Maybe it should be how, not who

A change has been proposed to the zoning in Dingman Township, PA that would allow resort commercial rather than neighborhood commercial development in an area adjacent to the intersection of I-84 and Route 6. Neighborhood commercial zoning includes businesses catering to local residents, such as grocery stores; resort commercial would include regional businesses aiming to bring in shoppers from outside the local neighborhood, such as malls and hotels.

The township, naturally, wants to take advantage of the commercial potential of land accessible from two major arteries. But some citizens are concerned that the development would have an adverse impact on an important aquifer serving the Milford area, and at least some of the expert opinions available on the issue lend those concerns support.

It is all very well to say that we must strike a balance between development and protection of the water supply. But this just puts a name on the problem without giving any guidance as to how to solve it. All too often, “balance” from the point of view of pro-development forces means “if we take care of the environment we couldn’t build anywhere, so we can’t worry about the environment.” From the point of view of environmentalists, it means “we understand you have to build somewhere—just not here.” But, in a world with a rapidly growing population that has started to drown in its own wastes, neither of these options is viable.

We don’t have sufficient information to come up with a solution for Dingman and Milford, but we can’t help wondering whether the way the problem has been framed—as a choice between allowing one kind of business in the area or another kind—is the best way to put it. And perhaps, if we can find another way to frame the problem, the choices won’t be so stark.

When it comes to protecting aquifers and reducing the danger of flooding, there are at least four points that must be considered. First, the percentage of impermeable surfaces, which includes both pavement and rooftops, in any land area, must be kept below a certain level. Second, a certain percentage of the land should be left in trees or shrubs, which disperse rain gradually to the ground as it falls, diminishing the volume of stormwater runoff. Third, domestic plantings, such as lawns that require high applications of toxins including herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer, must be limited. And fourth, land-moving landscaping that smoothes out hollows in the ground that hold and slowly drain water during heavy rain should be kept to a minimum.

None of these practices is reserved to any one kind, or even any one size, of business or residence. Imagine a big-box store, for instance, that, instead of having a wide desert of asphalt for a parking lot, breaks up every two rows with a strip of trees and low-maintenance shrubs. Suppose the store was built two stories high—low enough that it didn’t impose on anyone’s view, but reducing its footprint over the open land by half. (Such space-efficient building is already prevalent in city areas, where land is at a premium.) Suppose then that, like some buildings in the cities, the box store had a “green roof”—a roof completely covered with plants that will absorb precipitation instead of letting it run off in spate, meanwhile keeping the building and the surrounding area temperate. Suppose that the area surrounding the store and parking lot, instead of being planted with a mowed lawn and yew trees in bark chips, were left in natural forest (just incidentally vastly reducing property maintenance costs).

Such a building might or might not be “green” enough to have a place over an important aquifer. Among other things, it would require an extensive septic system to serve a large population of shoppers—larger than could be expected at neighborhood stores—and one obviously needs to be careful about placing large septic demands on an area that supplies drinking water. We must leave it to the hydrologists to balance all such relevant factors. But in general, buildings like this would not only be more desirable neighbors than your typical regional commercial development, they would be more attractive and more environmentally sound than many neighborhood businesses. Conversely, a concentrated area of neighborhood businesses can wind up with just as much impermeable surface, just as little natural vegetation and just as many lawn-care toxins as an area developed by regional businesses.

Perhaps, instead of just concentrating on what kind or size of business municipalities wish to allow in certain locations, zoning and planning boards should start thinking about the specific things that any developer needs to do in order to preserve the integrity of the local watershed. They might find that at least in some cases, if they think more about the “how” of development, they don’t need to exclude anyone.

Dr. Punnybone

A Light Touch