A little-noticed provision in the state's new slot machines bill prevents cities that host casinos from enforcing their own, local guidelines on traffic control, building design and other traditional zoning and planning matters.

The main reason for the zoning prohibition is money.

The purpose of the slots bill is to make as much dough as quickly as possible for both state and local government coffers, said Gary Tuma, spokesman for Sen. Vincent Fumo, D-Philadelphia, a key slots supporter. Haggling over zoning and planning requirements takes time and could put a speed bump in the way of collecting gambling revenues.

City officials can comment on zoning matters before the seven-member state gaming commission approves a casino site, but after that approval, the casino "shall not be prohibited or otherwise regulated" by any local zoning ordinances according to the new law.

"The state, of course, is relying on these limited numbers of slot venues to produce $1 billion of revenue for property tax relief and smaller amounts for other purposes. The gaming board needed flexibility to make decisions about the placement of those parlors where they could maximize revenue," Tuma said.

In Pittsburgh, the gauntlet of zoning and planning approvals required for new buildings can include its impact on local traffic; the size, placement and illumination of its signs; hours of operation; public comment by adjacent property owners and residents; construction materials; and even whether developers are planting trees on their sidewalks.

Casinos will not have to follow those rules, though nothing bars them from working, strictly voluntarily, with city planners.

Clearly, the rules also are meant to keep gambling opponents from gumming up the works with long zoning battles, which can be appealed through state courts.

The rules also will keep local government leaders, who control zoning boards, from wresting some control of casinos away from the governor and the party leaders in the House and Senate, who name the members of the state gaming commission.

Zoning is a powerful behind-the-scenes tool. If Mayor Tom Murphy, who appoints Pittsburgh's Zoning Board of Adjustment and its Planning Commission, does not approve of a development, he can pressure his appointees to hold it up.

If he does approve of a plan, the boards will usually approve it: Murphy supported a racetrack and casino proposed in Hays, for instance, and the Planning Commission approved it in November, over opposition from neighbors.

The slots bill contains some planning-related safeguards. It bars state and local government agencies from seizing properties for casinos using eminent domain.

Cities also get a 60-day comment period to give the gaming commission recommendations on planning, zoning and other concerns before the commission votes on casino approval.

Host municipalities also will be in line for 2 percent of casino revenues, with another 2 percent going to host counties.

"If there are concerns about a particular location or the impact of a venue on a particular neighborhood, there is going to be money available to address those concerns," Tuma said.

The slots bill, signed into law July 5, allows up to 61,000 machines at 14 sites statewide: at four existing tracks; two tracks already in development in Erie and Chester; one future harness track; two stand-alone casinos in Philadelphia, one stand-alone casino in Pittsburgh; two stand-alone casinos at undetermined locations; and two hotel casinos.

The zoning issues affect Pittsburgh and other cities that currently do not have race tracks more than cities already hosting gambling facilities. The Meadows in North Strabane, Washington County, predated local zoning rules and local officials are cooperating with track officials to start slots by next summer, said Frank Siffrin, the township's manager.

In tiny East Hanover, Dauphin County, local officials are more worried about paying for public safety and road infrastructure needs at the Penn National track there. The township has no police force, volunteer firefighters or medics, and only a two-lane road leading to the track.

Under the slots legislation, municipalities can make only half of their yearly operating budget from casinos they host: since East Hanover's last budget was $1.8 million, it cannot earn more than $900,000 from the new slots site.

"No one's talked about this [zoning] issue. Most of our focus has been on the budget end of it," said Becki Oller, the township's facilitator.

Legislators could re-examine some of the issues when they return to session in late September.

Already there is talk about amendments barring legislators from owning parts of slots businesses [they can currently own 1 percent] and new language on zoning, budgets and other bureaucratic matters could be forwarded too.

State Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Stanton Heights, who once tried unsuccessfully to write casino regulations into Pittsburgh's zoning code, said the bill could be amended to give some voice to local planning concerns.

"It could be written in such a way that a community could not unilaterally stop slots" through zoning, said Ferlo, a slots supporter.

"I would have preferred to have seen that. I don't think casinos would be delayed a lot. There needs to be some process for legitimate criticism and critique of local zoning issues," he said.

The American Gaming Association, a pro-casino lobbying group based in Washington, D.C., does not keep a database on local zoning issues.

But their last nationwide survey in 2004 showed that of the 11 states allowing casinos, seven let local municipalities decide on hosting them. In Pennsylvania, that will be up to the state-appointed gaming commission.