ADAMS TWP — The board of supervisors voted to pass a proposed PRD zoning amendment Monday night, despite hearing residents complain that it doesn’t do enough to restrict high-density development.

The board voted 3-1 to approve the ordinance, with Supervisor Russ Ford voting no and Supervisor Don Aiken absent.

The ordinance reduces the density of future planned residential developments (PRDs) and adds other restrictions regarding buffer zones and land use. Many residents told supervisors these restrictions do not go far enough.

The ordinance adjusts the zoning of rural conservation (RC) and rural agricultural, low density (RAL) districts.

The number of units that can be built is reduced from one unit per acre to 0.8 units per acre, increasing the minimum lot size for a residential structure.

It also requires at least 35 percent of the land to be used for open space and a buffer area of at least 50 feet around the perimeter of the proposed boundary.

Meanwhile, a six-month moratorium on PRDs passed by the township over the summer is about to expire in January, potentially opening the door to further development.

Before the vote Monday, numerous residents spoke, asking the board to add further restrictions to PRD development before approving the ordinance.

Adams resident William Been has been collecting signatures of affected residents who are opposed to PRDs.

“This whole thing cries for the end of the PRD in Adams Township,” Been said. “The number of signatures that we’ve gotten from people in the RC zone area (show they) don’t want anything to do with half-acre lots or PRDs.”

He also raised concerns about traffic issues.

“How in the world can you ignore the cumulative traffic of the PRDs?” he asked. “We have a traffic situation that is impacting everyone’s quality of life.”

Others raised concerns about the open space in Adams Township and the need to maintain the area’s rural look and feel.

“I, like my neighbors, think it’s a bad idea. I don’t see an end to it until there is no open space,” said Phillip Miller. “Who thinks the PRDs is a good idea for Adams?”

Supervisor Tom Franceschina said he does.

“We have more leverage with a PRD than without,” he said. “The density is actually less with the PRD than it is with conventional (zoning).”

He argued that the damage and density that residents have complained about would not go away and might get worse without allowing for PRDs in Adams, which he said allows the township to have more control over what developers can do with the land.

Several residents pushed back saying that developers would not be interested in the first place were it not for the PRD option.

When no one else wished to speak, public comment closed and the meeting continued, eventually reaching the vote for the PRD ordinance.

“It’s an ongoing process, and the planning commission will continue to look at it.” Franceschina said.

With that, he made a motion to approve it.

Ford spoke against the ordinance before making his vote, recommending the supervisors take some more time to revise the plan and gather further public input.

“I don’t feel that, after talking to a lot of the people involved in this, there was enough time for public comment, and I for one am willing to throw it back to the planning commission and open back up the dialogue,” he said. “We’re not going to make everybody happy, but I’m not comfortable approving it at this time.”

The other three supervisors disagreed, and the ordinance passed, 3-1.

“We’re disappointed they weren’t able to continue to work on it in the immediate term,” said Rob Crouthamel, local resident and founding member of Saving Rural Adams. “Mr. Franceschina made some good points about how reverting to the old ordinance wouldn’t necessarily be better. I don’t think that’s a very good reason to approve an ordinance that has substantial flaws.”

He said his group will continue to push for further restrictions on PRDs and high density development in the months to come.

“It needs more work,” Crouthamel said. “Honestly, it needed more time spent on it.”

In other business, the board approved an oil and gas compression station draft ordinance, which seeks to regulate the use and positioning of oil and gas compression stations.

Station sites will now have to be a minimum of 10 acres and cannot be closer than 1,320 feet from a school or dwelling without a waiver signed by the property owner.

Compressor stations must be fully enclosed in buildings and noise must be kept below 61 decibels.

The ordinance also amends rules regulating natural gas processing plants including similar regulations on sound and safety.

Minimum site size for these plants will be 15 acres, and all principal buildings and accessory structures will have to be set back at least 100 feet from any other property in the industrial district.

Principal buildings and accessory structures will have to be set back at least 500 feet from any property line that adjoins any other zoning district.