CRANBERRY TWP — The roughly two-and-a-half hours of public testimony on Cranberry Township's new zoning ordinance reveals a variety of opinions and motivations from residents who spoke.

Although the ordinance's detractors spoke more frequently than its supporters, the Thursday evening hearing on the Planned Neighborhood zoning overlay district — which allows for, but does not require, denser and more varied housing on certain parcels in Cranberry should they be developed — attracted supporters too.

Both groups provided voluminous testimony on the subject, giving insight to what some township residents' priorities are: maintaining Cranberry's suburban feel, keeping property values high and taxes low, making available housing to more varied income and career groups and ensuring the township's traffic doesn't become unbearable.

Increase population

Many Planned Neighborhood detractors expressed concern over whether the overlay could increase the township's population to a level they didn't wish to see.

Some residents, such as Andy Shegog, brought up the Cranberry Plan, the township's long-term comprehensive planning document. Shegog was concerned about a figure in the plan: 50,011.

Shegog, among other residents, interpreted the 50,011 figure — identified in the 2009 plan as the projected population under the “preferred growth scenario,” which was one of four projections considered — as the township supervisors' population “goal.”

“This Planned Neighborhood overlay ordinance, which you're considering right now, is clearly a way to help you accomplish this goal of 50,000. We don't want 50,000 people in Cranberry,” Shegog said. “We don't want this.”

Others, however, interpreted the PN ordinance in a different manner: Giving developers more options.

Art Parness, a resident who worked with supervisors to modify an earlier iteration of the PN ordinance, said he didn't think the ordinance could get the township to that 50,000 figure. He estimated, if all of the parcels developable under the overlay were built out, it may get the township to 40,000 residents in 2033, but called it a long shot.

All in all, Parness said, the growth will come, and it's simply a matter of whether this ordinance will be available.

“I know there's a lot of resistance here for people to accept growth, with variation and multifamily housing,” he said. “Maybe that's a bad word. Maybe people don't want to hear that.”

Several residents raised concerns about whether denser housing developments could lead to the “urbanization” of Cranberry Township, saying they'd moved to or remained in the area because they wanted the suburban lifestyle.

“In my rough estimations, you're looking at going close to 65,000 or 70,000 (people) as a population,” said Ernie Kuhs, one of those residents. “I don't think I'd want to live in Monroeville, and that's what you're heading toward.”

After testimony closed, but before the vote, Supervisor Mike Manipole said he understood the concern over the 50,000 figure — “I don't want to see 50,000 people,” he said — but added the 50,011 figure was a projection to assist the township in planning for infrastructure and other expense projections.

Missing Middle ordinance

Earlier in 2021, the township introduced the Missing Middle Housing ordinance, a plan that was ultimately shot down, reworked and introduced — with significant revisions — as the PN ordinance.

The goals of both proposals were similar: to give residential developers an option to use a variety of housing types in Cranberry, attracting people unable to afford or unwilling to spend the high six-figure dollar amount many Cranberry homes command or simply to bring in residents who are more attracted to multi-, rather than single-family, housing.

Township manager Dan Santoro earlier in 2021 said the township sought to bring more “young professionals” into the township with the first proposal. That sentiment was brought up Thursday and promptly derided.

Jean DiMonte spoke early in the meeting and, citing the Cranberry Plan's acknowledgment that the township's median age is younger than that of much of Western Pennsylvania, said Cranberry doesn't need the overlay to address any “missing middle.”

“The Cranberry Plan clearly states repeatedly that we do not have a missing middle problem in Cranberry,” she said.

On behalf of the Pittsburgh North Regional Chamber of Commerce, its president, Jim Boltz, said otherwise, claiming local businesses will greatly benefit from the Planned Neighborhood ordinance.

“Maintaining a great selection of housing is an essential, essential element,” he said. “It attracts an assortment of income levels that support all levels of the workforce. Additional housing is needed to provide greater opportunities for employees to live closer to the businesses that support their families.”

Gerald Geisler blended the two points of view, rejecting the idea that Cranberry has enough of a housing mix as other residents had claimed, but not supporting the ordinance.

“We recognize that millennials account for more than half of new home (purchases) in 2019. As a result, a balanced mix of more affordable housing in the right locations within Cranberry does make sense,” Geisler said. “However, we continue to question whether the proposed PN ordinance does this adequately.”

Multiple supervisors prior to the vote noted their anecdotal experience with people unable to afford Cranberry houses: their children. Noting the importance of keeping family close, Manipole said the community would benefit from various housing options.

Manipole also said he expects to retire and move into a smaller house, and wants to remain in Cranberry. But, he said, even if he sells his house — which he bought for $50,000 — Cranberry's housing market renders an empty-nester house unattainable.

“If I sell my home, make a significant profit on my house, I won't be your neighbor,” he said.