Getting tired of reading about Zoning and Natural Gas ? Care for something more fanciful?
Then check the Faire Play website and learn about the strange buildings and fence along SR3029 between Fairdale and South Montrose.
Faire Play, Inc., a Pennsylvania company formed by role playing enthusiasts, is transforming an old barn and pasture into a unique recreational site. Their goal "is to create a medieval village that will serve as a venue for historical reenactment organizations, live action roleplaying (LARP) companies, performance groups and community events."
They purchased the property early in 2007 and held some events there in 2008. What kind of events and will they be private or public? Well, as they put it :
"We hope to hold two public events each year. These events will be on one weekend in the spring and one in the fall. One event will be a historically oriented medieval faire. This event will concentrate on displays, demonstrations and performances involving daily life, crafts, trades, military life and general history of the medieval time period. The second event will be a medieval fantasy faire, with emphasis on tales and stories in the tradition of King Arthur, Robin Hood and The Lord of the Rings. This event will include wizards, fairies, monsters and other mythical beings. Depending on how these events are received, we may expand the number of public weekends."
The website shows events planned for 2009 and has links for more information. I doubt that I'll become a medieval reenactor, but at least I'll know why all the cars are there on a nice weekend.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Why The NTC?
My last post discussed Township Alliances from an arm's length viewpoint, recalling experiences with the NTC four years ago and more recently on their zoning proposal. It's good background reading - an even-handed and polite treatment of alliances and the NTC. But the real question is why should we, or any township, be in the NTC?
Four years ago, the NTC spent 9 months developing a cell tower ordinance that was extremely lengthy and faulty. I spent about 9 days making a short effective ordinance incorporating the township preferences into the existing county tower ordinance. Much of what I wrote about my experiences tries to put a bland analytic face on that massive mismatch of effort and effect.
I think the zoning ordinance represents the same kind of massive waste of time (2 years) to produce another extremely lengthy and faulty document that, if enacted, will do more harm than good. And I've had to spend a lot more than 9 days commenting on it.
Because of substantial public outcry, the zoning ordinance was put on hold to be quietly revised and reintroduced later. In the interim, the consultant was kept busy developing a new Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SLADO) based on the county ordinance. If enacted, each town must have a planning commission of at least 3 people. So, the NTC members will need at least 27 new people for their commissions to do what the county commission does now with 9 members.
Is this really necessary? My last post suggested a county-township partnering that needs fewer people, uses existing technical talent, and keeps township decision authority. Why not explore that avenue more aggressively instead?
In fact, why have I not heard these or other strategy options discussed at NTC meetings? The meetings seem to be where a pre-determined action is put to a vote and agreed. The real deliberations appear to be conducted in "working group" or "executive" meetings - both of which exclude public presence or notice. Perhaps that is felt to be an efficient way to avoid messy public opinion; but it can lead to public outrage as occurred with zoning.
More importantly, the NTC by its actions and proceedings appears to be an obscure unaccountable layer of government between the towns and the county. It creates citizen distrust of local government. Do we really need a "layer" between town and county?
The NTC is supposed to facilitate getting state funding grants and more advantageous terms for multi-town purchases of equipment and services. That may be true; but can those advantages be obtained by other more flexible partnering arrangements as discussed in my earlier post?
Is the NTC willing or interested in addressing these questions? Can they offer good answers? Can they show clearly why a town should stay in the NTC?
If not, then township officials should put the questions to their residents and decide what is in their best interest.
Four years ago, the NTC spent 9 months developing a cell tower ordinance that was extremely lengthy and faulty. I spent about 9 days making a short effective ordinance incorporating the township preferences into the existing county tower ordinance. Much of what I wrote about my experiences tries to put a bland analytic face on that massive mismatch of effort and effect.
I think the zoning ordinance represents the same kind of massive waste of time (2 years) to produce another extremely lengthy and faulty document that, if enacted, will do more harm than good. And I've had to spend a lot more than 9 days commenting on it.
Because of substantial public outcry, the zoning ordinance was put on hold to be quietly revised and reintroduced later. In the interim, the consultant was kept busy developing a new Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SLADO) based on the county ordinance. If enacted, each town must have a planning commission of at least 3 people. So, the NTC members will need at least 27 new people for their commissions to do what the county commission does now with 9 members.
Is this really necessary? My last post suggested a county-township partnering that needs fewer people, uses existing technical talent, and keeps township decision authority. Why not explore that avenue more aggressively instead?
In fact, why have I not heard these or other strategy options discussed at NTC meetings? The meetings seem to be where a pre-determined action is put to a vote and agreed. The real deliberations appear to be conducted in "working group" or "executive" meetings - both of which exclude public presence or notice. Perhaps that is felt to be an efficient way to avoid messy public opinion; but it can lead to public outrage as occurred with zoning.
More importantly, the NTC by its actions and proceedings appears to be an obscure unaccountable layer of government between the towns and the county. It creates citizen distrust of local government. Do we really need a "layer" between town and county?
The NTC is supposed to facilitate getting state funding grants and more advantageous terms for multi-town purchases of equipment and services. That may be true; but can those advantages be obtained by other more flexible partnering arrangements as discussed in my earlier post?
Is the NTC willing or interested in addressing these questions? Can they offer good answers? Can they show clearly why a town should stay in the NTC?
If not, then township officials should put the questions to their residents and decide what is in their best interest.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Township Alliances - Unintended Consequences and Potentials
In the Fall of 2004, the Northern Tier Coalition ( NTC) proposed a Commercial Communications Facilities ordinance. The ordinance was long, ambiguous, and unnecessarily regulated desirable activities besides just the intended cellphone towers. With County support, I was able to draft a short ordinance based on an existing one to regulate the cell towers without undesirable impacts. The NTC listened and towns were given the option to follow the county ordinance, the short version, or the original proposal.
While the story had a happy ending The experience made me consider the reasons for township alliances and the unintended consequences of those good intentions. I put my thoughts in a short article for the Susquehanna Community Information Network which can be read here : Town Alliances and Citizens .
The current NTC Zoning ordinance reveals a serious gap between the desires of the citizens and the NTC ; a gap which many township officials are finding hard to bridge. So, using the article, I'll discuss some unintended consequences of these alliances and suggest improvements for town and county cooperation.
The unintended consequences include : 1) lack of public awareness of alliance issues and meetings; 2) scarcity of local volunteer expertise; 3) bureaucratic distancing between the alliance, the citizens, and even between township representatives.
Finally, citizen awareness and influence is enough outside this process that one could feel powerless or disenfranchised. Most rural citizens know their 3 town supervisors and 3 county commissioners by sight and vote for them directly. In an Alliance of 12 towns, decisions are made by 36 representatives; 33 of whom a citizen does not vote for and may not know. While each town may vote for each alliance proposal, there is a tendency to go along with the group; and the citizen is unlikely to be aware of the group, much less influencing it.
Insertion of an extra bureaucratic layer, especially a relatively unaccountable or low visibility one, is rarely good business management practice and much less so for government entities that need citizen involvement. It can lead to redundant effort, diffusion of talent, and weakening of the bond between citizens and officials.
A key reason for forming alliances is to obtain preferential treatment for funding grants. But the NTC Zoning experience indicates that our current use of the State's preferential funding policy can result in an alliance being perceived as an unaccountable regional governmental layer. So, how can we leverage state funding preferences without creating that extra layer?
Let's start with some goals to :
* Foster broad citizen visibility into and involvement with issues,
* Share the limited available expertise,
* Avoid redundant or overlapping studies or regulations, and
* Be flexible enough to accommodate differences in town priorities, population, and land area.
In a low population county, the best way to keep the public aware is by newspaper accounts, supplemented by direct mailings for critical issues. Unlike town meetings, county commissioner meetings are well attended with several reporters. Monthly reports at a commissioner meeting, would keep an important alliance issue in the newspapers and encourage public participation and discussion at township meetings.
Volunteers and experts could serve both county and towns. As an example, for land development ordinances and plans, Susquehanna County has a Planning Department and a Planning Commission with 9 members to serve 42,000 residents in 42 municipalities. This commission, perhaps augmented by a small number of township volunteers, could handle town subdivision cases as well as county ones. Their recommendations could be provided to the township for decision and action. Under this arrangement, a town might need 1 person as their planning liaison instead of 3 for a town planning commission. In a 10 town alliance, this would save at least 20 persons.
This county/town partnership seems preferable to the current NTC effort to develop and administer their unique Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance(SLADO). It centralizes and minimizes essential expertise and technical services, increases public visibility, and keeps decision making authority at the townships. It may even be eligible for state funding incentives.
Instead of static formal alliances like the NTC, incentives could be provided to towns and counties that form partnerships for specific limited objectives. Each partnership would include towns working on common objectives and would last only as long as the common objective required. For example, five towns might partner to get new road maintenance equipment and to share repair parts or services. Different towns might partner for a different objective. These flexible partnerships should have the same funding preferences now provided only to the more static alliances. There would be no need to continue beyond the stated objectives and , hence, no motivation to become a self-perpetuating bureaucratic layer. Flexible partnering and team competition for state funds is a close replica of industry teaming arrangements for large competitive contracts.
In addition to fostering more flexible partnering arrangements, there should be incentives for minimizing redundant efforts. Current state policy encourages townships and alliances to develop comprehensive plans that track their county plan. While this may be good policy for large rapidly growing counties, it seems wastefully redundant to incentivize multiple alliances and plans in a rural county like Susquehanna. Instead, towns which utilize existing county (or other town) ordinances could be given higher priority for grants, per the SLADO example above. This seems to fit the intent of current law and may need only an administrative policy change or re-interpretation. The result would reduce wasteful spending, develop a higher quality product by more efficient use of local expertise, and keep township decision authority. It might also curb the financial incentive to over-plan.
While these suggestions are offered for discussion, some of them could be acted upon by townships and counties under current law. Others might require administrative adjustments or legislation at the state level.
While the story had a happy ending The experience made me consider the reasons for township alliances and the unintended consequences of those good intentions. I put my thoughts in a short article for the Susquehanna Community Information Network which can be read here : Town Alliances and Citizens .
The current NTC Zoning ordinance reveals a serious gap between the desires of the citizens and the NTC ; a gap which many township officials are finding hard to bridge. So, using the article, I'll discuss some unintended consequences of these alliances and suggest improvements for town and county cooperation.
The unintended consequences include : 1) lack of public awareness of alliance issues and meetings; 2) scarcity of local volunteer expertise; 3) bureaucratic distancing between the alliance, the citizens, and even between township representatives.
Finally, citizen awareness and influence is enough outside this process that one could feel powerless or disenfranchised. Most rural citizens know their 3 town supervisors and 3 county commissioners by sight and vote for them directly. In an Alliance of 12 towns, decisions are made by 36 representatives; 33 of whom a citizen does not vote for and may not know. While each town may vote for each alliance proposal, there is a tendency to go along with the group; and the citizen is unlikely to be aware of the group, much less influencing it.
Insertion of an extra bureaucratic layer, especially a relatively unaccountable or low visibility one, is rarely good business management practice and much less so for government entities that need citizen involvement. It can lead to redundant effort, diffusion of talent, and weakening of the bond between citizens and officials.
A key reason for forming alliances is to obtain preferential treatment for funding grants. But the NTC Zoning experience indicates that our current use of the State's preferential funding policy can result in an alliance being perceived as an unaccountable regional governmental layer. So, how can we leverage state funding preferences without creating that extra layer?
Let's start with some goals to :
* Foster broad citizen visibility into and involvement with issues,
* Share the limited available expertise,
* Avoid redundant or overlapping studies or regulations, and
* Be flexible enough to accommodate differences in town priorities, population, and land area.
In a low population county, the best way to keep the public aware is by newspaper accounts, supplemented by direct mailings for critical issues. Unlike town meetings, county commissioner meetings are well attended with several reporters. Monthly reports at a commissioner meeting, would keep an important alliance issue in the newspapers and encourage public participation and discussion at township meetings.
Volunteers and experts could serve both county and towns. As an example, for land development ordinances and plans, Susquehanna County has a Planning Department and a Planning Commission with 9 members to serve 42,000 residents in 42 municipalities. This commission, perhaps augmented by a small number of township volunteers, could handle town subdivision cases as well as county ones. Their recommendations could be provided to the township for decision and action. Under this arrangement, a town might need 1 person as their planning liaison instead of 3 for a town planning commission. In a 10 town alliance, this would save at least 20 persons.
This county/town partnership seems preferable to the current NTC effort to develop and administer their unique Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance(SLADO). It centralizes and minimizes essential expertise and technical services, increases public visibility, and keeps decision making authority at the townships. It may even be eligible for state funding incentives.
Instead of static formal alliances like the NTC, incentives could be provided to towns and counties that form partnerships for specific limited objectives. Each partnership would include towns working on common objectives and would last only as long as the common objective required. For example, five towns might partner to get new road maintenance equipment and to share repair parts or services. Different towns might partner for a different objective. These flexible partnerships should have the same funding preferences now provided only to the more static alliances. There would be no need to continue beyond the stated objectives and , hence, no motivation to become a self-perpetuating bureaucratic layer. Flexible partnering and team competition for state funds is a close replica of industry teaming arrangements for large competitive contracts.
In addition to fostering more flexible partnering arrangements, there should be incentives for minimizing redundant efforts. Current state policy encourages townships and alliances to develop comprehensive plans that track their county plan. While this may be good policy for large rapidly growing counties, it seems wastefully redundant to incentivize multiple alliances and plans in a rural county like Susquehanna. Instead, towns which utilize existing county (or other town) ordinances could be given higher priority for grants, per the SLADO example above. This seems to fit the intent of current law and may need only an administrative policy change or re-interpretation. The result would reduce wasteful spending, develop a higher quality product by more efficient use of local expertise, and keep township decision authority. It might also curb the financial incentive to over-plan.
While these suggestions are offered for discussion, some of them could be acted upon by townships and counties under current law. Others might require administrative adjustments or legislation at the state level.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Natural Gas Summit - Local Government and Legal Tracks
I did not attend all the other tracks. Hopefully, Penn State will post the slides on the Natural Gas Summit conference website. Meanwhile, here are some notes from the Local Government and Legal tracks.
Impact on Local Roads :
A Local Government session was devoted to Road Impacts and conducted by Mr.Tim Ziegler of the Center for Dirt and Gravel Roads. The emphasis was very strongly on the need for having a Post and Bond Ordinance, the monitoring needed to determine damage, and the engineering required upfront to establish a legally solid base for the ordinance. It takes a 6 or more months to schedule the engineering, so advance planning is key. The handouts list publications and organizations that are useful, e.g. PennDOT Pub 221.
He recommended being proactive, getting an ordinance in place, and going to the gas companies early to negotiate on how they can help prevent or fix problems. It may be necessary to rebuild a road and the companies could help by putting in a stronger base before bringing in trucks. Get a properly signed Excessive Maintenance Agreement early and make it fit your needs. Then monitor the status of the roads and traffic.
During the discussion, we heard that Sullivan County was paying, or reimbursing their towns, for the P&B engineering studies. No other county seems to be doing that. Susquehanna County Commissioner Warren expressed interest in this and in determining what could be done to protect bridges which are a county responsibility.
Legal :
Lester Greevy, Esq., presented another version of a talk he has given at several Penn State sponsored meetings to educate people about gas leasing pitfalls and benefits. He gave several slides which may be available at other Penn State sites. He did make two significant new announcements. First, the gas companies are lobbying heavily to get Eminent Domain privileges for laying gas pipelines and are trying to trade that for going along with some of the other bills pending in the legislature. Second, there is a new Appalachia Chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners ( NARO) which can provide a useful forum for local landowners who have leases or are considering them.
Ross Pifer, Penn State Dickenson School of Law, discussed ten currently pending law cases. Several have to do with the constitutuonality of leases which reduce the state minimum 12.5% royalty by deducting expenses. The first such case was filed against Cabot by Susquehanna County residents and remains undecided. A key point is what is a suitable remedy - termination or reformation of the contract. The comments seem to indicate reformation is more likely but the terms are hard to determine - e.g. set new $ figures now when the prices are lower than last summer or at those higher numbers when the cases were filed.
Two key cases involve whether a town's zoning law could regulate gas drilling operations. The two County Courts ruled differently, but the Commonwealth Courts ruled in favor of the gas company in both cases saying that the State Oil and Gas Law preempted the zoning ordinance. However, other ordinance provisions which do not conflict with the O&G law may apply. A third case was initially resolved on that basis. The Supreme Court has heard arguments on appeal and a ruling is expected by next summer which may settle the issue of extent of preemption. Some other cases are pending on environmental aspects. A case is pending trail on the right of a gas company to establish a gas storage field under land in Bradford County using eminent domain pursuant to the Natural Gas Act, 15U.S.C. s 717f(h).
Legislative :
Rep. Garth Everett discussed the bills in the legislature. While none of these passed, all or most will be introduced again next session. Several bills address various forms of assessments, and severance or royalty taxes which the state could apply. Others seek to protect rights of surface owners and to clarify the rights of landowners by applying the Oil and Gas Conservation law to the Marcellus shale layer and preventing underground trespass by horizontal drilling ( Bill proponed by Reps. Major and Pickett). There is a bill proposed that would put PennDOT in charge of ensuring gas developers restore all roads used in gas development. This would would relieve small townships of the burden of dealing with gas developers and provide a single point of contact for the developers. There is another proposal to establish an independent commission to study all the Marcellus gas development issues and recommend legislation. This session gave the impression that it might take a long time to get the issues resolved.
Impact on Local Roads :
A Local Government session was devoted to Road Impacts and conducted by Mr.Tim Ziegler of the Center for Dirt and Gravel Roads. The emphasis was very strongly on the need for having a Post and Bond Ordinance, the monitoring needed to determine damage, and the engineering required upfront to establish a legally solid base for the ordinance. It takes a 6 or more months to schedule the engineering, so advance planning is key. The handouts list publications and organizations that are useful, e.g. PennDOT Pub 221.
He recommended being proactive, getting an ordinance in place, and going to the gas companies early to negotiate on how they can help prevent or fix problems. It may be necessary to rebuild a road and the companies could help by putting in a stronger base before bringing in trucks. Get a properly signed Excessive Maintenance Agreement early and make it fit your needs. Then monitor the status of the roads and traffic.
During the discussion, we heard that Sullivan County was paying, or reimbursing their towns, for the P&B engineering studies. No other county seems to be doing that. Susquehanna County Commissioner Warren expressed interest in this and in determining what could be done to protect bridges which are a county responsibility.
Legal :
Lester Greevy, Esq., presented another version of a talk he has given at several Penn State sponsored meetings to educate people about gas leasing pitfalls and benefits. He gave several slides which may be available at other Penn State sites. He did make two significant new announcements. First, the gas companies are lobbying heavily to get Eminent Domain privileges for laying gas pipelines and are trying to trade that for going along with some of the other bills pending in the legislature. Second, there is a new Appalachia Chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners ( NARO) which can provide a useful forum for local landowners who have leases or are considering them.
Ross Pifer, Penn State Dickenson School of Law, discussed ten currently pending law cases. Several have to do with the constitutuonality of leases which reduce the state minimum 12.5% royalty by deducting expenses. The first such case was filed against Cabot by Susquehanna County residents and remains undecided. A key point is what is a suitable remedy - termination or reformation of the contract. The comments seem to indicate reformation is more likely but the terms are hard to determine - e.g. set new $ figures now when the prices are lower than last summer or at those higher numbers when the cases were filed.
Two key cases involve whether a town's zoning law could regulate gas drilling operations. The two County Courts ruled differently, but the Commonwealth Courts ruled in favor of the gas company in both cases saying that the State Oil and Gas Law preempted the zoning ordinance. However, other ordinance provisions which do not conflict with the O&G law may apply. A third case was initially resolved on that basis. The Supreme Court has heard arguments on appeal and a ruling is expected by next summer which may settle the issue of extent of preemption. Some other cases are pending on environmental aspects. A case is pending trail on the right of a gas company to establish a gas storage field under land in Bradford County using eminent domain pursuant to the Natural Gas Act, 15U.S.C. s 717f(h).
Legislative :
Rep. Garth Everett discussed the bills in the legislature. While none of these passed, all or most will be introduced again next session. Several bills address various forms of assessments, and severance or royalty taxes which the state could apply. Others seek to protect rights of surface owners and to clarify the rights of landowners by applying the Oil and Gas Conservation law to the Marcellus shale layer and preventing underground trespass by horizontal drilling ( Bill proponed by Reps. Major and Pickett). There is a bill proposed that would put PennDOT in charge of ensuring gas developers restore all roads used in gas development. This would would relieve small townships of the burden of dealing with gas developers and provide a single point of contact for the developers. There is another proposal to establish an independent commission to study all the Marcellus gas development issues and recommend legislation. This session gave the impression that it might take a long time to get the issues resolved.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Penn State Natural Gas Summit - Key Presentations
I attended Penn State's first Natural Gas Summit last week (December 10-11) at State College. The web site shows the agenda and co-sponsors and, we were told, will eventually have copies of slides from the presentations. Penn State announced they would hold the conference annually.
The highlights were the kick-off talks by Terry Engelder and by John Pinkerton about the Marcellus Gas Shale Play and the dinner talk by John Matthews about experiences from the Barnett shale play in Texas. There were also separate tracks focused on legal, local government, workforce, and environment. I'll cover the legal and other tracks in another post.
Dr. Engelder is Professor of Geoscience at Penn State and has estimated the size of the Marcellus gas resources in the hundreds of trillion cubic feet (cf). Of course, those deposits underlie several states. In PA, the deposits seem best in a SW-NE corridor which includes Susquehanna County. He estimates recovery potential in the good areas at about 64 billion cf per section (1 sq mile) based on horizontal drilling techniques. This estimate is substantially higher than his earlier estimates and seems based on a few recent drilling data points; and he does hedge his estimates.
Mr. Pinkerton is the CEO of Range Resources, the company that has developed most of the novel drilling technology. Range Resources also has large leaseholds and several drilling operations in PA. He painted an optimistic picture of minimum environmental disruption and large potential revenues if the producers were not regulated out of profitable drilling. One example showed a single wellhead with 6 horizontal lines draining a 500 acre parcel. Other estimates indicated more lines or pads, depending on the rock structure which can force a shortening of the horizontal lines. Estimates of line length ranged from 2000 to 4000 feet. He projected that they would drill 250 horizontal wells in 2009 (up from 50 in 2008) in PA and that company investments would shift from 75% leasing to 75% drilling. With the decline of natural gas prices from $9/mcf to $6/mcf (m = thousand), we should expect lower rental/bonus prices in 2009 as well as fewer lease offers.
Before discussing the dinner speech, it may be worth noting that neither Cabot not Chesapeake were sponsors or speakers at this conference. Their views of the immediate future might be somewhat less rosy as indicated by this article in today's Wall Street Journal U.S. Drilling Activity Off Sharply : "Most industry analysts now expect hundreds more rigs to fall idle by the middle of next year. Some industry experts suggest a drop of as many as 1,000 rigs, which would represent a 50% decline from the peak set in September. That would leave fewer rigs running than at any time since 2003."
Mr. Matthews is a County Commissioner of Johnson County, TX, at the heart of the Barnett Shale play. The Barnett Shale play has been active for 20 years, covers much less geography than Marcellus Shale play but includes more developed areas including the Dallas - Ft. Worth airport. He seems to have foreseen that WSJ article because he reminded us at several points that the companies can turn off the pumps and leave for periods when the economics turn sour.He discussed the substantial growth of jobs in the 12 countys of the Barnett Shale play; noting that PA might experience less because the Marcellus shale covers so many more states and square miles.
The well drilling activity is very intense 24/7 in an area and then moves to another area. After initial fracing of a well, a second fracing often occurs 6 months later, then another after 18 more months, and another 2 years later. So, there are bursts of temporary work and then slowdowns in an area. He cited the need to adapt to this pattern and to protect residents by specific ordinances that address items like sound barriers and directional lighting around the drill rigs, water access for fracing and fraced water treatment and disposal (both of which need a lot of trucks), repair or rebuild of roads, and pipeline safety. He noted that Texas can fund localities and help the local county/towns deal with these issues better than PA with its current state laws. These laws often make it easier to negotiate "voluntary" road rebuilding by the companies. Roads are a big issue beyond damage by truck weight and volume. Big drilling rigs may need all of a road with height and width requirements that may close down a road and require takedown of powerlines. These issues go beyond much of what I've heard discussed locally and indicate a very real need for considerable flexibility in local preparation and action.
Interestingly, most of the gas explosions in Texas are on the pipelines not the well sites. This is important since the legal track revealed that the gas companies are lobbying heavily for Eminent Domain rights for pipelines. That could create a serious problem for farms and rural areas if the Legislature changes the law to allow it.
The highlights were the kick-off talks by Terry Engelder and by John Pinkerton about the Marcellus Gas Shale Play and the dinner talk by John Matthews about experiences from the Barnett shale play in Texas. There were also separate tracks focused on legal, local government, workforce, and environment. I'll cover the legal and other tracks in another post.
Dr. Engelder is Professor of Geoscience at Penn State and has estimated the size of the Marcellus gas resources in the hundreds of trillion cubic feet (cf). Of course, those deposits underlie several states. In PA, the deposits seem best in a SW-NE corridor which includes Susquehanna County. He estimates recovery potential in the good areas at about 64 billion cf per section (1 sq mile) based on horizontal drilling techniques. This estimate is substantially higher than his earlier estimates and seems based on a few recent drilling data points; and he does hedge his estimates.
Mr. Pinkerton is the CEO of Range Resources, the company that has developed most of the novel drilling technology. Range Resources also has large leaseholds and several drilling operations in PA. He painted an optimistic picture of minimum environmental disruption and large potential revenues if the producers were not regulated out of profitable drilling. One example showed a single wellhead with 6 horizontal lines draining a 500 acre parcel. Other estimates indicated more lines or pads, depending on the rock structure which can force a shortening of the horizontal lines. Estimates of line length ranged from 2000 to 4000 feet. He projected that they would drill 250 horizontal wells in 2009 (up from 50 in 2008) in PA and that company investments would shift from 75% leasing to 75% drilling. With the decline of natural gas prices from $9/mcf to $6/mcf (m = thousand), we should expect lower rental/bonus prices in 2009 as well as fewer lease offers.
Before discussing the dinner speech, it may be worth noting that neither Cabot not Chesapeake were sponsors or speakers at this conference. Their views of the immediate future might be somewhat less rosy as indicated by this article in today's Wall Street Journal U.S. Drilling Activity Off Sharply : "Most industry analysts now expect hundreds more rigs to fall idle by the middle of next year. Some industry experts suggest a drop of as many as 1,000 rigs, which would represent a 50% decline from the peak set in September. That would leave fewer rigs running than at any time since 2003."
Mr. Matthews is a County Commissioner of Johnson County, TX, at the heart of the Barnett Shale play. The Barnett Shale play has been active for 20 years, covers much less geography than Marcellus Shale play but includes more developed areas including the Dallas - Ft. Worth airport. He seems to have foreseen that WSJ article because he reminded us at several points that the companies can turn off the pumps and leave for periods when the economics turn sour.He discussed the substantial growth of jobs in the 12 countys of the Barnett Shale play; noting that PA might experience less because the Marcellus shale covers so many more states and square miles.
The well drilling activity is very intense 24/7 in an area and then moves to another area. After initial fracing of a well, a second fracing often occurs 6 months later, then another after 18 more months, and another 2 years later. So, there are bursts of temporary work and then slowdowns in an area. He cited the need to adapt to this pattern and to protect residents by specific ordinances that address items like sound barriers and directional lighting around the drill rigs, water access for fracing and fraced water treatment and disposal (both of which need a lot of trucks), repair or rebuild of roads, and pipeline safety. He noted that Texas can fund localities and help the local county/towns deal with these issues better than PA with its current state laws. These laws often make it easier to negotiate "voluntary" road rebuilding by the companies. Roads are a big issue beyond damage by truck weight and volume. Big drilling rigs may need all of a road with height and width requirements that may close down a road and require takedown of powerlines. These issues go beyond much of what I've heard discussed locally and indicate a very real need for considerable flexibility in local preparation and action.
Interestingly, most of the gas explosions in Texas are on the pipelines not the well sites. This is important since the legal track revealed that the gas companies are lobbying heavily for Eminent Domain rights for pipelines. That could create a serious problem for farms and rural areas if the Legislature changes the law to allow it.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Comments on NTC Zoning Ordinance of Oct '08
This post records my initial comments on the NTC Public Review Draft Zoning Ordinance dated October 22, 2008. This version of the ordinance replaces an earlier one. I do not know if it has been formally submitted to the County Planning Commission for review preliminary to holding Hearings and advertising for township voting. Comments follow:
1) The document is 150 pages reduced from 175 pages by removal of Section on Signs. While a number of good changes have been made, it is still too long, complex and burdensome.
2) The arbitrary road setback standards are likely to make many structures Non-Conforming (NC) with future approval or sales problems for the owners. The NTC has not documented or determined how many of a town’s structures are affected by a 30 foot setback vs a 20 or 10 foot setback (e.g. would 10 foot setback reduce NC buildings from 30% to 3%?)
3) The ordinance continues to require a permit for ALL activities except farm ones specifically protected by PA Law. This is excessive and serves mainly to collect zoning officer fees.
4) There should be no need for ZO permits for any Accessory Use; as an example a private swimming pool require a ZO permit as well as construction permit ( Two COG fees and application forms).
5) The PA Municipal Planning Code (MPC) cites Non-Impact home occupations as "permitted by right"; but this ordinance still requires you to file an application and get a ZO approval. There should be no requirement to get a permit.
6) In the Rural Agriculture District, there are 50 Principal Uses and 24 Conditional uses listed; but 18 Principal Uses (marked by *) become Conditional if they are within 300 feet of the border of a property with a residence on it. So, for many of these, a more lengthy and difficult Conditional approval process will be required (e.g. if someone wanted to repair tractors or chain saws in and old barn). The 300 foot rule means that a “phone booth” size business would need over 7 acres if it were dead center in a circle; more likely sites and borders would require more acres. If a home occupation is not Non-Impact, it becomes Conditional rather then Principal. So basically, there are really only 32 Principal Uses and 43 Conditional Uses.
7) At a Minimum, all accessory and non-impact home occupations should be allowed without ZO permits. Other home occupations should require no more than a ZO permit as a Principal Use. This would save considerable time and cost.
8) A better solution would be to allow all Principal Uses to be conducted without a Zoning Officer Permit, thus reducing the costs to both the Town and the residents. If a neighbor complained about such a "Use", a ZO could investigate then and either forbid or permit the disputed use. This reduces the excessive costs and burdens of processing undue applications.
9) All towns now have 3 “Overlay Districts”. Why?? Zoning should not be needed to protect Floodplains. Residential overlays seem likely to create strange patterns of scattered residential areas and possibly with an implicit need to upgrade services. It would be better to let developers create their own homeowner associations and provide the services rather than put the towns on the hook for policing zoning compliance. Since Jessup did not have any Overlay District initially, there should be none now. Eliminate these for Jessup on S-401.
10) There is no initial set of fees. These should be made public.
11) There is no mention of how the individual towns interact with each other or with the NTC as an overall Joint Planning Commission (is it still?). Nor is there mention of the Intergovernmental Agreements which may control aspects of administration. If Jessup and Rush are to have joint planning commission and zoning hearing board, it should be spelled out including how leadership and membership will be determined ( e.g., rotation between towns? members from each town.) These details are important to residents. Does the NTC continue as a joint planning commission with overall authorities under the MPC?
12) A joint-municipality zoning ordinance cannot be changed as easily as a single town one. It may require agreement by all municipalities to allow a curative amendment desired by one. If one wants to withdraw, it takes at least 3 years. That’s a long time and much more cost and effort than to join later to a multi-town zoning arrangement. Since we don’t need this now, why join this multi-town ordinance?? Options are to not zone; to zone later with NTC; or to develop a more flexible zoning or ordinance arrangement perhaps with only one other town (e.g.Rush).
13) How do we get enough well-intentioned, knowledgeable volunteers for the township planning commissions and zoning hearing boards? If 5 are needed for each of 10 towns, that’s 50 people compared to 9 that now serve on the County planning board. These people can be reimbursed for their services per the MPC; do we plan to? Where would the funds come from? Is this a wise or best use of the town’s funds?
14) The Section on Non-Conformities advises resident to “register” their non-conformities with the zoning officer. But it is clear from many meetings that large numbers of residents do not know about this zoning proposal. Given the unusual magnitude and impact of this on residents, is it reasonable to expect them to register?? It seems to me, the NTC has chosen words to provide a good case that allows them to overturn subsequent appeals for “grandfather” protection by unwary residents. My assessment is based on paragraph 4 of the “Registering Nonconformities” section, page 9, of the PA “Zoning Officer” Handbook which recommends this language as making it “difficult for the landowner to claim a right to a nonconforming status”. Do we really want to make it “difficult” for our landowners to claim their rights based on their unawareness of the intricacies of the zoning law?
15) We are told that the NTC Zoning Ordinance is in conformance with the NTC Comprehensive Plan which conforms to the County plan and all of that is good and adds legal strength. That’s nice, but is any of this planning really valid and timely for our current conditions in Jessup or Susquehanna County?
I think not! It is not because it does not anticipate or plan for the advent of natural gas exploitation as a potential major factor. To adopt a very inflexible set of joint zoning rules when faced with major unanticipated changes is not wise. The potential “Gas Rush” is not a reason to zone inflexibly for protection from changes that are no longer the most likely. Instead, we should deal with the future as it is coming at us - with flexibility by enacting specific performance ordinances for our town.
1) The document is 150 pages reduced from 175 pages by removal of Section on Signs. While a number of good changes have been made, it is still too long, complex and burdensome.
2) The arbitrary road setback standards are likely to make many structures Non-Conforming (NC) with future approval or sales problems for the owners. The NTC has not documented or determined how many of a town’s structures are affected by a 30 foot setback vs a 20 or 10 foot setback (e.g. would 10 foot setback reduce NC buildings from 30% to 3%?)
3) The ordinance continues to require a permit for ALL activities except farm ones specifically protected by PA Law. This is excessive and serves mainly to collect zoning officer fees.
4) There should be no need for ZO permits for any Accessory Use; as an example a private swimming pool require a ZO permit as well as construction permit ( Two COG fees and application forms).
5) The PA Municipal Planning Code (MPC) cites Non-Impact home occupations as "permitted by right"; but this ordinance still requires you to file an application and get a ZO approval. There should be no requirement to get a permit.
6) In the Rural Agriculture District, there are 50 Principal Uses and 24 Conditional uses listed; but 18 Principal Uses (marked by *) become Conditional if they are within 300 feet of the border of a property with a residence on it. So, for many of these, a more lengthy and difficult Conditional approval process will be required (e.g. if someone wanted to repair tractors or chain saws in and old barn). The 300 foot rule means that a “phone booth” size business would need over 7 acres if it were dead center in a circle; more likely sites and borders would require more acres. If a home occupation is not Non-Impact, it becomes Conditional rather then Principal. So basically, there are really only 32 Principal Uses and 43 Conditional Uses.
7) At a Minimum, all accessory and non-impact home occupations should be allowed without ZO permits. Other home occupations should require no more than a ZO permit as a Principal Use. This would save considerable time and cost.
8) A better solution would be to allow all Principal Uses to be conducted without a Zoning Officer Permit, thus reducing the costs to both the Town and the residents. If a neighbor complained about such a "Use", a ZO could investigate then and either forbid or permit the disputed use. This reduces the excessive costs and burdens of processing undue applications.
9) All towns now have 3 “Overlay Districts”. Why?? Zoning should not be needed to protect Floodplains. Residential overlays seem likely to create strange patterns of scattered residential areas and possibly with an implicit need to upgrade services. It would be better to let developers create their own homeowner associations and provide the services rather than put the towns on the hook for policing zoning compliance. Since Jessup did not have any Overlay District initially, there should be none now. Eliminate these for Jessup on S-401.
10) There is no initial set of fees. These should be made public.
11) There is no mention of how the individual towns interact with each other or with the NTC as an overall Joint Planning Commission (is it still?). Nor is there mention of the Intergovernmental Agreements which may control aspects of administration. If Jessup and Rush are to have joint planning commission and zoning hearing board, it should be spelled out including how leadership and membership will be determined ( e.g., rotation between towns? members from each town.) These details are important to residents. Does the NTC continue as a joint planning commission with overall authorities under the MPC?
12) A joint-municipality zoning ordinance cannot be changed as easily as a single town one. It may require agreement by all municipalities to allow a curative amendment desired by one. If one wants to withdraw, it takes at least 3 years. That’s a long time and much more cost and effort than to join later to a multi-town zoning arrangement. Since we don’t need this now, why join this multi-town ordinance?? Options are to not zone; to zone later with NTC; or to develop a more flexible zoning or ordinance arrangement perhaps with only one other town (e.g.Rush).
13) How do we get enough well-intentioned, knowledgeable volunteers for the township planning commissions and zoning hearing boards? If 5 are needed for each of 10 towns, that’s 50 people compared to 9 that now serve on the County planning board. These people can be reimbursed for their services per the MPC; do we plan to? Where would the funds come from? Is this a wise or best use of the town’s funds?
14) The Section on Non-Conformities advises resident to “register” their non-conformities with the zoning officer. But it is clear from many meetings that large numbers of residents do not know about this zoning proposal. Given the unusual magnitude and impact of this on residents, is it reasonable to expect them to register?? It seems to me, the NTC has chosen words to provide a good case that allows them to overturn subsequent appeals for “grandfather” protection by unwary residents. My assessment is based on paragraph 4 of the “Registering Nonconformities” section, page 9, of the PA “Zoning Officer” Handbook which recommends this language as making it “difficult for the landowner to claim a right to a nonconforming status”. Do we really want to make it “difficult” for our landowners to claim their rights based on their unawareness of the intricacies of the zoning law?
15) We are told that the NTC Zoning Ordinance is in conformance with the NTC Comprehensive Plan which conforms to the County plan and all of that is good and adds legal strength. That’s nice, but is any of this planning really valid and timely for our current conditions in Jessup or Susquehanna County?
I think not! It is not because it does not anticipate or plan for the advent of natural gas exploitation as a potential major factor. To adopt a very inflexible set of joint zoning rules when faced with major unanticipated changes is not wise. The potential “Gas Rush” is not a reason to zone inflexibly for protection from changes that are no longer the most likely. Instead, we should deal with the future as it is coming at us - with flexibility by enacting specific performance ordinances for our town.
NTC Zoning 101
I prepared a simple one page talking paper as an introduction to the basics of the proposed Northern Tier Coalition (NTC) Zoning Ordinance for a local gathering. While I am against the proposed ordinance, this quick summary is pretty even-handed. It raises the basic trade-off of zoning costs vs. benefits and suggests the alternative of using specific performance ordinances. You can find all the official NTC information here . Talking paper follows:
Northern Tier Coalition (NTC) consists of 10 Townships and 3 Boroughs
* Cooperation and State Funding Grants
* Produced Comprehensive Plan based on County Plan
* Draft Zoning Ordinance : Basically same for all Towns but Must be voted by Each.
If enacted by a Town, the Zoning Ordinance applies and can be altered by Town later. These changes may be done by ordinance publication and enactment with hearings. If a Town does not enact, it can join later by holding hearings and voting an ordinance.
Zoning creates districts and specifies what uses can be made of land in each zoned District. NTC Ordinance has 4 Districts: Rural Agricultural (RA), Residential (R), Village Commercial (VC), Commercial Industrial (CI) with Lake, Residential and Floodplain Overlay Districts in all towns.
Zoning can protect some landowners from some undesirable uses on nearby properties. It does this by controlling and restricting what all landowners can do with their property.
So, does zoning benefit you enough for the loss of your property rights and its costs?
Each District has a List of Principal Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses, and Accessory Uses. All non-farm Uses require a Zoning Officer Permit and fee; all Secondary and some Principal Uses may entail longer applications and hearings* to get permission from the Governing Body.
There are Standards and Setbacks for Buildings and for uses. If your existing Land , Use, or Buildings do not meet these standards, they are “Non-Conforming”. Non-Conforming uses and structures are “grandfathered” – allowed to continue and to be repaired. But there are restrictions on what can be done to modify, alter, or extend them if they are damaged or you want to change them or use them for a different purpose. These issues require hearings* and permission from the Governing Body.
As an example, any building within 30 feet of the edge of a road right of way (about 47 feet from center of a dirt road) is Non-Conforming. It is not clear that any attempt was made to determine how many existing buildings would become Non-Conforming by this standard. If it is a high percentage of a town’s buildings, there may be a lot of work and expense to get permits for changes. If you have a Non-Conforming Building or Use, the NTC advises that you “register” it in advance with the Zoning Officer (with fee?).
There are administrative costs in addition to the fees. Each township is expected to have at least 5 volunteers to serve on their Planning Commission and Board of Variance. That is over 50 just for the NTC compared to 9 on the County Planning Commission for all 42 municipalities. Can we find enough fair and willing volunteers for these appointments?
There are alternatives to Zoning for neighborhoods or towns that want more protection from undesirable land uses. They could make binding covenants or performance-based ordinances that establish maximum effects (traffic, noise, water runoff, odor, etc.) that are allowed in an area without dictating specific uses. This eliminates the long lists of permitted uses, fees and approval processes. Everyone does not pay in advance to do what they can do now for free. Only those who exceed the limits get penalized.
* Hearings may entail the Planning Commission or their appointed Hearing Officer.
Introducing Jessup Jottings
Jessup Jottings will be a collection of news, opinions and comments about items that interest me and pertain to rural living in Northeast Pennsylvania, with a focus on Susquehanna County and my home township, Jessup. I intend to post monthly on township matters and on other important issues as they arise and I have something to offer.
At the moment, I think there are two overriding issues facing the residents of our area. These are the natural gas rush and the question of participating in a multi-municipality Zoning Ordinance prepared by the Northern Tier Coalition (NTC). I'll be writing more about these issues.
The blog will be open for comments and suggestions for discussion topics.
At the moment, I think there are two overriding issues facing the residents of our area. These are the natural gas rush and the question of participating in a multi-municipality Zoning Ordinance prepared by the Northern Tier Coalition (NTC). I'll be writing more about these issues.
The blog will be open for comments and suggestions for discussion topics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)