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.