Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elizabethtown council denies proposed zoning text amendment after residents raise concerns
Summary
On April 2, 2026 Elizabethtown Borough Council voted 4–2 to deny a draft zoning ordinance text amendment amid multiple public comments urging caution; councilmembers Jeff McCloud and Jay Hynicker opposed the denial.
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elizabethtown Borough Council voted 4–2 on April 2 to deny a draft amendment to Chapter 27 (Zoning) after a sustained public comment period that included residents’ concerns and a developer representative urging the need for housing.
Councilmember Andrew Schoenberger moved to deny the amendment and Councilmember Matthew Rodriguez seconded; Vice President Jeff McCloud and Councilmember Jay Hynicker voted against the motion. Claudia Shank of the law firm McNees Wallace & Nurick spoke on behalf of Catalyst Commercial Development about the draft text amendment and the developer’s housing interests. At least nine residents, including Calvin Brackbill (721 Old Hershey Road), Sharon Ogilvie (236 N. Locust Street) and Nick Petersen (301 N. Locust Street), addressed the council to express concerns about the proposed changes.
The vote follows that public pushback. Councilmember Hynicker, who voted to support the amendment, later said he backed the change because he wants to protect farmland and believes that goal can be achieved by building up. Councilmember J. Marc Hershey said the denial “may not impact the rest of the project,” noting the developer’s broader plans.
Council did not adopt the draft language; no alternative wording or timetable for reconsideration was specified during the meeting. The denial preserves the current Chapter 27 text as written and leaves open the possibility that staff or the applicant could return with revised language or additional analyses.
Council action: the motion to deny the zoning text amendment passed 4–2. Public comment on the amendment was extensive and mixed; the transcript records multiple residents expressing concerns but does not record detailed, unanimous positions for or against specific provisions. The council did not take further formal steps on the amendment during the meeting.
