Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use And Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council unanimously approves two rezoning ordinances for single-family and 50-unit workforce housing

City of Lancaster City Council ยท March 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

On March 10 the council adopted Ordinance 26-04 to rezone a 1.996-acre parcel near 2210 University Drive to R-15 for single-family subdivision and Ordinance 26-05 to rezone 6.32 acres for a 50-unit workforce multifamily project proposed by Gateway Development Corporation; both passed by unanimous roll call.

At its March 10 meeting the Lancaster City Council completed second readings and approved two zoning ordinances.

Ordinance 26-04 rezones a 1.996-acre parcel (tax map 0062K-017) near 2210 University Drive owned by Tommy Robinson to Residential R-15 to allow subdivision into three single-family lots. The planning staff reported the lot was annexed into the city and the property owner intends to subdivide; the council approved the second reading by unanimous roll call.

Ordinance 26-05 rezones a 6.32-acre parcel (tax map 0068-00-004) at the northwest corner of North Park Drive and North Park Square for MF (multifamily) to support a workforce apartment complex of 50 units proposed by Gateway Development Corporation. Council members noted the developer won South Carolina housing tax credits and described the site as proximate to existing apartments at Park Square. Planning staff said the developer hoped to start construction in October; the council approved the second reading by unanimous roll call.

The council also approved three sets of minutes (Feb. 17, Feb. 24 and Feb. 28) and later adjourned. The meeting record shows roll-call "yes" votes recorded for each motion; individual vote attributions to named council members were not read into the record beyond affirmative roll-call responses.