Cranberry Township supervisors again continued their consideration of a zoning amendment for a month in light of feedback from residents.

At Thursday's virtual meeting, the Cranberry supervisors continued until March 25 its consideration of the Missing Middle Housing, or MMH, overlay district, which is intended to create areas in which developers can build houses for young professionals and those starting their families.

“We wanted you all to be aware that staff has heard from a number of residents regarding the proposed Missing Middle Housing ordinance, and we reached out to all of them and offered to meet with them individually,” Ron Henshaw, township director of planning and development, said. “We've met with many of those residents and had discussions, which have been very productive.”

Henshaw recommended the supervisors continue the voting on the proposal for another month, which the board later did.

In addition to the meetings with residents the township held since it first considered the amendment in January, residents added to their comments Thursday.

“It's too broad,” Arthur Parness said. “I just heard Ron Henshaw say many of the zoning sections that we have now, it doesn't fit, and I would add it doesn't belong. It's inconsistent with what we have set up.”

Parness suggested he supports the idea of the MMH overlay district, but doesn't necessarily support the way it's currently proposed.

“I welcome these people,” he said. “The unfortunate part is the price of lumber and the price of land, of what workers need to get paid, has gotten so crazy that if they even want to attempt to get here in 2021 or 2022 and they want a small townhome of 2,000 square feet, they're going to be paying upwards of over $400,000.”

Other speakers said they worry about whether the growth would be detrimental. Deborah Cooper said she is concerned about traffic if Cranberry grows to 50,000 residents by 2030, a possible outcome in the township's comprehensive plan.

John Scarfutti said he is concerned whether the growth itself would be sustainable.

“What I worry is that we're artificially forcing ourselves to get (to 50,000 residents by 2030) by increasing the density, not considering what the market will bear, what the new world of having coronavirus causing more people to telecommute and, therefore, not need to relocate to suburban areas like Cranberry,” he said, adding a number of empty houses in high-density residential developments would make the town look more like Monroeville than Cranberry.

Another resident, Andy Shegog, aired a concern future developments in an MMH overlay zone would change the township's aesthetics. “I think some of these things will be totally out of place in parts of Cranberry, and I think a good example of a development being out of place is the Meeder development,” he said. “(It) just looks totally out of place to me. And if something like that were built across the road from where I currently live, I would seriously, seriously consider leaving the area.”

Some speakers voiced support for the MMH overlay. Rebecca Prible said she supports more affordable housing units in Cranberry, saying workers were looking for units such as luxury apartments — apartment buildings are not included in the current proposal — when Westinghouse came to the area a decade ago.

“As a former educator and mother of young children, I do continue to have concerns about the strain on the local school district,” she added. “However, I do believe, overall, the pros of this are really going to outweigh the concerns.”

Dave Graham said he had concerns similar to Shegog's when apartment buildings were constructed near his farm, but the actual construction of the buildings assuaged his fears.

“I have to give my compliments to Cranberry Township for assuring that would be built with a plan, built nice and they were pleasing to look at, and the residents of those apartments have been very good neighbors,” he said. “I feel Cranberry Township would make sure that any new housing anywhere in the township would be held to the same standard, to come out nice.”

Supervisors tried to assuage some of the residents' worries and ensured their opinions would be heard. Chairman Dick Hadley said the projection of 50,000 residents in 2030 was one of three scenarios considered in 2009, when the comprehensive plan was made.

“It's not a goal to get to 50,000. There's no way, we may be at 40,000 by 2030, but we're preparing for that, of the things that we need to do and how we're going to get there,” he said.

“What we're trying to accomplish here, sort of across the board, is to try to provide a balance in the housing stock that's available at the moment to meet the market demand,” he said.