Jessup News Post - February 2008

Township Meeting:

The 4 February 2008 meeting had a significant discussion of zoning,the related NTC Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement For Multi-Municipal Planning And Implementation, and the proposed NTC SALDO.

After discussion, a unanimous vote was taken to not zone the township.

It was further decided to seek to withdraw from the Intergovernmental Agreement. It requires the township to seek approval of the other 11 municipalities for any land ordinances we want to enact - a condition that is not relevant if we do not zone.

It was decided to investigate other SALDO options including adopting the County SALDO as our own and establishing a planning commission; or establishing a liaison with the County planning commission to improve coordination and input on their decisions. Copies of the County SALDO will be obtained and reviewed.

There was a discussion of obtaining a replacement for the existing backhoe/loader. The decision was to seek bids to do so.

The option of contracting directly with an engineering organization(s)instead of COG for codes and septic enforcement was discussed again with the intent of taking action in the near future to reduce fees to residents.

NTC Meeting:

The 19February2008 NTC meeting was fairly brief. The key items were a discussion of subdivision activity by Bob Templeton and a discussion of zoning and the intergovernmental agreement. Bill Stewart mentioned that Alta Resources may come to the next meeting to discuss their gas leasing and drilling activities. Dave Darrow said that he would be a "Non-Voting" alternate for Franklin Township.

Bill Stewart said there was no report of any township opposed to zoning and he thought all were just talking and no action was taking place. We informed him about the zoning vote in Jessup and Franklin confirmed they had also voted to not zone.

Gene Famolari and Charles Davis, Jessup Rep, raised and discussed the issues about withdrawing from the Intergovernmental Agreement. There was some confusion about whether we wanted to drop from the NTC or just the agreement. Our position was about only the Agreement and this was clarified in the meeting and in a subsequent discussion with Charles Mead.

This NTC meeting had several positives :

Bob Templeton talked about his subdivision summary handout and really endorsed that there is no need for a NTC SALDO based on the number of lots per year for many towns ( e.g. 3/year over 15 years for Jessup.). He said he liked the approach we had discussed about having a Jessup observer attend County planning commission meetings and act as town liaison. He encouraged other towns to consider that.

Bill Stewart tried to defend the NTC's value to one questioner, but could not really point to anything the NTC had done other than getting grants for composting leaf vacuums and improving supervisor relations by regular get-togethers.

I had a long chat with Charles Mead that went from his being angry and convinced I was "misrepresenting" to his understanding my points about what the Intergovernmental Agreement really said, why it needed change and how to do so. We ended up cordial and, perhaps, he will rethink his position.

The key is that the “Agreement” must be updated to do what he and others want to do for the “zoners”. To Change requires a 100% agreement of 12 towns. To Terminate requires only a 75% vote. It is easier to terminate and redo for the willing than to be hard-nosed and force us to withdraw over a year period - during which we are not likely to vote for their needed change.

The issue of changing the intergovernmental agreement is now on the table and should get follow-up in the next meeting. It's important for non-zoners to drop out of it; and that can be done without leaving the NTC. That action gives us freedom from more regulatory efforts by the "joint planning committee" which has a lot of authority ceded it by the towns in the agreement.

On the not so positive side :

Some of the "inner" clique of NTC supervisors are unhappy and may try to find a way to reverse the events or prevent withdrawal. We should be prepared for more discussion on March 19.

Money may be a factor - the budget shows $59.6K tied to SALDO-ZONING. Perhaps they can only keep it if they spend for those items. That could be a terrible incentive to do "wrong" rather than to return the funds. If so, some open discussions and negotiations with DCED could lead to a win-win if approached correctly.