Planning commission approves land-development waiver for 1237 Roosevelt Avenue

The York City Planning Commission voted 4-0 on July 14 to approve a land‑development waiver for work at 1237 Roosevelt Avenue, a property currently described as a motel with a proposed hotel addition.

Commissioners voted to approve the applicant’s request for a waiver after staff recommended denial because no bond was shown and the application did not present a single, clear plan for phase‑one improvements if a later phase never occurs. “Staff is recommending to deny the land development waiver request due to lack of the bonding,” a staff member told the commission during the item’s presentation.

The applicant (identified in the record only as the property owner/applicant) told the commission the project has been under review for an extended period and that earlier zoning issues — particularly parking — had been resolved. The applicant said the proposal as presented is limited to the initial build‑up to the rear of the existing motel, and that a proposed future phase to remove and replace the front building is not certain. “We didn’t want to tear building down to build another building … we’re trying to increase the profits that make it a sustainable business,” the applicant said during public remarks, adding that the process has felt slow because of evolving requirements.

Planning staff and the commission discussed bonding and phasing at length. Staff explained the commission’s concern: if the commission grants a waiver now, the city would not be able to require a bond for public improvements tied to a possible future phase because a waiver typically eliminates the bonding requirement tied to a full land‑development plan. The staff representative used a recent local repair-and-rebuild project as an analogue: when a burned portion of a building was torn down, the later rebuild required a land‑development plan and bonding for the new construction; that clarity would not exist if the commission approves a waiver while only phase 1 is documented.

Commission members asked the applicant whether there was any binding approval that would permit tearing down the front building without returning to the commission; staff clarified that any such demolition and subsequent new construction would require a separate land‑development submission and would come back before the commission. Commissioners repeatedly pressed staff and the applicant to confirm that the waiver only applies to the work described as phase 1 and that any demolition/new construction would trigger a new review.

A motion to approve the land‑development waiver passed unanimously. The transcript records the roll call as: “Davis. Aye. Wolfe. Aye. Gaines. Aye. Moore. Aye.”

The commission did not adopt conditions tying the waiver to a bonding schedule; the record shows the approval was of the waiver request as presented. Because the waiver removes the city’s ability to require bonding for public improvements linked to later, undefined phases, staff noted the city retains review authority over any subsequent land‑development application.

The applicant referenced County planning staff and a third‑party engineer during the discussion but did not provide a final schedule or a bond mechanism at the meeting. The commission’s approval allows the applicant to proceed with the work described in the waiver; any change that would require demolition and new construction must be submitted as a new land‑development plan.

Votes at a glance: The waiver approval passed 4-0 with all commissioners present voting aye.