Planning board transmits Agricola comp‑plan amendment after heated debate over removing traffic-condition policy

The Clay County Planning Board voted to transmit a comprehensive-plan amendment (Comp26-0010) requested by the owner/agent of the Agricola project that would delete Comprehensive Plan CIE policy 1.3.6, a condition that previously required a traffic study tied to a 1,251-unit threshold. Staff and applicant representatives said a traffic impact analysis has been completed and reviewed by county staff and that revised internal connections to Clay Dairy Parkway and the 1st Coast Expressway mean the project itself is not the cause of projected level-of-service failures on US 17.

Ellen Avery Smith, attorney for the applicant, told the board the application is a text amendment to delete the CIE policy and that the traffic study has been provided to staff for review. Planner Ray Spofford summarized the study and planned roadway network, saying the analysis found that future background traffic — not project traffic — causes projected capacity issues on two segments of US 17. "The traffic study findings, basically, there are no LOS failures attributable to the Agricola project," he said during the presentation.

Applicant representative Kevin Kramer said removing the policy is important to finance the infrastructure because bond underwriters require certainty about the plan used to secure bonds: "The residential helps pay for the roads... in order to get that bonding... you need to have the assurance that you can complete the entire plan."

Several commissioners pushed back, describing the deletion as potentially removing a county safeguard. One commissioner said the change seemed like "the cart before the horse," urging that the development agreement and binding commitments to build the roads be fully in place before removing the policy. Another commissioner asked whether transmittal should wait until the development agreement is finalized; staff and applicant said the transmittal is a step that will be followed by return hearings in September when the amended and restated development agreement and PUD amendments will come back for adoption.

Residents also spoke during public comment, raising concerns about historic Bellamy Road, dust and land-management problems with the current property owner, and the need for clear, written guarantees. A Bellamy Road resident told the board the historic roadway and oak trees are important and asked the board to protect the route. Applicant and staff responded that protections for historic Bellamy Road and buffers are included in the draft development agreement and PUD and that the traffic study included background traffic from nearby approved projects.

A commissioner moved to transmit Comp26‑0010 to the County Commission for state review; the motion was seconded and carried, with one dissenting vote recorded. Staff said the item will go to the Board of County Commissioners on July 28 and that adoption and companion approvals (DRI/PUD and the development agreement) are scheduled to return for action in September.

The transmittal does not itself adopt changes or authorize construction; it sends the text amendment to the County Commission and state review as required by Florida law. The board’s discussion centered on sequencing, the assurances that road construction will be guaranteed in the development agreement (a statutory contract), and whether removing the policy would remove a future opportunity to re-evaluate traffic impacts.