000 square feet are already allowed and the business could meet many needs without a zoning map change.

Commission members debated whether to simply advise the township about procedural steps or to take a stronger position against the amendment. Several commissioners warned that removing specific study requirements from a township ordinance could make review more subjective and could shift infrastructure costs to the township or state if developers were not required to provide improvements.

Staff recommended, and the commission approved, two related letters: one addressing the proposed future land‑use map amendment (recommending against the change and advising that it be considered within a full comprehensive plan update) and a second addressing any subsequent rezoning (noting that rezoning should only proceed if the township determines the change is consistent with a revised future land‑use map). The commission directed staff to issue the letters promptly so they reach township officials before the township’s next meeting.

Commission discussion also suggested alternatives the applicants might explore, such as expanding conditional‑use allowances for agricultural support businesses or pursuing siting options that would not convert prime farmland to commercial zoning.

The commission emphasized the advisory nature of its reviews — staff letters are not binding — but said the guidance is intended to inform township supervisors and planning commissions and to encourage broader public engagement if the township pursues a comprehensive plan amendment.

No formal traffic study, acreage breakdown for the reduced frontage area beyond the cited 400‑foot frontage, or detailed site plans were provided to the county planning office in advance of the review, the staff report said. The commission’s letters will note those omissions and the potential for unanticipated impacts if the map amendment proceeds outside a coordinated plan update.

The applicants and a representative left the meeting after the commission voted to send the letters.