Lancaster County Council pulls U-turn on McClancy rezoning decision

The McClancy Seasoning zoning saga isn’t over yet.

Lancaster County Council voted 5-1 Nov. 23 to reconsider its Nov. 9 decision to deny a zoning change in Indian Land. Due to an oversight, McClancy has been operating in a residential zoning for almost two decades. The zoning map change to light industrial would allow for expansion off of Spice Road.

Indian Land residents, including many from the neighboring BridgeMill dressed in red shirts to show solidarity, turned out Nov. 9 to oppose the rezoning. There were 20 speakers on the topic.

Council voted 4-3 denying the zoning change.

The reconsideration wasn’t listed on the agenda for the Nov. 23 meeting. But the Nov. 9 minutes hadn’t been approved yet. Video from the Nov. 23 meeting on the Concerned Citizens of Indian Land page on Facebook shows Reid Wilkerson, McClancy president, asking for reconsideration, noting one of the four council members who voted against the rezoning could ask for a reconsideration prior to the Nov. 9 minutes being finalized.

“It’s not too late to re-open this matter,” he said.

Now the issue will go to the county planning commission, which previously recommended against the zoning change. Council may take up the issue again Dec. 14.

Residents flooded Facebook with comments against the latest decision. Many in favor of incorporating Indian Land, the fastest-growing community in the region and one of the fastest-growing in the state, took the issue as more reason why they should form their own town.

“The ultimate solution is the Town of Indian Land,” commented Richard Dole.

By Nov. 25, two days after the council meeting, Facebook had more than 100 comments on the issue, most of them critical of the reconsideration. Many called for incorporation and some for legal action against the county. Commentators called the decision “incredibly underhanded,” “corrupt” and “dirty politics,” among other descriptions.

Councilman Larry McCullough, one of two Indian Land representatives, was at a conference and didn’t attend the Nov. 23 meeting. McCullough voted Nov. 9 to deny the rezoning, but said Nov. 24 he hadn’t spoken with other council members to see what changed. McCullough said he’s unsure whether his opinion might change.

“I’d have to understand what’s going on,” he said. “I’d have to understand if there’s new information.”

Councilman Brian Carnes voted against the rezoning Nov. 9, but in favor of the reconsideration two weeks later. In failed motions Nov. 9, Carnes and McCullough voted to table the rezoning and ask the county administrator to withdraw the application, and they voted against a move to defer a decision and send the zoning request to the planning commission.

While the initial rezoning involved a change from residential to light industrial, another option is business zoning that would allow flexibility for McClancy but not the large-scale industrial uses available in the failed zoning revision.

Carnes said the reconsideration happened after Wilkerson made his case to each council member.

“Mr. Wilkerson talked with each council member individually asking them to reconsider the vote in order to allow him to begin the process of adding a warehouse to his facility, which is allowed in (the business zoning),” Carnes said.

The warehouse use is a different plan from the proposal council voted down, Carnes said.

“McClancy was proposing to use the new space for production,” Carnes said. “That is not currently allowed in (the business zoning). Council discussed changing our non-conforming use ordinance to allow for some expansion of non-conforming uses, but that will not be considered until next year.”

Without the reconsideration, the company would have to wait until a rezoning moratorium expires next year to apply for the business zoning. The moratorium ends in March, but could be extended through June. McClancy can continue operating, but couldn’t expand until it applies for and receives a new zoning.

Between the Nov. 9 and Nov. 23 votes, Wilkerson’s attorney contacted the county attorney asking for other options, including covenant deed restrictions, a new zoning district for food processing plants, an amendment to allow expansion of non-conforming structures countywide, a variance or a floating zone for the property.

A company attorney contacted the county with a proposal to accept a business zoning rather than industrial, if allowed to expand as a manufacturing site when the ongoing unified development ordinance rewrite is complete. But manufacturing isn’t allowed in the business zoning, only wholesale and distribution.

This story was originally published November 24, 2015 at 10:41 AM with the headline "Lancaster County Council pulls U-turn on McClancy rezoning decision."