A different view on zoning

By THOMAS J. SHEPSTONE, AICP

Zoning can be valuable but your June 7 editorial on the subject is just wrong.

Pennsylvania is not a home rule state like New York. Its communities can only do what the Commonwealth says they can do. They have little authority to regulate quarries, landfills, utilities and similar uses. Zoning also has nothing to do with Federal prisons. The Federal government has sovereignty and municipalities cannot regulate it.

I disagree that county support of the prison was simply “reflecting the viewpoint of a lot of short-sighted business people.” The Federal prison will be an outstanding project. Look at the positive impacts of Farview. The Federal prisons in the Lewisburg area have, too, created good clean industry with the best of impacts on surrounding areas. That community, in fact, has been voted one of the Best 100 Small Towns in America. Does anyone want to take these projects back?

The idea that evil developers search out communities without zoning is hopelessly naive. Quarries, for example, go where the stone is relative to their markets. All developers seek profits and, therefore, look mostly at the bigger issues of transportation, and visibility. Zoning plays little role in choice of communities because costs of compliance are small and good locations are worth the effort. I cannot recall, in 25 years of planning, where a developer sought out unzoned towns. Likewise, wind farm developers chose Moosic Mountain in Canaan Township because that’s where the wind is. They also applied for permits. The Township is working on zoning but had a Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance that governed the application. It was thoroughly reviewed and a conditioned approval given—the same result that zoning would have produced.

Not everyone likes that outcome. Some are concerned. Others have made careers of opposition to everything. Therein lies the problem. A zoning ordinance in the hands of officials not prepared to apply it uniformly inevitably leads to manipulation by these individuals and “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) types.

We are all capable of being NIMBY’s. The task of zoning, however, is to take out that factor, not reinforce it. A good zoning ordinance administered properly considers impacts on adjacent properties, but balances those factors with rights of landowners and needs of the community. Zoning in the hands of officials only prepared to do what is popular quickly degenerates into meaningless rules where all decisions are political.

Yes, communities on the New York side of the river are zoned. I am pleased to represent them, but this says nothing about the need for zoning in Pennsylvania. New York puts more zoning power with planning boards than elected officials, somewhat insulating it from politics and making ordinances easier to administer. Upstate New York also faces economic problems and is more pro-growth, with zoning debates typically focusing on project details. Finally, Pennsylvania communities can use their subdivision and land development ordinances to address aspects of development that can only be handled through zoning in New York.

Your interest in giving communities tools to deal with development issues is laudable. Simply calling on them to enact zoning without considering the need, the circumstances and capacity of local governments to administer such laws, is not.