Smithfield supervisors weigh ordinance to allow denser apartments in economic development zone

The Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors reviewed a draft ordinance at a June work session that would create an economic development zone permitting denser multiunit residential development tied to commercial incentives.

Chair Jacob Pride opened the discussion by describing the draft's goals: concentrate growth along commercial corridors, preserve residential character elsewhere and offer incentives that pair higher density with nonresidential uses. Pride noted a county housing context, saying median rent in Smithfield is about $1,194 and that a recent governor's housing plan identifies a 32,000-unit regional shortage.

Engineer John Pressler, who participated in drafting the language, said the ordinance uses a 12-units-per-acre threshold to qualify a site as “high residential” and sets a by‑right density cap at 20 units per acre with a 50-foot height limit. Under an incentive tier, projects that include a nonresidential component could reach 21–25 units per acre and up to 60 feet in height; impervious-coverage tiers would move from a baseline of about 65% up toward 80% with incentives. Pressler said the draft anticipates a parking standard of roughly 1.5 spaces per unit.

Board members focused on access, frontage and infrastructure constraints. Several supervisors warned that direct access from state highways is likely constrained by Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) permit standards and could eliminate some parcels from eligibility. The draft currently identifies roughly 43 eligible parcels totaling about 609 acres (about 4% of Smithfield's land area), but staff said many do not have central sewer and water and that eligibility would be confirmed parcel‑by‑parcel once road access and utility service are verified.

Supervisors debated how to limit eligible parcels while addressing safety: members suggested requiring two points of ingress/egress or a boulevard entrance for larger developments and discussed whether a numeric trigger (for example, requiring two entrances above a specified unit count such as 100) should be added. Staff noted a 5‑acre minimum in the draft combined with a 12‑units‑per‑acre threshold produces a typical minimum project size of about 60 units, which prompted questions about when additional access should be mandated.

Board discussion also covered incentives to encourage redevelopment of aging or nonconforming lodging properties that function as long‑term rentals. Supervisors said conversion pathways or density bonuses could encourage owners of blighted extended‑stay motels to replace older structures with updated apartments.

Township Manager Julia Hilikin and staff said the draft ordinance will need legal form and additional definitions, will be added to the zoning schedule of district uses, and must be sent to the planning commission for review. The board indicated it would place the draft on the agenda for the board's regular meeting on the 25th to trigger review windows and a formal public hearing process.

The work session included no final votes on the ED‑zone changes; supervisors asked staff to refine language on access and frontage, verify the list of eligible parcels and identify appropriate thresholds for access, utilities and fees before formal advertisement and review.