Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Case 24 59 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning for 1.47‑acre Lake Wylie dredging operation over neighborhood objections, 5‑2
Summary
By a 5‑2 vote, York County Council rezoned a 1.47‑acre parcel (case 24‑59) from RMX‑20 to Light Industrial with deed restrictions limiting uses to the dredging/dock operation described; opponents said the change conflicts with the county's future land‑use plan and raised compatible‑use concerns.
York County Council approved third reading on Feb. 17 to rezone a 1.47‑acre parcel (case 24‑59, tax map 5610000022) from RMX‑20 to Light Industrial, with deed restrictions and conditions attached, by a vote of 5‑2.
The rezoning was presented for consideration as an action to permit a dredging‑and‑dock operation intended to serve lakefront property owners. Several residents and speakers addressed the council during the public‑comment period and the public hearing. Natalia Mitchell said the community welcomed the applicant (identified in testimony as Onibeni/"O'Bene"/"Onyebeni" in various spellings in the record) but asked that the parcel remain clearly classified as light industrial and that the Board of Zoning Appeals be used for use determinations when appropriate. Lisa Thompson, a land‑use consultant with Morin Van Allen, spoke for the applicant and asked the council to hear the rezoning that evening.
Opponents, including resident Lena Vivant, urged caution and said certain industrial uses — and the storage or transfer of dredged material — would not be compatible with the neighborhood or the county's future land‑use designation of "neighborhood residential." Vivant referenced chemical‑handling concerns raised previously in unrelated discussions about industrial users sited near schools.
Council deliberations reflected the split. Councilman Riley and others supported the rezoning as a way to provide a service residents said they needed to dredge lakefront properties and to protect property values. Councilman Litton and one other council member opposed the rezoning, citing Planning Commission comments that the rezoning was inconsistent with the future land‑use map and expressing concern about compatibility. The motion to approve included deed restrictions tailored to the requested operation; staff said the deed restrictions limit the allowable uses on the parcel, condition the operation on necessary approvals (including Duke Energy approval for lake work), and provide the county standing to enforce the restrictions should the property owner fail to comply.
Council voted 5‑2 to approve the rezoning with those deed restrictions and conditions. No roll‑call vote naming each council member was recorded in the public transcript; the meeting record reflects the 5‑2 tally. A separate zoning item on a different parcel (case 204‑66) was deferred to a future meeting at a subsequent motion.
Councilmembers who supported the rezoning said they hoped the deed restrictions and the conditions would protect neighbors while allowing a practical solution to longstanding dredging needs. Opponents said the change runs counter to the county's future land‑use guidance and expressed concerns about outdoor storage and potential incompatibilities.
