Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident urges Ferguson supervisors to allow ADUs and modernize R-4 to address housing shortage

Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors · March 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Eli Killian told the board March 4 that permitting accessory dwelling units and loosening R-4 rules (height, coverage, setbacks) would increase housing supply and help retain Penn State graduates; he proposed pilot neighborhoods and specific zoning changes.

During the public-comment period at the March 4 Ferguson Township Board meeting, resident Eli Killian urged supervisors to adopt policies allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and to modernize the R-4 high-density zone to address a local housing shortage.

Killian said the township’s current zoning and housing stock drive graduates away and recommended allowing ADUs across single-family lots with standardized 10-foot side-yard setbacks, raising accessory-structure height to match primary buildings, and expanding impervious/coverage allowances to enable modern stormwater solutions. For R-4 he proposed increasing the maximum building height and floor-count to allow denser development and suggested a neighborhood-by-neighborhood pilot for voluntary adoption.

"Housing is critical," Killian told the board. "These zoning updates strike a balance between growth, livability, and environmental responsibility. I urge supervisors to take action now." He said he had posted a report on his website with a calculator that models tax and rent impacts.

Planning and resident commenters later raised concerns about first-floor commercial requirements and vacancy; Bill Keogh recommended the planning commission consider conditional allowances for first-floor residential rather than an outright ban. Board members acknowledged public interest but noted the meeting’s advertised item was a narrow text correction; supervisors suggested separate, advertised review and possible referral to the planning commission for broader zoning reforms.