Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Millersville council approves Green Energy Overlay District petitioned by Student Lodging Inc.
Summary
Millersville Borough Council unanimously approved an ordinance and a companion comprehensive-plan resolution to establish a Green Energy Overlay District after a public hearing; the petition was presented by Student Lodging Inc. and county staff had recommended approval though the county planning commission declined to adopt that recommendation.
Millersville Borough Council unanimously approved an ordinance to amend the borough zoning code to create a Green Energy Overlay District and a companion resolution amending the borough comprehensive plan, actions the council took following a public hearing on a petition by Student Lodging Inc.
The petition was presented by Isaac Wakefield, attorney for Student Lodging Inc., who told council he had received a recommendation for approval from Lancaster County Planning Commission staff but said the county planning commission, a recommending body, had declined to adopt the staff recommendation at a recent meeting. "The focus of their concern was exclusively on the matter we've discussed with council ... the hope that that property would be devoted to residential use," Wakefield said, adding that Student Lodging had made repeated efforts to make residential development work on the site but concluded it was not feasible.
The ordinance and the comprehensive-plan amendment were introduced for public comment. No members of the public offered comments during the hearing. Councilmember Phyllis moved to approve the ordinance establishing the Green Energy Overlay District as petitioned by Student Lodging Inc.; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Council then moved and approved the resolution amending the borough comprehensive plan to establish the overlay district, also by a unanimous vote.
The council record and the petition packet indicate local planning bodies had repeatedly considered the proposal; Wakefield said county planning staff recommended approval "much like your planning commission did," but the county planning commission declined to accept staff's recommendation at its meeting and had not issued a timely letter. Wakefield offered copies of the county staff recommendation for council review.
No changes to specific development approvals, zoning text details, or conditions were read into the record during the hearing; the council’s votes were on the ordinance and the planning resolution as presented. The council took no other formal actions related to the land use item at the meeting.
The council convened the remainder of the meeting after the overlay and comp-plan votes; later agenda items covered budget and personnel matters.
