Final

Report

Evaluating and Cataloging Municipal

Environmental Protection Ordinances in
Allegheny County

Prepared by
Carnegie Mellon University Management Consulting Team
Frank Gao, Ginny Pan, Daniel Peppler, Yating Tian
Date: 28th November 2017
Roy Kraynyk

Allegheny Land Trust

416 Thorn St.
Sewickley, PA 15143

November 28, 2017

Dear Mr. Kraynyk,

We have completed the project of “Evaluating and Cataloging Municipal Environmental Protection Ordinance in
Allegheny County”, and are now pleased to present our final report to Allegheny Land Trust (ALT). This letter
and enclosed report describe our problem definition, methodology, findings and implications of this
engagement.

We truly appreciate the cooperation and support on the part of your staff in bringing the project to a successful
completion. We especially want to thank Ms. Alyson Fearon and you for your exceptional and continuous
support throughout the project.

We, the Carnegie Mellon Consulting Team, are glad to offer our expertise and we look forward to working with
Allegheny Land Trust (ALT) again in the future. If you have any questions or concern, please do not hesitate to
contact us.

Sincerely,

Carnegie Mellon Consulting Team

Frank Gao Daniel Peppler

Ginny Pan Yating Tian

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2

Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 2

Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Implications ................................................................................................................................... 9

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................12

References ................................................................................................................................... 14

Appendices ...................................................................................................................................15
 Executive Summary
This final report is one of the deliverable of the project “Evaluating and Cataloging Municipal
Environmental Protection Ordinance in Allegheny County”. The consulting partnership was between
Allegheny Land Trust and Carnegie Mellon University Management Consulting Team.

Allegheny Land Trust is a non-profit organization established in 1993 that aims to protect the land and
natural beauty in Allegheny County. The goal of project is to develop a database that systematically
evaluates and catalogues the different environmental protection ordinances for municipalities in the
county. The project is conducted through four phases:

• Phase 1: Data gathering

• Phase 2: Evaluation criteria development
• Phase 3: Data analysis
• Phase 4: Implication summary

The evaluation of ordinances is based on five keywords: Setback, Steep Slope, Tree Protection and
Vegetation, Floodplain and Greenway. We constructed a database that contains all extracted data,
score and ranking for all municipalities. In total, 88 municipalities and 1 county are evaluated and
ranked. Among the ordinances of 88 municipalities, 36 of them are categorized as strong, 36 of them
are categorized as standard and 16 are categorized as weak based on total score. To visualize the
score and the ranking, we also mapped the data onto an interactive map using Tableau. This map
can be used as the Geographical Information System for the organization in the future.

We identified a set of best practices by summarizing the highest scored ordinance of all five
keywords. These best practices could be used for educational purpose by ALT. We also compared
City of Pittsburgh (rank 75th) with Allegheny County based on overall score and score by keyword to
provide deeper insights.

Going forward, the ALT team will be able to further update the database as codes change, to use it as
an informational tool for the lower ranked municipalities, and to use it to help enforce the codes during
development in Allegheny County.

1
 Introduction
Allegheny Land Trust is an independent non-profit that has been serving the Pittsburgh area since
1993. In that time, the Allegheny Land Trust (ALT) has protected over 2,000 acres of land with the
goal of reducing overflows and flooding as well as protecting the natural beauty of the region. Their
protected green spaces highlight not only the charm of the environment in Allegheny County but also
enhance property value and provide recreation areas for this and many generations to follow.

The ALT’s mission is threefold: to purchase land for conservation, to educate citizens about the
environment and natural history, and to investigate the applicable municipal ordinances regarding
environmental protection. The ALT has a lot of volunteers but a limited number of full-time
employees. Therefore, they must prioritize their projects and investigations to best utilize their
resources.

The Carnegie Mellon University management consulting team collaborates with ALT to develop a
database that systematically evaluates and catalogues the different environmental protection
ordinances by municipality in Allegheny County.

Our team partners with the Allegheny Land Trust to help further their investigation into the
environmental protection ordinances in Municipalities throughout the county. Since the responsibility
for these measures is delegated to the municipal level, the legislative environmental protection acts
are different from town to town. By developing the database that we proposed, the ALT can use our
findings as a benchmarking tool to educate the areas that may have limited protection ordinances and
as an enforcement tool, to make sure the strong legislation in other municipalities is not overlooked.

The CMU consulting team carried out this project with the following objectives:
1. Data gathering
2. Evaluation criteria development
3. Data analysis
4. Implication summary

Methodology
The methodologies of this engagement have been organized by objectives.

1. Data Gathering
In Phase 1, we gathered data from a number of sources. eCode360® Library is the primary source
where we extracted the publicly available environmental protection ordinances of 66 municipalities
and Allegheny County. We used Municode Library to extract the ordinance of City of Pittsburgh.
2
We also referenced “Allegheny County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO): 7
Status of Municipal Land Use Regulations” (Appendix A) for 29 municipalities without municipal
SALDO that follows the County’s standard.

1.1 Selection of Keywords

Evaluation of ordinance is conducted by scanning through the text and searching for keywords.
According to suggestions from Allegheny Land Trust and other research, we figured out the following
five keywords that are of vital importance to evaluate the environment protection ordinance of a
municipality.
• Setback (stream / watercourse / wetland setbacks)
• Steep Slope
• Tree Protection and Vegetation
• Floodplain
• Greenway

Here is a list of other keywords that have been discussed during the project, however, found out to be
unmeasurable or incomparable in municipal ordinances. These keywords are not included in this
evaluation.
• Hillside
• Buffer
• Performance Zoning
• Natural Resources
• Environment Sensitivity

1.2 Data Extraction

Relevant data was searched and extracted from various sources and consolidated into a chart that
holds the value for all municipalities and keywords. The name of municipality or county, description of
ordinance, numerical value and URL are documented. Figure 1 shows an example of ordinance of
Setback for Allegheny County.

Figure 1. Data consolidation table

• Retrieval of Numeric Value. We use the keywords as our parameters. For each municipality,
we retrieve numeric value for each keyword. For example, the Allegheny County code 780-505
Protection of watercourses and wetlands states “the minimum setback for watercourses shall

3
 be 50 feet, measured from the top of the channel bank”. Therefore, the value recorded for
watercourses setback will be 50 feet.

• Standardization of Term and Units. In order to make comparison, we come up with a

standardized parameter term and unit. For example, the “watercourse setback” in Allegheny
County code, and the “stream setback” in the Township of Aleppo code refer to the same
concept. Also, the unit for protection of steep slope will be percentage (%), and the unit for
protection of setback is feet. We remain consistent for the unit of different parameters.

2. Evaluation Criteria Development

The evaluation criteria are used to quantify the quality of the environmental protection ordinances in
each municipality. It is essential to help us make judgements among ordinances and categorize them
as Strong, Standard and Weak ordinance. This is to provide ALT with an insight about the good
practice of conservation protection legislation in Allegheny County and help ALT adopt the paradigm
for education and implementation in municipalities which need better legislation in place.

2.1 Determine keywords scope

Through weekly update communication with ALT, we specified the scope and the
measurement for each keyword. We ensured that any information captured is within the scope.

2.2 Define scoring criteria for each keyword

Different level of performance (from weak to strong) should be specified and assigned a score
from 1 to 5.

2.3 Assign weightage to each keyword

Different parameter might have different weightage in the evaluation system. The weightage is
determined through communications with ALT. However, the weightage is left flexible in the
database for future adjustments.

3. Data Analysis
Data analysis involves the following processes from the chart obtained from Data Extraction.

3.1 Handle missing values

According to our research, some municipalities do not contain all the keywords we need for
evaluation. We label the missing values as “N/A” in the database and account for that in the
criteria as the lowest scored metric (score 1).

3.2 Compute scores and ranking

The score for each keyword and the total score is computed for all municipalities. They are
then given a ranking among all municipalities based on the total score. Allegheny County is
included in the ranking as well because it is of our interest to learn the performance of the
county as well.

4
 3.3 Analyze score and ranking
We analyze the score and ranking and compute a scatter plot to illustrate the overall
performance of municipalities. We also conduct statistical analysis of scores.

3.4 Visualize data on map (GIS)

The total score of each municipality are reflected on an interactive map of Allegheny County
using Tableau.

4. Implication Summary
In this stage, we presented our recommendations and opportunities.

4.1 Identify best practices. In this stage, we identified the best practices among the
municipalities based on the findings in the data analysis stage. We selected the top
municipalities and summarize the strength of their environmental protection ordinances, which
can be used as a benchmark for future educational purposes.

4.2 Comparison between City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County

The City of Pittsburgh is the largest and the most densely populated municipality in the
Allegheny County. We conducted a comparison between Pittsburgh and the county for
valuable insights.

Findings
The findings of this project are aligned with the first three phases described in the methodology.
Besides, a list of final deliverables is included in Appendix B. These documents are delivered to
Allegheny Land Trust together with this Final Report.

1. Keywords and Criteria

The criteria are used for scoring of each keyword. It consists of the following four parts for each
keyword.
• Rationale: Why is the keyword included
• Measurement: How is the keyword measured (unit included if numerical)
• Metric: What is the criterion for each level of performance
• Score: What is the score for each level of performance

5
Overall Description
How the ordinances play the role in assessing municipal regulations towards environmental protection.

1. Stream / Watercourse / Waterfront Setback, Wetland Setback (25%)

Rationale: To measure how well municipalities use setback restriction to protect land use
Measurement: Minimum setback for construction measured in feet
1.1 Minimum Setback (60%)
Metric Not included 20 feet 25 feet 50 feet greater than 50 feet
Score 1 2 3 4 5
1.2 Wetland Setback (30%)
10 feet (< 1 acre)
20 feet (>= 1 25 feet (< 1 acre)
Metric Not included acre) 50 feet (>= 1 acre)
Score 1 3 5
1.3 Number of Additional Regulations (10%)
Metric Not included one greater than one
Score 1 3 5

2. Steep Slope and Hillside (30%)

Rationale: To measure how well municipalities value land use on steep slope. (The smaller the slope, the
larger the area of land protected.)
Measurement: Starting (minimum) percentage of slope grade that a restriction is imposed for land use
Metric greater than 40% 40% to 33% 33% to 25% 25% to 15% less than 15%
Score 1 2 3 4 5

3. Tree Protection and Vegetation (10%)

Rationale: To measure how well municipalities protect trees
Measurement: The Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) in inches of trees under which a restriction is imposed
for tree removal

12 inches to 20
DBH protection greater than 20 12 inches to 20 inches with other
Metric not included inches inches protections less than 12 inches
Score 1 2 3 4 5

4. Floodplain (17.5%)
Rationale: To measure the awareness of municipalities on how floodplain influence the environment.
Measurement: To which extent the keyword "Floodplain" is contained in the municipal ordinances.

Activities Permission Required

Prohibited in General with dedicated
Metric Not included Clearly Defined surrounding area Protection Floodplain Administrator
Score 1 2 3 4 5

5. Greenway (17.5%)
Rationale: To measure the awareness of municipalities on how greenway influence the environment.
Measurement: To which extent the keyword "Greenway" is included in the ordinances and its strength.
Included in
Conservation
Documented in Design / Permission
Meetings / Comprehensive Design Protection /
Metric Not included Clearly Defined Plan Standards Preservation enforced
Score 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 2. Scoring Criteria

6
2. Score & Ranking
To illustrate the performance of code of each municipality, we calculate the score based on the five
keywords described above and scoring criteria we developed. A full list of score and ranking
summary is included in Appendix C. The final result shows that Township of Collier ranks first with
score 4.75. The rest of the top 5 municipalities in total score are Borough of Millvale, Borough of
Bellevue, Borough of Ben Avon and Township of Moon. It is worth mentioning that Allegheny County
ranks 13th and City of Pittsburgh ranks 75th.

Ranking Municipalities Score

1 Township of Collier 4.75

2 Borough of Millvale 4.45

3 Borough of Bellevue 4.275

3 Borough of Ben Avon 4.275

5 Township of Moon 4.225

Figure 3. Top 5 in Total Score

Figure 4 displays the top 5 municipalities of each category. Without showing full detail here, there are
30 municipalities with same highest score in “setback”, 49 in “steep slope”, 16 in “tree protection and
vegetation” and 48 in “floodplain”. To pick the top 5 municipalities in each category, we choose total
score ranking as the second sorting criteria. Borough of Millvale ranks the first in “setback” and
Township of Collier ranks the first in other keywords.

Tree Protection
Setback Steep Slope and Vegetation Floodplain Greenway

1 Borough of 1 Township of 1 Township of 1 Township of 1 Township of

Millvale Collier Collier Collier Collier

2 Borough of 2 Borough of 2 Borough of 2 Borough of 2 Borough of

Bellevue Millvale Millvale Millvale Franklin Park

2 Borough of Ben 3 Borough of 3 Borough of 3 Borough of 3 Borough of

Avon Bellevue Bellevue Bellevue Oakmont

4 Borough of East 3 Borough of Ben 3 Borough of Ben 3 Borough of 4 Borough of

McKeesport Avon Avon Ben Avon Millvale

4 Borough of 5 Borough of East 5 Township of 5 Township of 5 Borough of

Dravosburg McKeesport Moon Moon Fox Chapel

Figure 4. Top 5 per keyword

7
According to a normal distribution, scores below 2.6 are in the first quartile, scores between 2.6 and 3
are in the second quartile, scores between 3 and 3.45 are in the third quartile and scores above 3.45
are in the fourth quartile. Therefore, we define that a municipality has a strong performance if it
scores above 3.45, a standard performance if it scores between 2.6 and 3.45, and a weak
performance if it scores below 2.6. Among the ordinances of 88 municipalities, 36 of them are strong,
36 of them are standard and 16 are weak in terms of environmental protection. Allegheny County,
with a score of 3.45, has a strong performance in general. Figure 5 is a scatter plot describing the
relationship between score and ranking over each municipality. There is a “platform” in green color
representing the municipalities that do not have SALDO and follow the county’s standard. A list of
municipalities that has been included in and excluded from this project can be found in Appendix D.

Figure 5. Overall performance scatter plot

Figure 6 shows the score status of each keyword. “Steep slope” has the highest number of
municipalities that score 5, while “stream setbacks” has the highest number of municipalities that
score 1. Therefore, “steep slope” is mentioned most frequently, and “stream setbacks” is mentioned
least frequently.

8
 Figure 6. Histogram of the number of municipalities in different grading category

3. Geographic Plot
88 municipalities are plotted onto map of Allegheny County (Figure 7) using an orange-blue color
scale, indicating the total composite score of the municipality. The orange color indicates the lower
scores (weak municipalities), while the blue color indicates higher scores (stronger municipalities).
This gives a clear visualization about the distribution of the municipalities’ geographical locations as
well as their composite scores.

The map can be generalized to a larger number of municipalities if additional data points are
available. We wrote a Python program (see sample code in Appendix E) to extract the longitude and
latitude of each municipality. The longitudes and latitudes are used to plot each municipality on the
map using Tableau. The data can also be mapped onto other GIS (geographical information
systems).

Figure 7. Geographic plot of scoring

Implications
1. Benchmarking Keywords
After computing scores and rankings, we identify best practices by selecting the highest scored
ordinance (or chapter of ordinance) for each keyword. The highest score is 4.2 for Stream /

9
Watercourse Setback and 5 for the other four keywords. These best practices could be used for
educational purpose by Allegheny Land Trust.

1.1 Setback/Watercourse Setback

County Allegheny County

County “Setback or open space easement required. No grading, cutting, filling, removal of
Ordinance vegetation, or other disturbance of land shall be permitted within the required setback.
(1) The minimum setback for watercourses shall be 50 feet, measured from the top of the
channel bank. In addition, land development involving the construction of new buildings shall
not be permitted within 100 feet of the top of the bank of the Allegheny, Monongahela, Ohio
or Youghiogheny Rivers.
The setback for wetlands shall be as follows:
(a) Determination of setback area:
[1] Wetlands one acre and over: fifty-foot setback depth, times the perimeter of the wetland
(measured in lineal feet), equals the minimum setback area.
(b) Distribution of the required setback area shall be either:
[1] At the uniform setback depth from the delineated edge of the wetland; or
[2] At a variable setback depth, based on a wetland management plan prepared by a
certified professional wetlands biologist. In no case, however, shall the setback be less than
10 feet from the delineated edge of a wetland less than acre in extent or 20 feet from the
delineated edge of a wetland one acre or more in extent.”

1.2 Steep slope

Municipality Borough of Edgewood

Ordinance “Slopes. In areas of slopes (i.e., those over 8%), the following standards shall apply:
(1) 8% to 15% slopes. No more than 60% of such areas shall be developed and/or re-graded
or stripped of vegetation.
(2) 15% to 25% slopes. No more than 40% of such areas shall be developed and/or re-
graded or stripped of vegetation.
(3) 25% or greater slopes. No more than 20% of such areas shall be developed and/or re-
graded or stripped of vegetation.
(4) Slopes in excess of 40% shall not be disturbed.”

1.3 Tree protection and vegetation

Municipality Township of Collier

Ordinance “Trees are considered “mature” when the diameter at breast height (DBH) is greater
(summary) than 6 inches. Any mature tree that a developer would try to remove would need to meet
specific criteria (ex. potential safety hazard) and even then only after proving that no more-
desirable layouts are possible would the tree be removed. Also, special considerations are
given to “specimen trees” and “ecologically significant vegetation”.”

1.4 Floodplain

10
 Municipality Borough of Bridgeville

Ordinance “Permits Required.

A permit shall be required before any construction or development is undertaken within any
area of the Borough.
Duties and Responsibilities of Floodplain Administrator:
1. The Floodplain Administrator shall issue a permit only after it has been determined that
the proposed work to be undertaken will be in conformance with the requirements of this
and all other applicable codes and ordinances.”

1.5 Greenway
Municipality Township of Collier (Overall Rank #1 )

Ordinance “Permanent Protection of Greenway Land.

Conservation Easements. Prior to final approval of any conservation subdivision in the
Township, the landowner and the Township (or a qualified land trust acceptable to the
Township) shall execute a conservation easement that protects the greenway land in
perpetuity from further subdivision or development.”

2. Discussion of Pittsburgh and the county

Our initial search through eCode360® did not return any results for the City of Pittsburgh. As
Pittsburgh is the county seat and largest city in the county, ALT was particularly interested in their
environmental protection ordinances. Another search found the ordinances though a different data
source and once we integrated them into our table and ranking system we found that Pittsburgh
ranked 75th out of the 89 municipalities that we found data for. Our ranking system weighed the
“setback” keyword most heavily on recommendations from the ALT team. Since the Pittsburgh
ordinances did not mention any of our targeted keywords for this category it got the lowest possible
score, greatly contributing to its low total score and ranking. It is possible that the dense nature of the
city limits the ability to set development back far enough to have earned a high score. It is worth
noting, however, the good scores for limiting steep slope development and tree and vegetation
protection within the city.

Figure 8. Comparison of Allegheny County and City of Pittsburgh

11
The ordinances for Allegheny County were much more important than our team initially realized. After
a discussion with the ALT team, we learned that municipalities that do not have their own Subdivision
and Land Development Ordinances (SALDO) would the default to the county codes. Bill McLain from
the Allegheny County Economic Development Planning Division sent us a list (Appendix A) of the
municipalities that do not have their own SALDO so we could incorporate this into our findings. It is
important to note that a few municipalities on the no-SALDO list have

Figure 9. Performance scatter plot

environmental protection language elsewhere in their ordinances and if that language was stronger
than the county SALDO, we would keep the higher score for our rankings. This is how a few
municipalities on the no-SALDO list score higher than the county itself. Despite the fact that the
county only scored 2 out of 5 on three of our categories, it received the highest score for the two
keywords we assigned the highest weight to; “setback” and “steep slope.” This is what contributed to
its high overall score and ranking of 13 out of 89.

Conclusion
Our primary goal during our engagement with the Allegheny Land Trust was to systematically
catalogue and rank the municipal environmental protection ordinances throughout Allegheny County.
Using our keyword-based data search and weighted scoring system we were able to deliver a
database with the relevant sections of municipal code, the scoring criteria for each category, and the
overall rankings of ordinances. Going forward the ALT team will be able to further update this

12
document as codes change, to use it as an informational tool for the lower ranked municipalities, and
to use it to help enforce the codes during development in Allegheny County.

During our initial meeting, the ALT team also described how they would eventually use this database
as a way to create a visual map of the county, displaying the ranking of municipalities in a visual and
easy to understand manner. We are very pleased to say they we were able to complete this for the
ALT team in a format they can use going forward for further cataloging and educational purposes.

As a small, independent non-profit, the Allegheny Land Trust is fulfilling a vital role for Pittsburgh and
the surrounding area while operating with somewhat limited resources. The Carnegie Mellon
consulting team has been honored to work with the Allegheny Land Trust over the course of this
project and we are grateful for all of their help. It is our most sincere hope that our work can help the
ALT team pursue their mission of protecting our region's natural environment through conservation
and educational efforts.

13
 References
Ecode360® Library (2016). eCode360® Library : The Best User Experience | General Code.
Retrieved November 27, 2017 from http://www.generalcode.com/resources/ecode360-library/#PA

City of Pittsburgh (2017). | Code of Ordinances | Pittsburgh, PA | Municode Library. Retrieved

November 27, 2017 from https://library.municode.com/pa/pittsburgh/codes/code_of_ordinances

14
 Appendices
Appendix A - SALDO List

Figure 10. SALDO List

15
Appendix B - List of Final Deliverables

Description Format Hardcopy Softcopy

Final Report Microsoft Word ✓ ✓

Database Microsoft Excel ✓
• Criteria Definition
• Data & Score
• Score & Ranking Summary
Interactive Map Tableau ✓
Dashboard

16
Appendix C – Scores & Rankings

Figure 11. Rankings and Scores

Remarks: Municipalities highlighted in light green follows the SALDO of Allegheny County. These
municipalities has at least the same score as the County, some keywords may achieve higher score if
municipal codes state higher standard.

17
Figure 12. Rankings and Scores (continued)

18
Appendix D - List of included and excluded municipalities

Figure 13. List of included and excluded municipalities

19
Appendix E - Sample Python code for extracting longitude and latitude of municipalities

Steps to run the Python code to get the longitude and latitude:
1. Change the input and output paths
2. Replace the API key if needed (the one shown in the code should work)
3. Run the code
4. See the results in the output CSV file

Figure 14. Sample Python code

Figure 15. Sample input file

20
Figure 16. Sample output file

21