Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County planners debate ordinance language to require PennDOT coordination on driveway permits and plan review
Summary
Commissioners and staff discussed proposed Perry County ordinance edits to require Highway Occupancy Permit (HOP) coordination during plan review, debating whether to require applicant surveyor/engineer certification and how to avoid re‑recording plats; they asked staff to refine wording to shift the burden to applicants and to add a soils/access note where appropriate.
Paragon Planning Commission members spent a substantial portion of their meeting reviewing draft county‑level language that would require coordination with PennDOT on Highway Occupancy Permits (HOPs) as part of subdivision and land‑development plan review.
Jason, Perry County planning staff, explained the draft would ask applicants to demonstrate coordination with PennDOT and to provide evidence that proposed driveway geometry reasonably meets PennDOT sight‑distance and HOP criteria. Commissioners debated where in the process the coordination should be documented — at sketch plan review, during preliminary plan submission, or as a condition prior to recording — and how to avoid forcing applicants to re‑record plats if permit numbers change.
Several commissioners supported including a professional certification from a licensed surveyor or engineer on the plan that “the driveway criteria set forth on this plan reasonably meets the requirements of PennDOT Highway Occupancy Permit regulations.” One commissioner noted that PennDOT sometimes will not provide pre‑application feedback and that a certification and plan table showing required vs. proposed sight distances may be the most practical way to ensure the review body is comfortable approving a plan that can later secure a permit. The commission also debated whether to quote specific PennDOT numeric rules in the ordinance (several members recommended against hard‑coding those numbers to avoid future mismatches with PennDOT updates).
The commission asked staff to refine the language to: (1) request HOP coordination be documented during plan review; (2) require the applicant to demonstrate how driveway geometry meets PennDOT sight‑distance and HOP criteria (ideally by surveyor/engineer certification and a sight‑distance table on the plan); and (3) avoid embedding PennDOT numeric rules that could change.
Next steps: staff will revise the proposed ordinance language and circulate it for member wordsmithing before forwarding it as a supplemental amendment to the county ordinance package.
