Lancaster planning meeting hears public concern after zoning ruling for 216 Greenfield Road data center

Lancaster City Planning Commission members and public speakers pressed city staff on the process and public records after a zoning officer determined that a proposed electronic data processing facility at 216 Greenfield Road fits the zoning classification "wholesale trade and storage." The commission was told a Phase 2 land development plan for the site was submitted and that a data-center zoning text amendment will be introduced to Lancaster City Council on Oct. 6 and routed to the planning commission for review later in October.

Why it matters: The zoning officer's classification affects whether the developer may pursue building permits as a permitted use under the current ordinance, and several members of the public said they lack documentation that the zoning officer says was reviewed. Without those records, residents warned, it is harder to evaluate whether the city's determination matched what was proposed to staff.

Tony D'Astra, a Planning Commission member, read portions of the zoning officer's decision during public comment, saying, "After a review of the information you and your clients provided to me and other members of the city's planning staff, and based solely on that information, I have made the determination that the proposed use of the property located at 216 Greenfield Road as an electronic data processing warehouse is permitted wholesale trade and storage in the in the zoning district." D'Astra and other speakers said right-to-know requests returned responses that no underlying submission documents exist, which they said undermines the zoning determination's transparency.

Betsy, a planning staff member, told the commission the appeal of the zoning officer's letter was stayed by the court while the court decides whether the zoning hearing board has authority to hear the appeal. She also confirmed that the Phase 2 plan for 216 Greenfield Road was received "yesterday" and will undergo technical review by the city's consultant and multiple city reviewers before returning to the planning commission.

Betsy said the Phase 2 submission was filed as a preliminary land development plan and "they are not waiving their preliminary," meaning the commission will see an additional review cycle and the public will have another opportunity to comment when the plan comes before the commission. She emphasized the technical review process involves the city's consultant, CS Davidson, and multiple city bureaus including zoning, water, sewer, stormwater and historic review.

Some public speakers pressed for a planning-commission public hearing or sworn testimony from staff about what materials were reviewed. Frank Arcolio, a city resident, called the zoning determination "incompetent" and said city leaders had refused to appear before the commission to explain the ruling. Arcolio told the commission, "I appealed it and we're gonna win." Austin Da Silva, another resident, cited data-center resource use and said, "for the average data center, they use around 530,000 gallons of clean water per day," attributing that figure to the U.S. Energy Information Administration during his remarks.

Commission members and staff repeatedly explained the limits of the planning commission's role. One planning commissioner said the planning commission's forum is administrative — to review land development plans and advise on technical conformity with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan — and recommended the public raise ordinance-level concerns with Lancaster City Council, which will receive the proposed text amendment on Oct. 6. Staff said the text amendment will then be circulated for review by the planning commission and county as required.

Staff and commissioners also discussed legal risk and sequencing: because the appeal to the zoning hearing board is stayed, the commission can review the land development plan under the current ordinance. Betsy said, "We have to review the plan as a permitted use," and that if a later legal decision changed the approved use, the matter would need further proceedings such as a special exception or additional appeal.

Next steps include the Oct. 6 City Council committee introduction of the data-center text amendment and a future planning-commission meeting date (to be announced) for preliminary-plan review. Staff said the city's website FAQ will be updated with public-comment timelines and meeting dates as they firm up.

Ending: The planning commission did not take formal action on the data-center zoning determination. The file will proceed through technical review and return to the commission, while the text amendment process continues at City Council starting Oct. 6.