Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies Barberville preliminary plat again, citing multiple UDO violations
Summary
The Lancaster County Planning Commission voted 6–0 to deny the remanded Barberville preliminary plat after finding the record lacked required open-space calculations, tree-preservation plans, building footprints and that unauthorized land‑disturbing activity had occurred.
The Lancaster County Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 on July 21 to deny the Barberville major‑subdivision preliminary plat after a remand from the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas.
Commissioners said their reconsideration was limited to the record created at the May 19 hearing and identified multiple violations of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The chair summarized the motion as a denial “based upon the fact that the preliminary plat as presented does not meet” UDO requirements, citing missing usable open space calculations, absent building footprints and parking areas, and a failure to show required tree‑save areas and landscaping.
During deliberations staff and commissioners referenced UDO sections governing highway‑corridor open space, tree preservation and preliminary‑plat checklist items. One commissioner noted the plat shows a 49,567‑square‑foot tract labeled common space but said much of that area is occupied by a cell‑phone tower compound and stormwater BMPs and “there's no calculation showing that it does meet the minimum 500 square feet” of improved open space required for some retail commercial projects.
Commissioners also cited UDO provisions that prohibit unauthorized land‑disturbing activity before preliminary‑plat approval and noted that portions of the site had been logged, stripped and graded prior to approvals. The commission said the minor subdivision had been altered, increasing parcel count from three to four, which the UDO forbids for a minor subdivision being rolled into a new major subdivision.
The motion to deny identified the specific UDO sections relied on by the majority. Roll‑call voting recorded a unanimous denial, 6–0. Because the court had remanded the matter, commissioners said they were constrained to base their decision solely on the existing record from May 19 and to identify the ordinance provisions and supporting evidence that formed the basis for denial.
The decision ends this phase of review at the planning commission; any further appeals or next steps will follow the remedies available under the remand order and the county’s land‑use procedures.
