Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies Meritage Homes land‑use change after extensive hearing on wetlands and flooding
Summary
After hourslong presentations and dozens of public comments, the Clay County commission voted 5–0 on June 23 to deny Meritage Homes' comprehensive plan and zoning changes for a roughly 28‑acre site in the Oakleaf/Brannon Ridge planning district, citing compatibility and drainage concerns.
The Clay County Board of County Commissioners on June 23 denied a developer's request to amend the county comprehensive plan and rezoning for a 28‑acre Meritage Homes proposal in the Oakleaf/Brannon Ridge planning district.
Scott Ennis, forward planning manager for Meritage Homes (speaker 30), presented the company's proposal to reduce density, conserve roughly 7 acres of wetlands, dedicate a SunTrail right‑of‑way and propose 126 single‑family units as the project's minimum. Ennis said the change was intended to reduce wetland impacts, provide stormwater measures and yield a development more compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.
Residents and farmers testified strongly in opposition, citing repeated flooding on low‑lying properties, private well impacts, and concerns that retention ponds and purchased wetland credits would not protect neighboring farms. Joseph Tomalini (speaker 25), who owns a family farm across Sunrise Farms Road, said the proposed plan would “flood out my farm and four other multi‑generational farms” and questioned whether wetland credits would mitigate localized drainage risks. Amber Crosby (speaker 32) and Lindsey Seibert (speaker 10) also described standing water and what they said were existing flood pathways into Black Creek.
Commissioners raised compatibility, minimum density requirements in the applicable master plan district and whether the county should accept a plan that allows more development under the current land use than the reduced‑density proposal. After debate the board voted 5–0 to deny the comp plan and rezoning changes; the chair clarified the property can still be developed under its current entitlements but the requested amendments will not move forward.
What this means: The developer may pursue development permitted under current zoning; any future land‑use change requests would require separate action. County staff and the developer indicated further engineering and drainage work would be needed for any future application.
