Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the WoodSpring Suites Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose WoodSpring Suites; planning board recommends site plan and subdivision with a 4–3 vote
Summary
The planning board recommended the WoodSpring Suites site plan and subdivision by a 4–3 vote after hearing sustained neighborhood opposition citing traffic, historic‑district concerns and public‑safety worries; board members conditioned part of their support on a long‑term landscape/maintenance agreement.
The Lancaster Planning Board recommended approval of a site plan and subdivision for a proposed WoodSpring Suites hotel after an extended public comment period in which multiple residents urged the board to protect the historic hamlet of Bowmansville and flagged traffic and safety concerns.
Peter Barnes of BME Associates presented revised landscape plans intended to meet the town’s landscape code, describing a "mini‑forest" approach that mixes canopy, sub‑canopy and understory planting and includes 20 white pines for an evergreen buffer. Barnes said a maintenance guarantee would be provided for two years and that the applicant could work with the town on longer maintenance if required.
Several residents opposed the hotel. Rebecca Miranda of 38 Maple Drive said area hotels already draw frequent police and emergency calls and expressed concern a new low‑budget hotel would attract similar problems; she cited public‑records requests she said showed nearly 900 calls to hotels on the corridor in 2024 and said one third of those calls were to the nearby Red Roof Inn. "I don't think it's a good idea," she said, adding that Bowmansville is a historic hamlet and residents want protections to preserve its character.
Kristen Buscemi described the hamlet’s historic homes and said a WoodSpring Suites at 0 Maple Drive would not be consistent with the town’s comprehensive plan goal to protect historic areas. Other neighbors raised traffic‑safety concerns and urged a longer maintenance commitment for the landscaping because deer and wildlife can damage newly planted trees.
During deliberations board members noted that the zoning code permits the use in the location and that the planning board’s role is to ensure the project complies with code and design standards; one member said the board’s "no" vote was based on changing neighborhood character even when the application meets code standards. A motion to recommend approval of the subdivision and site plan passed by voice vote; members discussed a condition that a longer‑term landscape maintenance agreement (similar to a stormwater maintenance agreement) be required — one member insisted on a maintenance agreement in perpetuity as a condition of support.
What happens next: the planning board will forward its recommendation, including recorded comments and any recommended conditions, to the Town Board, which will make final decisions on subdivision and site‑plan approvals.
