Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies rezoning request at 813 Potter Road after widespread neighborhood opposition
Summary
Lancaster County Council voted 7–0 to deny a request to rezone 7 acres at 813 Potter Road from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Rural Neighborhood (RN), a change opponents said would allow multiple mobile homes and lower surrounding property values.
Lancaster County Council denied a rezoning request for a 7‑acre parcel at 813 Potter Road after extensive public comment and debate. The council vote on ordinance 2025‑19‑74 was 7–0 to deny.
The applicant requested rezoning from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Rural Neighborhood (RN) so the parcel owner could place mobile homes on subdivided lots. Neighbors said they purchased property in Potter Road's LDR area specifically to preserve low density, single‑family character and raised concerns that rezoning would increase density, strain septic systems and depress property values. Several nearby residents — including Kent Kilo (467 Potter Road), Scott Carnes (657 Potter Road), Evan Helms (2640 Pink Plyler Road) and others — told council they oppose downzoning and feared the parcel could host up to four mobile homes, a configuration they said would resemble a small trailer park.
Planning staff told council the request stemmed from the owner's desire to increase flexibility in housing types on the parcel and noted the property is contiguous to RN parcels across the road. Planning staff made no recommendation, citing mixed characteristics in the area and nonconforming parcels; the planning commission had recommended approval by vote of 5–1. Council members said they had received many calls and messages from constituents in the district and ultimately voted to deny.
Speakers stressed they were not opposed to new neighbors but were asking council to preserve the existing LDR zoning to protect long‑term community character and property investments. Planning staff noted that many surrounding lots are nonconforming in size, and that the long‑term area pattern might justify different approaches in the future, but council members said they could not support the requested downzoning.
Ending: The denial maintains the property's LDR zoning; the landowner retains other options allowed by current zoning, such as stick‑built or modular houses. Council and staff noted future applications could be considered if the owner pursues different development plans.
