Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reading planning commission weighs streamlining land-development rules after DCED review
Summary
City planners and commissioners discussed DCED recommendations to reduce duplicative reviews and create administrative review paths for interior-only redevelopment, while emphasizing continued oversight for engineering, sewer capacity and public-safety issues.
Reading’s Planning Commission spent the bulk of its June 16 workshop reviewing recommendations from the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) and staff proposals to streamline the city’s land-development review process.
Staff said DCED’s memo flagged parts of the city’s land-development rules as potentially burdensome for developers and suggested adding narrow exclusions and administrative review paths for projects that do not change a building’s footprint. “Sewer planning modules don’t necessarily need a corresponding land-development plan,” planning staff member Michelle said, describing coordination with Muenberg Township and public works on inspection and module submittals.
Commissioners and staff outlined a menu of options to reduce duplicative reviews: raise the threshold for what triggers a land-development plan (one suggestion was increasing the disturbance threshold from 800 to 1,000 square feet), create a mid-level “detailed site plan” that staff could approve without full commission review, and add an explicit exclusion for interior-only renovations that do not create new impervious surface.
At the same time, members pressed that core checks must remain. A public-works commenter warned that the purpose of sewer-module review is “to ensure that we have capacity, sewer capacity at our treatment plant, pump stations, sewers,” underscoring the federal and engineering constraints that cannot be delegated away. Commissioners also flagged public-notice and enforcement concerns if more decisions move to staff review.
The commission discussed practical safeguards: require sealed architectural or engineering plans where structural or life-safety risk exists; retain zoning review for parking and occupancy; and route sewer-capacity approvals through public works so the city can meet federal consent-decree obligations. Commissioners stressed the need for written SOPs and redundancies so responsibilities do not fall through the cracks if staffing changes.
Staff said they would bring specific ordinance language back for review and recommended a short-term administrative fix: a waiver-application packet with a modest fee to cover review costs. Jerome, who has prepared waiver packets in prior projects, suggested an interim application to screen obvious cases before ordering more expensive full plans.
The commission agreed to continue work with DCED’s technical-assistance grant and asked staff to draft concrete text and procedures for the next meetings. The goal, commissioners said, is to reduce unnecessary delay while preserving engineering, safety and sewer-capacity oversight.
