Citizen Portal
Sign In

Rezoning for large self‑storage moves to second reading as neighbors press safety concerns about Alley 59

Lancaster City Council · November 11, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council read a zoning amendment (Bill 14-20-25) to rezone a 2.55‑acre tract for large self‑storage facilities; the county planning commission recommended approval, but nearby residents raised safety and traffic concerns about Alley 59 and potential heavy‑truck activity connected to nearby proposals.

At first reading of Administration Bill 14-20-25 on Nov. 11, Lancaster City Council considered a zoning map amendment that would rezone a 2.55‑acre tract (parcel ID cited in the ordinance) from C‑3 regional commercial to the Central Manufacturing district, permitting self‑storage facilities larger than 20,000 square feet by right on lots of 3–5 acres that lack direct public‑street access and existed as of July 1, 2025.

Councilor Craig, who discussed the item in committee, said the bill would allow self‑storage facilities of more than 20,000 square feet by right in the Central Manufacturing District and noted that a second reading will include a zoning hearing required by law. Attorney Peter Wirtz, representing petitioner 1031 Dillardville Road LP, told council the Lancaster County Planning Commission met and adopted a staff recommendation of approval.

Neighborhood residents used public comment to ask for more detail and to press the city on related safety issues. Darlene Byrd and Susie Gomez requested information about how large facilities would affect small, affordable storage options in residential areas and asked whether rents would remain affordable. Carlo Gonzalez and other residents from the South End repeatedly raised safety concerns about Alley 59, saying they fear frequent heavy‑truck traffic behind houses where many children walk to nearby schools. Council acknowledged these are separate but related concerns and suggested continued follow‑up with Public Works and a future zoning hearing where affected residents may submit testimony.

Because this was a first reading, the council did not vote to adopt the rezoning; the second reading and required zoning hearing were scheduled for the Nov. 20 meeting cycle, at which time the public will again have an opportunity to comment.