McClancy zoning decision expected Monday

Lancaster County Council will decide Monday, again, what to do with a possible rezoning for McClancy Seasoning.

Council denied third and final reading Nov. 9 on a zoning change for the company, which operates in a residential zoning off of Spice Road. Indian Land residents, citing fears for the impact on their property values, showed up in force to that meeting to ask Council not to allow a light industrial zoning that would allow the facility to expand.

Then, on Nov. 23, Council voted to reconsider even though the issue was not on the meeting agenda and no attempt was made to notify the public it would be discussed. Council voted 5-1 to bring the zoning change back up Dec. 14.

Of Indian Land’s two representatives on Council, Brian Carnes (Dist. 1) voted with the majority and Larry McCullough (Dist. 7) was absent.

“We will know after Monday night if it will go to the planning commission,” said Penelope G. Karagounis, county planning director. “If it does then it would be in January.”

The Nov. 23 decision sparked concern among some residents. Most who argued against the plan earlier in the month weren’t present for the vote to reconsider. Reid Wilkerson, McClancy president, was.

“It was just kind of one of those things that came out of the blue,” said resident Chris Green.

“I’m more concerned about the legal aspect of it. But whether it’s legal or illegal, it definitely wasn’t fair to the residents.”

Wilkerson asked members to reconsider before they approved minutes from the Nov. 9 meeting. By doing so, the prior final reading legally wouldn’t have taken place.

McClancy’s property was improperly zoned residential years ago, when the county was establishing zoning laws.

County Attorney John Weaver said the rule, though rarely used, isn’t being applied for the first time. He saw it used as far back as 2001 when he was in Horry County and hasn’t questioned the legality since.

If a member on the prevailing side of a vote motions to reconsider before Council approves minutes from the meeting where final reading took place, Weaver said, any member of Council can second the motion. A vote to reconsider resumes third reading.

“It will be the same as if the first third reading never occurred,” Weaver said.

Council could have voted for or against the decision immediately after voting to reconsider. Instead, Council voted to put the decision off until Dec. 14. The reconsideration has no special requirements for public hearings or notification, Weaver said.

“They’ve already had that,” he said. “Only one public hearing was required, and they’ve already done it.”

The only legal difference between the coming third reading and the one in November is, this time, a decision will be final.

“You cannot reconsider but once,” Weaver said.

Jeff Shacker, field services manager with the South Carolina Municipal Association, said the reconsideration prior to approving minutes isn’t “something you typically see.” It also isn’t illegal, he said.

“It’s not an action you normally see at a meeting,” Shacker said. “It can be done. There’s nothing improper about it.”

State law requires governing bodies to establish rules of order. Many are similar from county to city to town. Some aren’t.

“State law requires that you set up rules,” Shacker said. “State law doesn’t say anything about the nature of those rules.”

Councils generally have three options for reversing a decision. They can reconsider, amend or rescind, and the moves don’t always require public notification in advance of the meeting. As for another resident complaint, that Wilkerson met with individual Council members before addressing the whole group to request the reconsideration, Shacker sees no legal objection.

“There’s nothing improper about that,” he said. “Someone involved in a decision has the right to approach members of Council with concerns, just as any resident would. They’re more than entitled to do that.”

Now, questions turn to what comes next. The initial defeat came on a potential switch to light industrial zoning. Now Council can consider a business zoning that would allow some expansion for the company, but not the widespread manufacturing uses that would have come with an industrial listing.

McClancy can operate as it is now with or without a rezoning, but a change is needed to grow the company.

Jerry Holt, planning commission member and Indian Land resident, said the issue won’t be a simple one if it returns to his group.

“It's a difficult situation,” he said. “Both sides have legitimate concerns because of the error created years ago.”

Holt hopes for a reasonable outcome, one that won’t cloud future decisions in Lancaster County.

“I'll need to participate in evaluating the plans for expansion and use on the property and to help find a solution that fits this particular situation,” he said, “but doesn't open Pandora's box and set a precedent that we wouldn't want to live with in other sites in the future.”

This story was originally published December 11, 2015 at 7:30 PM with the headline "McClancy zoning decision expected Monday."