Columbia council forwards zoning rewrite on heights, shadow protections and smoke-shop rules for review

Columbia Borough Council voted to forward a proposed zoning amendment, Ordinance 9‑57, to the Lancaster County planning department and the Columbia Borough Planning Commission for review and comment. The draft would change the borough's building-height rules, add a requirement to limit shadowing of dwellings on winter solstice hours, and refine the definition and placement of smoke shops.

The ordinance as drafted would change a current maximum height of 90 feet (or six stories, whichever is more restrictive) by establishing a 35‑foot base limit plus one additional foot of allowed height for each foot of setback from the property line. Council members said the change intends to prevent a 90‑foot wall immediately adjacent to rear yards and to preserve neighborhood character. Council also discussed a proposed line that would prohibit any building or structure that "will cause a shadow on the south‑facing wall of any dwelling measured at the first floor between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. on December 21." Staff said architects can produce the solar‑shadow calculations as part of permit review.

Councilmembers and staff also debated how the draft's smoke‑shop definition treats THC/THCA products and whether grandfathered existing businesses could later sell marijuana products should state law change. "If it did become legal ... the smoke shops that are considered a smoke shop by this definition and are grandfathered in would then be able to" sell those products, a council member warned; county planning and staff recommended careful language and suggested the borough could remove THC/THCA from the smoke‑shop definition or create a separate marijuana‑dispensary definition if the borough wants to reserve dispensaries for other zoning districts.

During public comment, Jason Barch (Resident) told council he purchased 17 South Third Street after confirming the use as a tattoo studio under current zoning and that he has since invested in renovations. He asked for written confirmation that his pending investment would be protected; staff responded they would follow up in writing and cited the pending‑ordinance doctrine as likely protective in the short term.

Council authorized staff to forward the draft for review; councilmembers and staff noted they could make changes after planning commission and county feedback before formal advertising or final vote.

The planning commission will consider comments at its upcoming meetings; council directed staff to accept and evaluate the county and planning commission responses before advertisement.