Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chester County Council approves Lando Village development agreement after mixed public comment
Summary
After a public hearing with both supporters and an opponent, Chester County Council approved Ordinance 2026-03, a development agreement with Lando Investments Associates LLC and Fishing Creek Associates LLC, on third reading. The vote is recorded in the minutes as 6-0.
Chester County Council voted to approve Ordinance 2026-03 on third reading, authorizing a development agreement between Chester County and Lando Investments Associates LLC and Fishing Creek Associates LLC and resolving civil action no. 2025-CP-12-00014.
Vice Chair Erin Mosley moved to approve the ordinance; Councilman Bobby Raines seconded. The minutes record the motion carried on a 6-0 vote.
The ordinance drew a mix of public comment at a hearing before the vote. Roxanne James of 3007 Steele Village Road told the council she supported the development and voiced enthusiasm for the project’s future contribution to Lando. Paul Williams, who lives at 3801 Lando Road and serves as acting president of the Lando History Center, said the development could preserve Lando’s history while allowing new construction, saying it can help “preserve Lando’s past while building Lando of the future.”
Robin Dodson of 3630 Andy’s Road spoke in opposition, saying she would have supported the development under its original phased conditions but now opposes it because it follows “substantial, already burdensome high-density growth” in her area. Tom Miller, speaking on behalf of Lando Investments Associates LLC and Fishing Creek Associates LLC, addressed the council in support of the project on behalf of the developers.
The ordinance’s text, as presented in the meeting materials, authorizes the county to execute a Fee in Lieu of Tax agreement and a project agreement tied to the development and to designate certain property as part of a multi-county industrial park where applicable. The minutes do not record detailed conditions or amendments attached to the final motion; council action in open session was recorded only as the motion, second, and the 6-0 vote.
Next steps for the project — including permitting, site plans, or any intergovernmental approvals that may be required — were not detailed during the open session recorded in the minutes.
