Editorial: County Council should have let McClancy vote stand

Less than a month ago, dozens of Indian Land residents, mostly homeowners in the BridgeMill community wearing red shirts in a show of solidarity, strode out of a Lancaster County Council in triumph after the council denied a rezoning application by McClancy Seasoning Co. on a 4-3 vote.

That celebration would have been much more subdued if those residents had any inkling of what was in store at the Nov. 23 council meeting. In a legal but stealthy move, council made a U-turn by voting 5-1 to reconsider that earlier decision. Although that vote – or any pending discussion of McClancy’s request for light industrial zoning – was not on the council’s Nov. 23 agenda, McClancy President Reid Wilkerson took advantage of a loophole to make a last-second appeal.

Wilkerson made his case to council before members voted to approve the minutes from the Nov. 9 meeting. That meant that technically, council’s decision was not yet final.

For residents who have worked to oppose the rezoning and celebrated what seemed an unlikely victory last month, it must feel like a bait and switch. They have a right to be angry and disappointed, but it’s important to look at the big picture.

Due to an apparent oversight, McClancy, located next BridgeMill, has been operating in an area zoned for residential use for nearly 20 years. County Administrator Steve Willis wanted the county to correct the error rather than wait for the company to apply for a light industrial zoning so it can expand its facility off Spice Road as part of a $3 million project McClancy said will create 42 new jobs.

Residents aren’t opposed to the expansion, they said, just the rezoning. Property zoned industrial so close their subdivision will lower residential property values and open the door to unwanted development, they said.

Councilman Larry McCullough, one of two Indian Land representatives, didn’t attend the Nov. 23 meeting and said he needs more information before deciding how to proceed. The Panhandle’s other representative, Brian Carnes, voted against the rezoning Nov. 9 but was with the majority in favor of reconsideration two weeks later. He said he was swayed after he was lobbied by Wilkerson. Carnes said Wilkerson “talked with each council member individually asking them to reconsider the vote.”

The context in which Wilkerson lobbied the council members is unclear, but what is clear is that residents were short changed by not getting equal time. Making the decision to reverse the earlier vote and keep the re-zoning request alive when no one knew it would be up for discussion at last week’s meeting is salt in the wound.

A saving grace is that council still has an opportunity to do the right thing when the rezoning request comes up at a meeting in December – presumably as a published agenda item, so interested residents who want to show up and have their say will have adequate notice.

Council should once again deny the request, leaving Wilkerson and his company to apply on its own in 2016. By then, the county could find a solution that satisfies both sides. The county can still steer McClancy toward seeking a business zoning that would allow some flexibility while protecting residential property values.

However this plays out, the council owes Indian Land residents an apology for the emotional roller coaster and conducting business – legal as it is – in such an unseemly, backdoor manner.

This story was originally published November 30, 2015 at 10:07 AM with the headline "Editorial: County Council should have let McClancy vote stand."