Consultants present Article 3 zoning rewrite to Clay County commissioners; residents press for clearer affordable-housing definitions and broader outreach

Angela Biaggi, a planner with WGI, told the Clay County Commission that consultants are consolidating and simplifying a draft of Article 3 — the countyode section that sets zoning districts, permitted uses and development standards — and would soon deliver a consolidated draft to county staff.

"We're here today to give you guys an update on our work for Article 3, which is the zoning code," Biaggi said, noting workshops in October and two additional sessions the previous day with residents and the development community. WGI said it used dot-voting at the workshops to gauge support for uses in rural, low-, medium- and high-intensity areas and that the results will inform a use matrix showing whether each use will be permitted, conditional or prohibited.

The presentation highlighted points of agreement and disagreement between residents and developers. WGI said residents and developers were broadly aligned in some medium-intensity categories but diverged sharply in high-density and certain lower-density commercial questions: developers favored duplexes and outdoor-storage uses in some locations, while citizens opposed them where infrastructure or neighborhood character could be affected. WGI told commissioners it would summarize participant comments and provide more granular maps showing commercial nodes near interchanges rather than treating large rural blocks uniformly.

Commissioners and consultants focused substantial attention on definitions. Several elected officials said the term "affordable housing" lacks a consistent local meaning and urged that the code either define the term or coordinate with Article 1 (the county efinitions section) so residents understand what is being proposed. Erica Gertin of WGI said density will be framed as a component of a broader "intensity" term to improve consistency across residential and nonresidential districts, while preserving residential density measures (dwelling units per acre) where appropriate.

Public commenters pressed two recurring themes: the representativeness of workshop input and the county's ability to provide infrastructure as growth occurs. Resident Rich Sheller urged a post-mortem on prior planning efforts and suggested studying neighboring countiesor lessons learned. "Do a post mortem on your previous plan," Sheller said, adding that a larger public sample is needed to ensure decisions reflect the county population.

Resident Rich Klinsman, who criticized market-rate developers' pricing, urged tighter affordability protections and suggested returning to lower-density standards in some places. "When the carpetbaggers from Orlando came up
nd got approval to put their flat apartments in
t Sandridge And Russell,
nd the answer was whatever the market will bear, which is a code word for we're gonna gouge every last nickel out of them," Klinsman said.

Commissioners responded that Clay County is actively studying infrastructure and affordability. One commissioner noted that the county recently passed an impact-fee ordinance and participates in regional council efforts on affordable-housing research. Commissioners also cited permit and growth comparisons with neighboring counties to argue both for planning and for caution about directly emulating others.

WGI outlined the structure of the draft Article 3: Part A (general provisions, graphics and hyperlinks), Part B (nonconformities and vested-rights methodology), Part C (future land use and density/intensity bonuses), Part D (district development regulations and master-plan consistency) and Part E (use types with a standardized template and the consolidated adequate public facilities/technical standards section). Gertin said the consultants will tabularize zoning districts and uses to make the code easier to interpret and will pass comments that belong to other code articles to county staff for action in those sections.

On schedule, consultants said a consolidated draft would be provided to staff in the coming weeks and that planning-commission review was expected the same day as the presentation; several commissioners requested more time between developer/citizen meetings and commission briefings so members can digest recommended changes.

The commission closed the public-comment period after several residents urged broader outreach (digital surveys, mailed materials) so working residents who cannot attend meetings are represented. The meeting ended with commissioners thanking participants and noting additional technical studies (transportation, stormwater resiliency) are ongoing as staff and consultants refine the draft.