Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to clarify impact fees, oppose development on Van Wyck Road citing infrastructure strain
Summary
Multiple residents spoke during public comments urging Lancaster County Council to provide written responses to citizen inquiries and to reconsider approving large developments off Van Wyck Road until roads, sewage and emergency services can accommodate growth.
Several residents used the council’s public‑comment period to press elected officials for clearer answers on impact fees and to oppose pending development off Van Wyck Road that they said would strain roads, sewage and emergency services.
Ken Beck of Sun City Carolina Lakes asked the council to provide written responses to citizen questions between meetings, saying residents often make suggestions or ask questions and receive no follow‑up: “Is there a way the council could come up with something that says before the next council meeting, 2 weeks, people should get a written letter in response?” Beck also cited a news story and a fee study he said showed a large shortfall in impact‑fee collections between 2021 and 2024 and asked the council to explain a reported gap.
Bruce Cohen of Walnut Creek asked what criteria the county uses to waive impact fees and raised concerns that a proposed subdivision off 521 and Van Wyck would overload sewage treatment capacity and local roads. Kathy Storm of Treetops said she is “against the proposed building that’s going to go on 521 going into Van Wyck” until infrastructure catches up. Helen Drehos, who said she lives in Treetops and has multiple medical needs, said traffic on Van Wyck has become “terrible” and urged council members to require environmental and traffic studies be considered as part of approvals.
Speakers raised a cluster of related concerns: whether impact fees have been collected or waived as intended, whether sewer capacity is adequate for new subdivisions, who pays for road upgrades (state DOT vs. developers), and whether emergency services (police, ambulance, fire) have adequate capacity if large residential projects proceed. Some speakers noted uncertainty about which agency controls water and sewer capacity.
Council members did not take formal action during public comment. County staff and council members acknowledged the issues and pointed to planning and permitting processes; several council members later referenced the Van Wyck corridor during zoning discussions on the evening’s agenda.
The public commenters asked for specific follow‑up from council staff, including written responses and clearer public notices about impact‑fee waivers and infrastructure assessments.
