Commissioners deny Gustafson land-use change for 13.86-acre Green Cove parcel, 4-1

The Clay County Board of County Commissioners voted 4-1 on June 24 to deny a request to change the future land use of a 13.86-acre parcel off County Road 16A from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential and to rezone the site from AG to AR.

The application, submitted by property owner Cheryl Gustafson and represented at the meeting by agent Danielle Kitchens, sought the Rural Residential designation that could allow up to approximately 13 dwelling units on the 13.86-acre parcel if clustering, perimeter buffers and 35% open-space preservation conditions were met. County planning staff and the Springs Citizens Advisory Committee recommended approval; the Planning Commission had forwarded the request with a favorable recommendation.

County planning staff told the board the parcel is inside the county's urban service area and lies within about three miles of schools and emergency services, factors that score toward the points system planners use to allow higher densities. Staff recommended approval on the basis that the request would "extend existing patterns to the north and east," make use of nearby public facilities and could be treated as an infill project.

But several commissioners said the parcel sits near multiple already-approved and planned developments and that the county does not need the added density the applicant sought. Commissioner John Burke (district) said he was not supportive of increasing density in that location and was concerned about sewer availability and other infrastructure needs.

Danielle Kitchens, the applicant's agent, said the parcel has been marketed for some time and that Gustafson had been unable to locate a buyer for a single custom home. Kitchens said some potential buyers asked to rezone the property for higher-density subdivisions or townhome-style development, but that the owner declined those offers and instead sought the Rural Residential designation to broaden the pool of possible buyers, including one-off buyers interested in 5-acre tracts.

After discussion, Commissioner Magdalen moved to deny the requested land-use amendment; a second followed. The motion to deny carried 4-1. Because the board denied the future land-use change, the companion rezoning was not considered.

Commissioners and staff suggested the owner may return with a planned-unit development (PUD) proposal or with minimum-lot-size commitments, which would give the board greater control over lot size and project design than the straight AR zoning requested.

The application record shows staff and advisory bodies had recommended approval; the board's denial means the applicant must either revise the proposal or withdraw. Kitchens said the owner would work with staff on next steps and consider alternatives such as a PUD or limiting lots by deed restriction.

Because the board acted on the land-use amendment, no further public hearings on the companion rezoning were held at the June 24 meeting.