Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lancaster County OKs amended development agreement for Redwood in Indian Land after reduced density, mixed votes
Summary
County council approved amendments to the Redwood Indian Land development agreement that reduce planned units from 155 to 97, extend the completion deadline and revise permitted uses; the ordinance passed 4–3 after public staff presentation and council questions.
Lancaster County Council on Tuesday approved amendments to a previously adopted development agreement with Redwood Indian Land (Ordinance No. 2025‑1984), reducing the project's planned residential density and extending the agreement's completion deadline.
Planning staff presented the changes and said the amendments revise permitted uses in the professional business district, update the project's exhibit and development schedule, and extend the agreement through April 12, 2031. Staff recommended approval. "Staff has no concerns with this and recommends approval," planning staffer Miss Harden said during the presentation.
The revision replaces a previously higher‑density plan that envisioned townhomes with a lower‑density layout of detached single‑family homes in a horizontal property regime, reducing the total number of dwelling units from 155 to 97, according to the materials presented to council. The new plan retains a greenway/stream buffer that constrains road connections and required stream crossings, staff said.
Council members asked whether the reduction in units also reduces the developer's impact fee obligations; staff said the total fee revenue would decline proportionally because there would be fewer units, though the per‑unit fee amount remains unchanged. Council members also asked whether the small building shown in the frontage area would be a retail or commercial use; staff described it as a neighborhood amenity for residents, not a convenience store.
The ordinance also corrects scrivener's errors in the original documents and adds or clarifies that "other structures allowed in the professional business zoning district" are permitted where the development agreement contemplates such uses. The amendment to the development schedule was necessary, staff said, because the new developer could not meet the original August 2026 completion date.
The motion to approve the ordinance was made by Council Member Charlene McGriff and seconded by Council Member Harper. The measure passed 4–3. No additional conditions were attached in council action.
Council documents show staff recommended the five‑year extension (the maximum allowed under the state provision cited in the agreement) at the developer's request and noted that the lower density would reduce the county's expected impact fee revenue for the project.
The ordinance is a first‑reading matter; council approved the amendment on first reading with the 4–3 vote recorded in the public minutes. Further procedural steps required by the county code and the development agreement will follow as the parties implement the amended schedule.
