Millcreek Township » So where does Millcreek stand on stricter building standards? Good question.
The east-side burb remained intractably divided Monday as more than 100 residents crowded a Millcreek Planning Commission hearing to decide whether new building codes -- meant to keep so-called "monster homes" from disrupting neighborhoods -- would do their township good.
But many residents agreed only on this: that the Planning Commission should rethink its proposed restrictions. They simply won't do.
Why? Because they're too strict, some say. Because they're too lenient, others counter.
It's a split in public opinion that has persisted for nearly two years, generating hundreds of e-mails and packing public forums as this unincorporated township of 65,000 people decides the future of long-term development.
"I don't want to tell people they can't build," explains East Millcreek resident Jeff Hall, who argues for more stringent standards. "But at the same time, I don't want them to build something so big that I can't enjoy my home. Fair enough?"
But while Hall hopes the ordinance will prevent property owners from building the kind of behemoth that now towers over his home and sometimes produces an irritating afternoon glare, Canyon Rim residents Kevin and Nichole Chisholm fear that the new restrictions will keep young families with children from replenishing their community.
"It stops families like us from being able to have the room to raise our children," said Nichole Chisholm, a mother of five who, with her husband, added a second floor to her 1,800-square-foot Millcreek house. "We have every right to build a home to accommodate our family."
That division -- dormant for months last year while planners drafted new building restrictions -- resurfaced early this year with the release of those standards. Nowhere was that more evident than in a February Planning Commission meeting when two of the township's four community councils opposed the rules.
That continued chasm within Millcreek has proven disheartening, and sometimes frustrating, for planners. It even prompted a recent exchange between Planning Commission Chairman Gary Sackett and a Canyon Rim Community Council representative.
"Yes, we want change," Canyon Rim Councilman Anthony Godfrey told the commission in February, noting his council's opposition. "Yes, something has to happen, but not this particular ordinance."
Sackett snapped back that too many people offer criticism, but too few specific suggestions, "We have been all around the barn [looking for] alternatives," Sackett said. "If you don't like this one, it is time for me to resign."
Despite the difficulty in finding common ground, the Planning Commission remains committed to revised building standards.
"We have got to do something," Planning Commissioner Leslie Van Frank said.
