Lock Haven council approves first reading to add age‑qualified, veteran housing rules and reduced parking standard

Lock Haven City Council on Feb. 3 approved on first reading Ordinance 2025‑02, an amendment to Chapter 410 of the Lock Haven zoning code that adds specific definitions and rules for age‑qualified and veteran housing and establishes a reduced minimum parking requirement for those uses.

The ordinance was proposed after a Court of Common Pleas appeal (docket number 775‑2024) involving a denial at a zoning hearing board prompted the city to clarify where and how age‑qualified and veteran housing could be permitted. The council voted in a roll call 6–1 to approve the measure on first reading.

City officials told the council and members of the public that the amendment would insert age‑qualified and veteran housing as permitted principal uses in the RL, RH and RM residential districts and set tailored parking requirements for those projects. The draft ordinance sets minimum parking at 0.75 spaces per unit for the targeted uses, plus one visitor space per 10 dwelling units and one space per employee on the largest shift; it also ties certain projects to typical HUD or Pennsylvania housing finance funding sources and tax‑credit models.

Attorney Sam Weiser of Saltzman Hughes, who has worked on similar ordinances elsewhere, told council members the use and lower parking loads are common in other municipalities and that such projects can help rehabilitate blighted properties. “Having an age qualified housing use and a veteran housing use is not uncommon in many municipalities,” Weiser said, noting that market‑rate multifamily developments typically generate higher parking demand than senior‑focused projects.

Residents who spoke during an extended public comment period urged caution and asked for more data on parking, traffic, water and sewer capacity, and long‑term protections if a property later converted to general market housing. Michelle Studding of 199 South Ferry said she attended the planning commission meeting and felt the proposal’s reach was not clearly explained to residents: “It wasn’t very clear that it related to the whole area,” Studding said.

Council and staff repeatedly cited the recent court decision as a primary impetus for the ordinance. City solicitor Justin Hauser provided the court docket number for the appeal and noted the judge observed lower observed parking use at existing senior facilities during the court’s review. City staff also said the planning commission reviewed the draft and voted to recommend a 0.75 standard after considering examples from other municipalities, including State College and Williamsport.

Several speakers and council members urged additional study before final adoption. Council discussion included suggestions to contact comparable retirement centers in other towns for empirical data on parking utilization and to verify whether the 0.75 standard functions effectively in practice. Council member questions also asked whether projects financed privately (without HUD or Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency support) would qualify under the ordinance; staff responded that the current draft ties qualification to specific funding sources but can be revised if council desires.

Council voted on a motion to advance the ordinance (motion text and mover/second not specified in the meeting record). Roll call recorded the following votes: 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. The tally was six in favor, one opposed.

The ordinance text and related planning commission and county planning commission comments were entered into the council packet. Staff and counsel said the amendment is intended to provide a clear, consistent local process so similar projects do not repeatedly return to the zoning hearing board and lead to additional appeals. The court decision that prompted the change, the city noted, overturned prior denials related to parking variances and signaled the need for clearer ordinance language.

The council’s vote at the special meeting approved the ordinance on first reading; the transcript does not specify a date for any subsequent readings or final adoption. City staff said they would continue to consult with the city solicitor and the ordinance text will remain available to the public for review.