Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents say recent zoning change favors developer, urge council to address housing impacts
Summary
Two residents told the borough council that a recently passed zoning ordinance — identified by commenters as ordinance 841 — and outreach by a developer have harmed homeowners and may enable four‑story apartment projects; they urged clearer notice, remedies for affected homeowners and limits on where such buildings can be sited.
Public commenters urged Palmyra Borough Council to act after what they described as a recent zoning change that they say opens the borough to four‑story development and was written to accommodate a private developer.
"An ordinance that essentially throws out what town residential means in Palmyra passes," resident Zachary Angle told the council, attributing the ordinance to the May meeting and saying it allowed "exactly the building specifications" a developer wanted. He named Venture Real Estate and referenced "Mr. Jack Sickle" as a developer who attended a meeting without sufficient public notice. "Professional interests were placed ahead of community voice," Angle said, and asked the council, "What are you doing for this family?" when describing homeowners who he said had been financially harmed by the project.
Why it matters: Several speakers said the change could let four‑story luxury apartment buildings go where smaller homes now stand, potentially affecting sunlight, property values and neighborhood character. The comments reflect broader unease about how the borough handles developer proposals and whether affected neighbors receive timely notice and remedies.
Aaron Miller, another resident, described being "blindsided" by an outreach call from a developer he named as Jack Bessega and said a proposed 54‑foot building next to his home would change sunlight patterns and complicate personal plans. "There's going to be a 54‑ft apartment building next to me due west," Miller said, adding that the scale of the project left him reconsidering landscaping and home improvements. He said first‑time homebuyers face steep refinancing and sale costs if displaced.
Council response and context: Councilors acknowledged resident frustration during public comment but did not announce reversals or new vote actions on the ordinance during the meeting. Commenters referred repeatedly to "ordinance 841" as having passed at a prior meeting; the claim and the naming come from speakers, not from an on‑the‑record council motion made at this session.
What residents asked for: Commenters requested clearer notification processes around developer outreach, concrete assistance for homeowners who said they have been harmed, and limits on where the new building specifications can be applied. Zachary Angle asked the council to "find an alternative" and not to offer "half‑hearted apologies."
Next steps: The council did not take a formal vote on zoning changes at this meeting. Planning Commission business was announced separately: the Planning Commission is scheduled to meet June 24, 2026 to consider Ordinance 843, which concerns arcades in the central business district, according to a council announcement.
