Clay County BZA approves variances for four‑lot subdivision amid disputed parcel

The Clay County Board of Zoning Adjustments approved variances for case 25-101BZA, clearing the way for a proposed four‑lot subdivision of a roughly 40‑acre property despite a disputed triangular parcel that reduces road frontage, the board decided at a meeting.

The variances approved relieve three code requirements the applicant could not meet without the disputed parcel: the width‑to‑depth ratio, the requirement that every lot abut a public street, and the requirement that a landlocked parcel be 20 acres and served by a 60‑foot shared access easement (land development code sections cited in staff materials: 151‑8.4(a), 151‑8.4(g) and 151‑8.2(b)(5)). The motion to approve the zoning adjustment (case number 25‑101BZA) passed on a roll call vote of 2‑0.

Staff told the board the parent tract is roughly 40 acres and that the four proposed lots are each just under 10 acres, which is why the 20‑acre landlocked‑parcel rule is implicated if the small triangular parcel south of Lot 1 is not part of the applicant’s ownership. Staff noted the red triangular parcel shown on presentation maps is a separately owned piece that cuts into road frontage for Lots 1 and 2, creating two of the variance needs.

Michelle Blankenship, who identified herself and her husband as the applicants, told the board they purchased the property about a year and a half ago intending to split it for family homes. Blankenship said county parcel maps initially showed the triangle as part of their lot and that they discovered the discrepancy only after ordering a survey. She described contacting the apparent current owner, Derek Ellis, and then the prior owners (the Bennetts). Blankenship said the Bennetts—one a surviving octogenarian—told her they never claimed adverse possession and provided a notarized letter to that effect; she said the title company is investigating whether the 2019 transactions involving the triangular piece were improper. "We still have not heard from [the title company]," Blankenship said.

Director Jones told the board that if the triangle were later resolved in the applicant’s favor, the proper administrative step would be to replat Lots 1 and 2 to include that piece; replatting would be an administrative process and would not require a new Planning and Zoning or County Commission hearing. Jones also said, "we will require before the recording of plat, shared driveway agreements that will address the access and the maintenance of those areas." The recording of those agreements will be a condition before final plat recording.

Board members discussed the BZA variance criteria, which staff summarized for the board: uniqueness of conditions, no adverse effect to public interest or adjacent rights, demonstration of practical difficulty to the owner, and no harm to public health, safety or the comprehensive plan. One commissioner said three of the criteria "are pretty easily met" in this case and that the uniqueness criterion was the key question; the board concluded the criteria had been satisfied and approved the variances.

Votes at a glance: the board approved the zoning adjustment for case 25‑101BZA (motion: approve case 25‑101BZA with boxes marked approved; mover: Commissioner John Carpenter; seconder: Commissioner Scott Wagner; roll call: John Carpenter — yes; Scott Wagner — aye; outcome: approved 2‑0). The board also approved minutes from Dec. 17, 2025, and elected Scott Wagner chair and Joanne Lawson vice chair (both carried by voice/roll calls recorded during the meeting).