Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Upper Dublin adopts 2025 comprehensive plan after heated public discussion on housing
Summary
The board adopted the 2025 comprehensive plan that narrows where multifamily housing could be considered and replaces a prior proposed form‑based zoning action with study language; residents voiced concern about ADUs, rezoning and wording that could be misread as mandatory.
The Upper Dublin Township Board of Commissioners voted Jan. 13 to adopt the township’s 2025 Comprehensive Plan (version 2), concluding a public hearing and months of public engagement.
Samantha McLean, project manager for Michael Baker International, summarized the planning process and the substantive changes made in the second version: "We got rid of [an action to adopt] form‑based zoning and have an action to explore amendments to the zoning ordinance that would reduce barriers to building a variety of multifamily housing types in existing multifamily zoning districts," she told the board. McLean said the plan’s future land‑use map was clarified to distinguish "residential traditional" areas (single‑family) from "residential mix" (where multifamily is already permitted).
The changes were a direct response to public comment: staff reported about 80 written comments during the second 45‑day public comment period. County reviewers generally found the plan consistent with county goals but cautioned about the housing change possibly limiting future housing diversity.
Public comment at the hearing ranged from support for walkability and connections to worries about overdevelopment, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and the plan’s tone. Multiple residents asked whether the plan would automatically rezone parcels; the board and planning staff repeatedly said it would not. The manager and commissioners said rezoning would be a separate, public process and that the plan is a non‑regulatory guide under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.
Several residents asked that language be softened to avoid mandatory phrasing. "Only 14% of the respondents wanted any change in housing," one commenter said, urging clearer wording. Planners and commissioners countered that the revisions narrow the areas where multifamily would be considered and emphasize that changes to zoning would be publicly debated.
After remarks and a second, the board approved resolution 26‑2584 to adopt the plan by voice vote. The board directed staff to move forward with the next step — a publicly noticed zoning ordinance update to implement plan recommendations — with an anticipated timeline that would bring zoning changes back to the public within the year.
Next procedural step: the zoning‑ordinance update will be a separate public process; the board indicated it expects the ordinance work to proceed promptly following plan adoption.
