Lancaster County Council Postpones Major Development Decisions: The Haven and Harris Property Rezonings Delayed for Further Review

At the regular meeting on February 23, 2026, the Lancaster County Council primarily focused on significant land-use and infrastructure concerns. Following intense public testimony regarding traffic safety and the strain on emergency services, the Council voted to postpone decisions on two major developments: the Harris Property rezoning in Indian Land and “The Haven” project. While major rezonings were delayed, the Council moved forward with several fiscal and administrative items, including the establishment of a new Housing Committee and the approval of funding for EMS equipment upgrades and a budget realignment for Department of Social Services (DSS) revenues.

Detailed Agenda Item Summary

1. Harris Property Rezoning (Ordinance 2026-2012)

  • Item: A request to rezone approximately 71.1 acres at Charlotte Highway and Laurel Hill Road from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Regional Business (RB).
  • Discussion: Numerous citizens spoke in opposition, citing a 170% increase in traffic accidents in the Indian Land area and a lack of transparency regarding a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the developer (CF Smith) and the county. Councilman Jose Luis emphasized that the current infrastructure cannot support more “traps” for motorists and requested clear limits on “big box” retail square footage.
  • Action: Councilman Luis moved to delay the second reading until the next meeting to allow for the review of the MOU and a revised site plan. The motion passed 6-1, with Chairman Carnes opposed.

2. The Haven Development Agreement & Rezoning (Ordinances 2025-2002 & 2025-2001)

  • Item: A development agreement and rezoning for a project involving over 900 single-family homes between Charlotte Highway and Craig Farm Road.+1
  • Discussion: The developer, John Hardy of LAR, offered to increase public safety impact fees to $14,724 per home and donate a 5-acre site for a combined Fire and EMS station. However, Councilwoman McGriff and Councilman Luis argued that the county lacks a comprehensive plan to staff and build these facilities before the growth arrives.
  • Action: The Council voted 4-3 to postpone the second reading of both ordinances until the second regular meeting in March, following a “Council of the Whole” meeting to discuss regional infrastructure planning.

3. Budget Realignment & DSS Revenue Fund (Ordinance 2025-2004)

  • Item: Establishing a special revenue fund to account for Department of Social Services (DSS) child support enforcement program funding.
  • Action: The third reading was approved unanimously. This realigns existing budget appropriations to increase transparency and ensure compliance with federal and state requirements without changing the bottom-line budget.

4. EMS Garage Bay & Equipment Upgrades (Ordinances 2025-2010 & 2026-2016)

  • Items: Finalizing funding for an EMS garage bay and purchasing digital temperature sensors for medical supply storage.
  • Discussion: The garage bay project, funded by ARPA dollars, was completed in November 2025 but required an $180,000 transfer from the general fund balance to close the budget. The digital sensors ($39,738) are required to prevent the loss of expensive medications due to temperature fluctuations during transport.
  • Action: Both items were approved unanimously.

5. Housing Committee Establishment (Ordinance 2026-2017)

  • Item: A proposal to create a 13-member housing committee to study affordable housing options and implement comprehensive plan goals.
  • Discussion: Council members discussed the need for representation from various municipalities and the importance of training members as soon as they are appointed.
  • Action: The first reading was approved unanimously.

6. Somerset Neighborhood Roads

  • Item: A request from the Somerset HOA for the county to accept their neighborhood roads into the county maintenance system.
  • Discussion: Interim County Administrator Steve Willis and Public Works Director Jeff Catoe recommended denial because the roads do not provide connectivity to other county roads and the original development agreement specified they would be privately maintained.
  • Action: A motion to accept the roads failed for lack of a second; therefore, the request was denied.

7. Executive Session Matters

  • Items: Discussion of personnel matters regarding the organizational chart and legal advice concerning a claim by a former employee.
  • Action: Following the session, the Council reported that no motions were made and no votes were taken.

Sign up for our Sunday Spectator. Delivered to your inbox every Sunday, with all the news from the week.