Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Mcginnis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council workshop debates residential and retail limits in McGinnis light-business zoning
Summary
Council and planning commission members used an ELA consultant report as a starting point for proposed text amendments affecting McGinnis and other light-business zones, sharply disagreeing over whether to permit residential uses, retail or mixed-use in the area.
Council and the borough’s Planning Commission discussed proposed zoning text amendments for the McGinnis property and the borough’s light-business zoning districts during the Jan. 7 workshop.
Why it matters: The conversation will shape permitted uses (setbacks, impervious cover, mixed use) in a large development area and influence traffic, school capacity and future economic development strategies.
The Planning Commission recommended using an ELA consultant report as an outline for text amendments that would change permitted uses, setbacks and lot coverage in the borough’s light-business (LB) district. Planning chair Mary told council the ELA report suggests allowing upper-floor residential units above first-floor business or light-industrial uses in some parts of the park — language the commission suggested could improve workforce housing and recruitment for employers located there.
Council members raised multiple concerns. Councilmember (name displayed as) Stahl and others argued the borough’s school district lacks capacity for a large influx of students, and that mixed residential uses in the McGinnis area would be inappropriate next to heavy industrial or truck traffic. One councilmember noted examples in nearby Lancaster County where mixed-use developments had poor market performance: “in Lancaster County, it just does not work,” they said, describing cases where residential or commercial portions sat empty.
Several council members favored keeping McGinnis and other LB zones focused on light-business and industrial uses, limiting retail and residential development there, and reserving mixed-use and retail for downtown and existing business districts. Council also discussed parcel-level tools to allow negotiation — for example permitting conditional access improvements if a prospective tenant needed heavier truck access, instead of opening the zone broadly to all uses; this approach would preserve bargaining power for the borough in developer negotiations.
Planning Commission members said engineering review and staff support are essential — Paula (borough staff) and the borough engineer must review plans for stormwater, impervious cover and code compliance before decisions are made. Mary noted the commission has historically relied on staff and engineering expertise to prepare agendas and technical recommendations.
Ending: Council asked planning and staff to review the ELA recommendations, check current LB permitted uses and tables, and return with a more detailed proposal. Staff flagged the need to confirm whether changes would require comp plan amendments or broader zoning updates and to coordinate with the borough engineer and county/state agencies as applicable.
