Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission debates PennDOT HOP process and a proposed HOP revision note for county plans
Summary
Commissioners and staff discussed problems with PennDOT highway‑occupancy permit (HOP) processing, the difficulty of obtaining HOP numbers for recording, and a suggested plan note approach used by some townships to avoid a procedural catch‑22.
PERRY COUNTY — Perry County Planning Commission members devoted a substantial portion of their meeting to the county’s handling of PennDOT highway‑occupancy permits (HOPs), discussing recurring delays and how plan notes or filing procedures can reduce applicants’ back‑and‑forth with PennDOT.
Staff and commissioners described multiple cases where developers or townships waited months for PennDOT to issue an HOP number, creating a “catch‑22” because municipalities often want the HOP recorded on the plan before final signatures but PennDOT may not release the permit number until after other deeds or filings are complete.
Jason (planning staff) summarized prior practice and said PennDOT historically has not issued new HOPs for “piggybacking” on existing driveways when the change is minor, adding in one exchange, “Short of 3. Over 3. They would. 3 is the magic number.” He and others explained that PennDOT rules and internal policy changes have sometimes left local staff and applicants waiting for essential permit numbers.
Commissioners described a workaround used in nearby townships: issue a final approval that includes a blank line on the recorded plan for the HOP number, then have the applicant obtain the HOP and refile the plan with the number filled in. That approach lets the municipality finalize approvals without delaying applicants for an unpredictable PennDOT response. The commission discussed draft language provided by a commissioner (Tom) and agreed to circulate that language to members for further review ahead of the next meeting.
Staff and commissioners said it would also be useful to include a sample private maintenance/driveway agreement in the county ordinance appendices so applicants and lenders have a standard document available when multiple properties use a single private access.
No policy change was adopted at the meeting; commissioners asked staff to re‑distribute the suggested HOP‑note language and to bring the proposed revision back for formal consideration next month.
The transcript of the meeting records multiple frustrations with the HOP process and several examples where plan approval timelines were extended while waiting for PennDOT. Commissioners urged clearer guidance and a standard administrative note to reduce repeated delays for applicants and local staff.
