Clyde council rejects rezoning for Garza yard after heated debate and executive session

Clyde City Council on Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025, rejected Ordinance 2025‑12, a proposal to rezone part of Outlot 113 (listed in the packet as 837 East McPherson Highway) from C‑2 General Commercial to I‑1 General Industrial, after more than an hour of public discussion, proposed amendments and a short executive session for legal advice.

The tally on the motion to adopt the ordinance as presented was 2 in favor (Vice Mayor Scott Black and Councilman Greg McMaster) and 3 opposed (Councilman Chris Shea, Councilwoman Meek, and Mayor McAuley); the motion failed. A later motion to instead accept the Planning Commission’s original recommendation also failed, leaving the rezoning unresolved.

Why this matters

The rezoning would have formalized an industrial classification for an existing wood‑recycling operation run by Waylon Garza and would have governed operating details that neighbors and the council have contested. Council members and city officials debated pile size limits, 25‑foot fire access lanes, a living fence for visual screening, hours of operation, ownership restrictions and deadlines for EPA licensing and fire‑lane passability. Those conditions were central to whether the council would approve the zoning change with extra requirements or allow the Planning Commission’s recommendation to stand.

What the council debated

Council discussion focused on four categories of conditions that councilors and city staff said were needed to make the site lawful and enforceable: pile sizes for raw material, fire access roads and lane width, visual screening on the eastern property line, and deadlines for environmental and safety approvals. City solicitor Justin Leben (identified in the meeting as the city’s legal official) advised the council about how local code treats actions that differ from the Planning Commission’s recommendation, telling council members that an ordinance acting contrary to the Planning Commission requires approval from four of the five members to take effect.

Owner Waylon Garza, who spoke repeatedly during the exchange, said he could meet pile‑size changes but stressed cost and logistics for constructing passable fire roads. "I can have them this year," Garza said when pressed about reducing pile sizes; later he clarified, "I would commit to, like, one calendar year from now," when asked about completing larger changes. Fire Chief Paul Pfizer described a desire for a chain‑link fence in the plan but also said he was comfortable with vegetative screening where appropriate.

Proposed conditions and deadlines

Council members and staff discussed a set of proposed conditions that were debated and, at times, motioned as amendments: - Maximum raw material pile size (two sizes were discussed): 50 by 50 by 20 feet (one amendment) and alternatives up to 50 by 150 by 20 were referenced in discussion; Garza said he could meet 50 by 150 but objected to smaller sizes as infeasible for his operations. - A 25‑foot break between piles (fire‑access lanes). - Fire lane (passable by Clyde fire trucks) to be completed and certified by the fire chief. - A living fence (vegetative screen) on the residential side (eastern boundary), requested by residents and supported by a petition presented to council. - Ownership restriction that the operation be owned and operated by Waylon Garza, his spouse, heirs or combinations thereof. - Hours of operation discussed; council staff proposed 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Garza asked to extend start to 6 a.m. to accommodate worker routines. - Environmental compliance: EPA licensing and related federal/state approvals.

Solicitor’s suggested deadlines and enforcement proposal

After discussion, the solicitor recommended amendment language to add enforceable dates: February 1, 2026, for pile‑size compliance and EPA licensing; February 1, 2027, for a fire‑lane passability requirement certified in writing by the fire chief. The solicitor told council those dates would make the ordinance enforceable and gave council members a framework to vote on amendments.

Motions, executive session and votes

Council heard several amendment proposals and an extended public exchange. One motion to amend (adding specific pile sizes, fire‑lane deadlines, an EPA compliance date, business‑hours changes and the living fence) was made but failed for lack of a second.

Council then voted on the ordinance as presented (moved by Councilman Greg McMaster; second by Vice Mayor Scott Black). Vote: McMaster — Aye; Vice Mayor Scott Black — Aye; Councilman Chris Shea — No; Councilwoman Meek — No; Mayor McAuley — No. Outcome: failed.

After the failed vote, the solicitor advised that council was required to act within 30 days and recommended a separate vote on the Planning Commission’s recommendation (the version without the extra conditions). A motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation (moved by McMaster; second by Black) likewise failed (Vice Mayor Black — Aye; Councilman McMaster — No; Councilwoman Meek — No; Mayor McAuley — No; Councilman Shea — No). With both motions failing, the rezoning was not approved on Feb. 18.

Council entered a short executive session for legal advice during the discussion; the mayor reported afterward that the session addressed legal timing and order‑of‑operations questions but that council did not use the executive session to make the substantive policy decision.

Community concerns and council reasoning

Several council members said they wanted deadlines and enforceable conditions so the ordinance would "have teeth." One councilor voiced concern that, without a fixed completion date, the owner could delay compliance indefinitely. Others warned that imposing conditions beyond the Planning Commission recommendation required broader support; city code requires a four‑member majority to act contrary to the Planning Commission.

Owner responses and feasibility questions

Garza repeatedly said some items were feasible in a short time while others would take more time and money; he described the cost and availability of aggregate and asphalt grinding material as limiting factors for constructing multiple passable fire lanes. On pile sizes, he said the larger, 50 by 150 footprint was reasonable for his operation and that the smaller 50 by 50 piles were not practical for the industry he described.

What’s next

Because council did not approve the ordinance on Feb. 18 in either form put to the body, the matter remains unresolved as of the meeting’s close. The solicitor reminded the council that city procedures require action within 30 days on the zoning amendment; council members may revisit the item at a future meeting with amended language, seek additional information about EPA permitting and road‑building costs, or allow the Planning Commission’s recommendation to proceed.

Ending

The discussion highlighted tensions between local regulatory control, public‑safety requirements and the economic realities a small business owner described. Council members and staff said the next steps will be to consider enforceable deadlines and further technical review, including written approvals from the fire chief and evidence of EPA compliance, before the council takes a final action.