Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission waives land-development for 0.36-acre strip adjacent to proposed county prison

Lancaster City Planning Commission · December 18, 2025
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

The Lancaster City Planning Commission approved a waiver to administratively transfer a 0.36-acre, 10-foot-wide strip along the Conestoga River from a Lancaster Township prison tract to adjacent Central Park property; staff said the parcel is floodplain and undevelopable and maintenance remains with the county.

The Lancaster City Planning Commission on an omnibus voice vote approved a waiver of land-development requirements to remove a narrow 0.36-acre strip from a Lancaster Township prison tract and join it to nearby Central Park property inside the city.

At the meeting, David Miller, a professional engineer with Ritu Associates, the county engineer on the prison project, said the strip is roughly "one third of an acre, 0.36 acres" and lies within the floodplain, making it undevelopable. Miller said the proposal is an administrative simplification to avoid cross-jurisdictional review of a parcel that is impractical to develop and that Betsy King has expressed support.

City staff (Miss Finn) told the commission the city supports the request because the parcel cannot be developed. Commissioners asked whether maintenance responsibilities would change; Miller and staff said ownership and maintenance remain with the county park and the change is intended to streamline jurisdictional boundaries, not transfer operations. Miller also said the adjustment would not prevent future trail connections included in broader master-plan concepts for the area.

Commissioner (unnamed in the record) moved to waive land-development requirements for the parcel; another commissioner seconded. The chair called for vocal assent and the motion "carried" on a voice vote; the transcript does not record a roll-call tally of individual yes/no votes.

Next steps described by staff: the administrative transfer would be executed between the two municipal entities and would not enable new development on the strip because of floodplain constraints.

The commission considered this item during its regular meeting and approved the waiver on the record.