Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter School topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends denying BridgePoint Charter School land-use changes over industrial-land and traffic concerns
Summary
After extensive questioning of traffic plans, enrollment, and land-use trade-offs, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend denial of a comprehensive-plan amendment and a rezoning that would have allowed BridgePoint Charter School to convert a light-industrial parcel near Harrisburg Road into a K-8 charter site.
The Lancaster County Planning Commission on June 16 recommended denial of both the comprehensive-plan amendment and rezoning requested by BridgePoint Charter School, citing conflicts with the county's economic-development goals and persistent traffic and siting concerns.
Staff recommended denial of CP 2026-1016 and RZ 2026-1016 because the proposal would change the future land-use designation from "Economic Development" to "Growth Area," which staff said conflicts with Comprehensive Plan Goal 2.1 to preserve designated economic-development areas. "At this time, staff is recommending denial of this rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment," staff told commissioners during the presentation.
Applicants, represented by Dr. Natalia Panasiuk and co-owner Skip Powell, described BridgePoint as a tuition-free public charter K-8 focused on STEAM scheduled to open in 2027 and targeting roughly 860 students at full capacity. "This is not the real estate transaction to us, it's not a business deal — the kids in this community deserve a great school close to home," Dr. Panasiuk said.
Commissioners extensively questioned the applicants on traffic mitigation, special-education services, fiscal impacts on district public schools, and zoning alternatives. Architect Dan Hendrickson said the site plan included approximately 3,500 linear feet of stacking and double-lane on-site circulation to keep vehicles off Harrisburg Road and that SCDOT stacking requirements guided the layout. "As long as we adhere to their rules and what they want us to do it usually gets approved that way," Hendrickson said; commissioners noted that local drop-off behavior can differ from DOT assumptions and pressed whether stacking/staggering would be enough for an 860-student enrollment.
Several commissioners expressed concern that northern Lancaster lacks light-industrial acreage and that converting a scarce Economic Development designation could preclude future employment uses. One commissioner asked why staff had not recommended IMX zoning (which can allow schools via conditional use) as an alternative; staff said applicants followed the path they and staff discussed in a pre-submittal meeting.
No members of the public signed up to speak at the meeting, though the record included a neighbor email opposing the rezoning over traffic concerns and a packet of letters and petitions submitted by the applicant signaling community support. Commissioners noted the presence of multiple carbon-copied form letters among the submissions.
After deliberation, the commission voted 6-0 on roll call to deny CP 2026-1016 and then voted 6-0 to deny RZ 2026-1016. Both denials will be forwarded to Lancaster County Council for final action.
BridgePoint representatives said they will continue coordination with SCDOT and other agencies but acknowledged the commission's recommendation and that Council will make the final decision.
