Chester County council approves settlement and development agreement for Lando Village

Chester County Council on Feb. 16 approved third reading of ordinance 2026-03, a settlement that authorizes a development agreement between Chester County and Lando Investments Associates LLC and Fishing Creek Associates LLC and resolves pending litigation (civil action 2025 CP 1200014). The council recorded the action as 6–0, with one member absent online.

The vote implements a negotiated agreement that county officials described as a settlement of a lawsuit rather than a new subdivision approval. County administrator Brian Hester told the council, “this is not approving a new developmental agreement. This is a settlement, of a suit,” and said the project will not proceed until sewer capacity is available.

Why it matters: The ordinance clears legal uncertainty tied to the property and allows the county and developers to move forward with a negotiated development agreement while preserving certain historical and community elements that residents and local organizations urged the council to protect.

During the public hearing four residents spoke. Roxanne James, who said she grew up in Lando, praised the proposal’s preservation goals and said she was “excited… for what’s fixing to happen in Landau,” including hopes the schoolhouse, museum and the Landau War Memorial Recreation Park could become county-managed assets. Paul Williams, acting president of the Landau Menendez History Center, said the development could continue the town-center character and credited county and developer cooperation.

Opposition and questions centered on infrastructure and oversight. Robin Dodson said the area has been “deteriorating” and pressed the council for specifics on sewer capacity, the developer’s financial commitments and whether a reverter clause exists if buildout does not occur. Dodson asked whether sewer capacity is approved and whether the county would bear costs for force-main work.

Hester and other council members responded by outlining the project timeline and financial posture. Hester said sewer capacity is not currently available and that the developer will wait for capacity before starting construction; he also reiterated that the county is not currently paying for sewer improvements and that the council had previously authorized a $5,000,000 backstop only as a contingency. Hester estimated that full buildout could take “potentially… 10 years.”

Council discussion touched on widely reported sewer cost estimates; a council member referenced press reports citing figures of about $43 million and $53 million. Hester said the county is not presently obligated for those costs and reiterated that any future contribution would require separate council action.

The ordinance passed by voice/hand vote; the chair announced the tally as 6–0. Hester and others said details of the development agreement — including timelines, specific mitigation requirements and protections for historic resources — are contained in the negotiated documents attached to the ordinance.

The council did not specify a construction start date. Officials said next steps include finalizing conditions tied to sewer capacity and continuing coordination among county staff, the developers and the sewer authority.