The Key NTC Intergovernmental Agreement

I have been asked about the key NTC agreement covering zoning and what should be done about it since several townships have voted to not zone. This subject was raised at the 19 February 2009 NTC meeting and should be discussed in future meetings. This post will adress that question directly and reference my earlier blog posts; in particular, the synopsis is useful for those who can't get a copy from their township.

The key NTC agreement is the "Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement For Multi-Municipal Planning and Implementation". The synopsis is here: Part 1 : NTC Intergovernmental Zoning Agreement- Summary Excerpts. My initial comments are here: Jessup Jottings: Part 2 : NTC Intergovernmental Zoning Agreement. They were written in early January '09 and more recent thoughts are in this post (Jessup News Post - February 2008) summarizing the February NTC meeting.

This key 12 page agreement was established for Joint Planning and Implementation (Zoning) and establishes a "Joint Planning Committee" of elected officials to oversee all actions related to the Comprehensive Plan and any implementing Zoning and land ordinances. In essence, the agreement ties each town to that NTC Planning Committee before they can make or change land ordinances.

Don't get confused by other intergovernmental agreements to create joint planning commissions ( e.g., betwen Rush and Jessup) to follow up on zoning. There's a big legal difference in the MPC between “Committee” and “Commission”. That mistake was made by some at the NTC meeting and caused some confusion. Those "Commission" agreements were not signed and are not at issue.

This agreement was signed by all 12 participating Municipalities and was essential, under the state Municipal Planning Code, to the legality of the NTC Comprehensive Plan which all 12 towns did adopt and sign. It would be essential for Joint Zoning if we were to do that. Being in the agreement is not the same as being in the NTC - Montrose is not participating in the agreement or the Joint Planning Committee, but is in the NTC.

The agreement's status is less clear if some towns decide to zone independently in a coordinated way following the same Joint Comprehensive Plan, while others opt to not zone.

The agreement specifically covers "Implementation " of the joint Comprehensive Plan with the Joint Planning Committee (NOT a "Commission" ) acting to assure towns keep their "implementation" ordinances “Consistent" with the Plan. That could be interpreted to mean any land ordinances, triggering Committee reviews of ordinances by the non-zoning towns.

For towns that are not zoning, it makes no sense to be in the agreement and be required to have their land ordinances reviewed by that joint Committee. It also seems undesirable for the zoning towns to have to go to a committee of non-zoners for approval of changes to their zoning ordinances. So, I think both sides need to reconsider the agreement; terminate it and redo it for those who want to be tied together in joint or coordinated zoning.

The agreement states that a 100% vote is required to change the agreement and 75% vote to terminate it. If a town wants to withdraw on their own, they need to pass a resolution after which there is 1 year waiting period during which the towns stays bound to the agreement ( and I think still a "voting member"). This made sense for Joint Zoning; but not now. The agreement is overtaken by events and should be changed to fit the new facts. The easiest way is to terminate and rewrite it for the willing zoners.

Members of that “Joint Planning Committee" ( elected officials) seem defensive about keeping the agreement in force and their status on it. These options may get discussed at the next NTC meeting. There may be reasons why the agreement should continue; but it seems dangerous for towns to remain in an agreement which seriously limits their freedom of action to make their own land ordinance decisions.

If any forms of joint ordinances or zoning actions are desired in the future, those action should be taken anew and openly.The current zoning debacle has revealed a serious disconnect between the desires of many citizens and their township supervisors. One side feels they are acting in the best interests of their towns; the other side feels their interests have been betrayed to the interests of an unelected regional bureaucracy. Regardless of the merits or justifications on either side, citizens and leaders need a high level of mutual understanding and trust.

Changing this current key intergovernmental agreement will be an important step in that direction. The next step is to reconsider the objectives of the NTC. I doubt that anyone would object to it being an informational forum and a cooperative purchasing group. But, I also doubt that many citizens would endorse it becoming a regional bureaucracy or additional governmental layer. And, unfortunately, that is how many perceive the NTC's role because of the joint zoning effort.