Lock Haven council approves first reading of zoning change to allow age‑qualified and veteran housing with reduced parking

Lock Haven City Council on first reading approved Ordinance 2025‑02, an amendment to Chapter 410 of the city zoning code that adds definitions and permitting rules for age‑qualified housing and veteran housing and sets a reduced parking formula of 0.75 spaces per dwelling unit.

The ordinance passed after a roll-call vote: Council member Alexander, yes; Council member Brannan, yes; Council member Brinker, no; Council member Conklin, yes; Council member Mazzorgi, yes; Council member Stevenson, yes; Mayor Law, yes (6–1). The measure was introduced by the city solicitor and presented to council with legal and planning analysis.

City Solicitor Justin Hauser told council the amendment was drafted after a court appeal tied to a zoning hearing board decision involving Third Street Associates. Hauser provided a synopsis of the court outcome (docket number 775‑2024 in the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County) and said the court found the city lacked a consistent ordinance framework for the use. Special counsel Sam Weiser of Saltzman Hughes, who helped prepare the text, said “having an age qualified housing use and a veteran in housing use is not uncommon in many municipalities” and that such projects often have demonstrably lower parking demand than open-market multifamily units.

The proposed ordinance would: - Add specific definitions for age‑qualified and veteran housing in the zoning code; - Allow those uses in RL, RH and RM residential districts as specified; - Apply a parking standard described in the draft as 0.75 spaces per dwelling unit plus visitor and employee provisions (the text discussed a formula that includes 1 visitor space per 10 dwelling units and 1 space per employee on the largest shift).

City Planner Abby told the council the proposed amendment and supporting materials were reviewed by the City Planning Commission on Jan. 7 and by the County Planning Commission on Jan. 21, and both bodies forwarded favorable written comments to council. Abby also stated that the draft ordinance as presented specifies the geographic areas and zoning districts to which it would apply.

Several public commenters urged caution. Michelle Studding, a resident who said she attended the planning commission meeting, said the planning discussion did not make clear the ordinance’s city‑wide reach and asked how the council would determine that the change was “in the best interest of health, safety and welfare.” Multiple other residents raised practical concerns about on‑street parking on narrow neighborhood streets, potential traffic and snow‑removal impacts, and whether water and sewer infrastructure could support larger developments.

Residents and council members cited examples used in the court record and by staff: a senior facility at 250 Third Avenue with 11 units and 11 parking stalls was observed by the court with a low of two cars and a high of five during the survey period; Third Street Commons (33 units, 34 stalls) was observed with an average of 11 cars on site (low eight, high 12). Council members and residents debated whether those snapshot counts justified a 0.75 standard and whether additional data (for example, phone surveys of comparable facilities in State College or Williamsport) should be collected before final passage.

Council discussion noted that the draft ordinance, as written, ties qualifying projects to certain funding sources; the ordinance text as read aloud requires a residential development to be financed in part by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency to qualify under the age‑qualified category. Council members asked whether privately financed projects that set an age threshold without those funding sources would be excluded; Sam Weiser confirmed they would not fall under the draft language unless council amended the text to include them.

City staff and counsel repeatedly emphasized that the amendment is intended to provide a clear, consistent process after the court’s finding, not to endorse any single site. As the city manager put it during public comment, “this is addressing a court case that the city lost,” and the change is meant to reduce repetitive litigation by specifying where and how age‑qualified and veteran housing may be permitted.

The ordinance received a first reading and will return to council for additional consideration as required by the municipal code; council members discussed collecting comparative data from other municipalities and consulting further with planning staff and counsel before a final reading.

Ending: Council members who voted in favor said they view the amendment as a way to clarify city rules and limit repeated appeals to the courts; opponents said the packet lacked sufficient local parking and impact studies. The item will return for subsequent readings and any required land‑development or variance reviews for specific projects.