Clay County commissioners deny transmittal for proposed Goodrich Estates land‑use change after hours of public comment

The Clay County Board of County Commissioners voted 4‑1 on Dec. 9 to deny transmittal of a proposed comprehensive plan amendment that would have cleared the way for a 160‑unit Pulte Homes subdivision labeled Goodrich Estates.

The request, described at the meeting as a staff‑initiated transmittal and companion PUD application, would have changed about 64 acres along County Road 315/315A from rural residential and agricultural to rural fringe. Mark Shelton of Kimley Horn Associates (speaker 30), the applicant’s planner, and Bill Schilling (speaker 23), a Kimley Horn engineer, told commissioners they revised the proposal after community outreach and said the developer would construct a southbound right‑turn lane at State Road 16/CR‑315 and provide water and sewer capacity letters from the Clay County Utility Authority. “Pulte is committing here today … Not only will they fund it, but they will build it,” Schilling said.

But residents who live adjacent to the site urged the board not to transmit the amendment to the state. Dozens of neighbors said the area already faces traffic congestion, limited evacuation routes, strained schools and stormwater concerns. “Districts 4 and 5 deserve the same intentions and the investment as the rest of this county,” Deanna Colvin (speaker 28) told the board during public comment. Nearby farmers and property owners warned that runoff from new yards and retention ponds would harm pastures, pollute springs and damage long‑held family farms. “This development is going to severely impact my farming business in a negative way,” testified Kimberly Middleton (speaker 36).

Commissioners debated the procedural question before them — whether to transmit the land‑use change for state review — rather than final approval of a PUD. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to neighbors’ concerns about timing and infrastructure capacity. Commissioner (speaker 15) moved to deny transmittal; the motion was seconded and, after discussion, the board voted to deny transmittal 4‑1.

The denial keeps the land‑use request from being sent to state agencies for their review; the PUD zoning companion will not be scheduled for a future hearing while the transmittal remains denied. Developer representatives said they will work with staff on next steps and administrative options.

Why it mattered: The transmittal vote was a procedural but pivotal step. Transmission to the state would have invited comment from regional and state agencies and potentially allowed the project to return to the county with state recommendations. Opponents argued the county and school system should not take that step until nearby approved developments and infrastructure improvements are further along.

What’s next: Because the board denied transmittal, the PUD will not advance to the February hearing cycle as previously scheduled; staff and the applicant will coordinate on next administrative steps if they continue to pursue the project.