Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Adaptive Reuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Lampeter supervisors advance zoning amendment to allow adaptive reuse of hotels as supportive housing
Summary
The board voted to forward a proposed zoning-ordinance amendment to planning partners that would allow conversion of qualifying hotels in C-2/C-3 districts into supportive housing as a conditional use, requiring nonprofit operators and documented supportive services; a public hearing will be scheduled in August.
The East Lampeter Township Board of Supervisors on July 13 authorized staff to forward a draft zoning-ordinance amendment to planning partners that would establish an "adaptive reuse" conditional use to convert qualifying hotel properties in C-2 and C-3 districts into supportive or affordable housing.
Supporters said the change is intended to steer hotel conversions toward nonprofit housing developers or organizations that will provide supportive services, rather than conventional market buyers. Charlie Serra, who identified himself as representing the Redevelopment Authority of Lancaster County, said the amendment is written to require documentation about supportive services and the organizations that will provide them. "I would say it would be probably the nonprofit housing developers who would also provide supportive services," Serra said.
Why it matters: Township leaders and presenters said the amendment offers a tool to increase housing options while keeping conversions tied to service providers that can help occupants stabilize — for example, case management, job assistance and legal navigation. Presenters said many funding sources for such projects require shared or common space for services and that conversions would be reviewed case-by-case under the conditional-use process.
Board members focused questions on which entities would purchase and manage converted properties, unit types and amenities, and how common space and kitchen facilities would be handled. Presenters responded that units could include single-room occupancy layouts and that common-space requirements (discussed in the draft as a 500–750 square-foot benchmark in certain configurations) could be satisfied by indoor or outdoor areas depending on a project's layout and funding conditions.
The board voted to accept the draft language and to forward it to planning partners for review and comment. Members asked staff to schedule a public hearing in August; staff noted a hearing date will be finalized at a future meeting to ensure the required public-notice period is met. The board did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting; the action was to continue the process through planning review and a public hearing.
The next formal step is planning-partner review followed by a public hearing in August, with the exact hearing date to be set at a future board meeting.
