Lancaster County council presses for full UDO draft; consultants to preview subdivision chapter in July

Lancaster County Council members pressed consultants and county staff at the meeting to provide a consolidated draft of the updated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) after weeks of chapter-by-chapter review, and asked for a focused preview of Module 3 (subdivision and site design) at the July Committee-of-the-Whole meeting.

White Smith Consultants and county planning staff walked council through the status of the UDO modules, said most chapters have been drafted, and outlined a schedule for council review, planning-commission consideration and public hearings. Council members repeatedly said they want the entire draft in hand to evaluate cross-chapter interactions and to avoid piecemeal edits that create confusion.

Miss Harden of county staff told council the work includes compiled feedback from stakeholders, planning commission and staff; consultant Sean Scoopmire described Module 4 as technical chapters covering procedures, nonconformities, vested rights, definitions and submittal requirements. "Module 4 is generally procedures, nonconformity's invested rights, definition, and acronyms, and submittal requirements," Scoopmire said. County staff said chapters would be delivered incrementally (one chapter per week to council) but that members have asked for the whole document to be made available for review.

Multiple council members — notably Councilman Harper — said piecemeal delivery hindered substantive review. "I want the whole document," Harper said during the discussion, adding that receiving a final consolidated draft would make it easier to assess proposed deletions and changes. Councilman Luis suggested a hybrid approach: keep moving forward with targeted previews (especially of subdivision rules and cluster subdivisions) while preparing a consolidated draft for broader review.

Staff and consultants said the largest outstanding policy issue within Module 3 is the treatment of cluster subdivisions and how design standards will apply across different parts of the county. Consultants asked council for policy direction on whether to provide staff-level administrative flexibility (for example, allowing limited adjustments when topography makes standards impractical) or to require applicants to use the Board of Zoning Appeals process for variances. Staff noted prior council direction to limit administrative discretion, which would shift more requests to formal appeals and lengthen review time.

The consultants and staff outlined a draft timeline: weekly chapter deliveries to council for initial comment, a preview of Module 3 at the July Committee-of-the-Whole meeting, and an aim to assemble the full draft document by late summer or early fall (consultants indicated September as a possible milestone). The UDO will then move to planning commission review, public hearings and the council’s formal ordinance process; staff said that process could push a final council vote into the winter months depending on the volume of public input. Planning rules and public hearings will follow the county’s standard ordinance procedures.

Council members stressed that the UDO must be readable and avoid unnecessary ambiguity. Several members said the document should include clear records and a transparent process if staff-level adjustments are permitted, so applicants can understand when and how exceptions are granted. Staff agreed to draft options and checks-and-balances language that would preserve consistency and provide documentation for any discretionary approvals.

No ordinance or vote occurred at the meeting; consultants and staff were directed to provide the Module 3 preview in July, finalize chapter deliveries as discussed and produce a consolidated draft for council review before public release.