Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lancaster board rejects motion to deny rezoning request for 351 Pavement Road after 96‑lot proposal presentation
Summary
Developer Mark Romanowski presented plans to rezone 351 Pavement Road from general industrial to residential for about 96 single‑family lots and argued wetlands and road limits make industrial use infeasible. The board voted on a resolution to deny the rezoning; the roll call recorded two votes in favor of denial and three against, so the motion to deny failed.
Developer Mark Romanowski of PM Pavement LLC asked the Lancaster Town Board to rezone an 88.13‑acre parcel at 351 Pavement Road from General Industrial to residential, saying wetlands and site constraints leave about 60 acres buildable and that the property functions better as a transition to nearby homes.
"What we're proposing is approximately 96 lots on the site," Romanowski said, outlining a preliminary layout with about 30 acres of green space and a central pond intended as an amenity. He told the board the planned subdivision would be maintained by a homeowners association and asserted site utilities and on‑site stormwater management can handle the development without town infrastructure upgrades.
Romanowski and his presentation materials also included a financial estimate the development could generate roughly $2.3 million in annual municipal tax revenue, compared with his estimate of $1.4–$1.6 million if the parcel remained in industrial use; he emphasized market challenges for industrial developers on Pavement Road, including a five‑ton road limit and the pond that would make large‑scale industrial parcels difficult to assemble.
Planning staff noted the planning board took no formal position on the rezoning but reported that planning board members said they were generally supportive of the proposed design while expressing concern about loss of industrial land.
The board then considered Resolution 11, as drafted to deny the applicant's rezoning request. The roll call on the resolution to deny the rezoning was recorded as: Council member Anakola — No; Council member Burkard — No; Council member Schroeder — Yes; Council member Studley — No; Supervisor Liry — Yes. With two votes in favor and three opposed to the denial resolution, the motion to deny did not carry.
During the public‑comment period after the vote, a resident urged the board to consider the townwide implications of converting industrial land to housing, warning of increased traffic on county roads and impacts on wildlife corridors if the project proceeds. "You shut the door on that property," the resident said, criticizing the decision to move away from industrial development.
Next steps: The transcript records the board motion and the roll call on the denial resolution; the applicant said a site‑plan review before the planning board would follow any positive rezoning action. The board did not adopt a final site plan during the meeting.
