How We Will Evaluate Agricultural Enclave Applications Under SB 686

Before we jump into how each of the Ag Enclave applications stacks up against the statute, I thought it would be helpful to lay out the requirements.

---

But first, let’s talk about the suggestions that the County should seek an injunction to stop the certification process from moving forward. Asking for an injunction is not as simple as disagreeing with the law—or believing it will produce bad results.

The County would first need a viable legal claim. That might involve an argument that the statute violates the Florida Constitution, exceeds the Legislature’s constitutional authority, violates due process or conflicts with another constitutional provision.

The County could also ask the court for a temporary injunction while the larger case was being decided. To obtain that relief, it would generally need to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the absence of an adequate legal remedy and that an injunction would serve—or at least not harm—the public interest.

Would merely filing the lawsuit stop the applications already pending? No. The law would remain in effect unless and until a judge entered an order temporarily preventing its enforcement. Whether that order would apply to applications already filed would depend upon the precise relief requested and granted.

Litigation could also take months or years. Meanwhile, SB 686 gives the County only 90 days to approve or deny certification before a property is certified by default. That is why, unless a court says otherwise, the County must continue evaluating the applications under the law currently in effect.

---

So let’s jump into what we will be looking for as we analyze the applications already submitted.

When Florida’s new agricultural enclave law took effect on July 1, 2026, it created a highly structured and unusually compressed process for reviewing qualifying properties.

Under SB 686, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners cannot simply decide that a proposed development is too large, too controversial or inconsistent with the county’s existing growth plans. If an application satisfies the requirements established by the Legislature, the county must certify the property as an agricultural enclave.

But that does not mean every application labeled an “agricultural enclave” automatically qualifies.

The law contains numerous factual, geographic and legal requirements. Our review will focus on whether each applicant has produced sufficient evidence to establish every required element, not merely whether the application contains the right words or conclusions.

---

Start With the Property as It Existed on January 1, 2025

Several of the law’s threshold requirements depend upon conditions that existed on January 1, 2025.

The property must have been:

• Located in unincorporated county territory;
• Undeveloped;
• One parcel or a legally identifiable group of parcels; and
• Owned or controlled by a single person or entity.

That makes the property’s history important.

The County should carefully review deeds, property-appraiser records, corporate records, contracts, options and other documents to determine who owned or controlled the property on the statutory date. Parcels acquired or assembled after January 1, 2025, will require particularly careful scrutiny. These documents are included in the applications but including them is not the same as demonstrating the requirement has been met.

The meaning of “undeveloped” may also become a significant issue. Agricultural property is not necessarily unimproved property. A site may contain homes, barns, roads, utilities, mining activity or other structures. Those conditions should be identified rather than simply described by the applicant as agricultural land.

---

Verify the Agricultural History

The property must have been in continuous bona fide agricultural use for at least five years before the application.

An agricultural classification from the property appraiser is important evidence, but it is not necessarily sufficient on its own. There should be supporting records establishing both the classification and the actual agricultural activity on every parcel during the required period.

Those records might include:

• Agricultural leases;
• Farm, crop or livestock records;
• Receipts and tax schedules;
• Historical aerial photographs; and
• Site inspections or other documentation of the property’s use.

Any part of the property that was not used for agriculture should be mapped and evaluated separately. The evidence should demonstrate a genuine, continuous agricultural operation—not an activity established primarily to create eligibility for future development.

---

Check Every Foot of the Perimeter

The perimeter calculations are likely to be among the most complicated and contested parts of these applications.

A survey should identify the property’s complete perimeter in linear feet. Every boundary segment should then be classified, measured and supported by evidence. The applicant’s calculations should be independently checked.

The law provides more than one way for a property to satisfy the surrounding-development requirements.

One alternative generally requires at least 75 percent of the perimeter to be surrounded by a qualifying combination of existing development, land designated and substantially developed for residential, commercial or industrial uses, or certain interstate and urban-service-area conditions.

A second alternative applies to properties of 700 acres or less. It requires that at least 50 percent of the perimeter is surrounded by appropriately designated property and at least 50 percent is surrounded by property within an established urban service district, area or line.

A third alternative involves property located within a rural study area adopted into the local comprehensive plan and intended for residential development.

For each application, we will look to see which alternative the applicant is claiming and whether the evidence proves it.

Roads, canals and bodies of water require special attention. The qualifying land use is generally determined by examining the parcel directly across the feature—not by counting the roadway, canal or water itself as surrounding development. Corner touches and point contacts are not to be treated as portions of the perimeter.

The law also prohibits one locally certified agricultural enclave from being used to establish the qualifying perimeter of another.

---

Confirm the Acreage Limits

The general acreage limit is 1,280 acres.

Larger properties may qualify only under additional requirements involving their perimeter, surrounding residential development and projected population at buildout. No qualifying property may exceed 4,480 acres.

Those calculations should be documented rather than accepted at face value. Any reliance on “authorized” future development should be supported by valid development approvals, and projected buildout population should include the methodology and assumptions used.

---

Examine Public Services and Infrastructure

Certification does not make infrastructure limitations disappear.

Applications should address water, wastewater, transportation, schools and recreation. The review should identify the responsible service providers, available capacity, required extensions or improvements, projected timing and costs.

If those services are not presently available or scheduled through the county’s capital improvements program, the applicant may offer to pay for or construct its proportionate share of improvements or contribute necessary land. Any such offer should be sufficiently specific and enforceable to form a binding agreement.

---

Identify Protected Property and Environmental Constraints

Certain lands are excluded or subject to additional protections, including property within specified protected areas, military installations or ranges, and land encumbered by qualifying conservation easements.

Certification also does not erase environmental requirements.

The review should consider wetlands, floodplains, stormwater, listed species and established wildlife corridors. Where habitat connectivity may be affected, measures such as clustering, retained open space and wildlife crossings should be evaluated.

The county may be constrained in how it applies its land-use regulations, but existing environmental and conservation protections must still be identified and preserved.

---

Test the Adjacent Density Comparison

To obtain certification, an applicant must identify genuinely adjacent property that legally permits the same or a higher residential density.

The important question is not necessarily how many homes have already been constructed nearby. It is what density the adjacent property is legally entitled to develop under its future land use designation, zoning, development order, PUD or other valid approval.

---

Track the Deadlines Carefully

SB 686 imposes strict deadlines:

• A written compliance report is due within 30 calendar days after the application is received.
• A public hearing must be held within 30 calendar days after the report.
• The county must approve or deny certification within 90 calendar days after receiving the application.
• If the county fails to act within 90 days, the property must be certified.
• After development plans are submitted, the county and applicant must establish a written review process within 30 business days.
• The development-plan review process may not exceed 180 days.

These deadlines run from receipt of the application—not necessarily from the date the county considers it complete. That creates a risk if an application is missing information but the statutory clock continues to run.

---

Certification Is Only the First Stage

This is an important element. Certification establishes that a property qualifies for treatment under the new law. It is not the same thing as approving a final development plan.

After certification, the applicant must submit plans showing the proposed uses, density or intensity, infrastructure and site design. The law limits the county’s ability to reject a qualifying plan solely because it conflicts with existing comprehensive-plan or zoning designations. It also restricts the county from imposing requirements more burdensome than those applied to comparable developments.

Nevertheless, the applicant must still demonstrate that the proposed development is an eligible use and does not exceed what the law permits based upon the relevant adjacent property.

---

The Bottom Line

Our assessment of each agricultural enclave application will ask a straightforward question:

Has the applicant proven every element required by the statute with verifiable evidence?

Each application must be evaluated parcel by parcel, boundary segment by boundary segment and requirement by requirement. Where information is missing, we will identify it. Where calculations are questionable, we will test them. Where the law leaves room for interpretation, we will distinguish the legal question from the underlying facts.

SB 686 significantly limits local discretion—but it does not eliminate the obligation to conduct a careful, consistent and evidence-based review.

---

One caveat: I am not an attorney, and this is not a legal opinion. I am a former Chief Audit Executive who spent decades evaluating evidence against federal, state, local and international requirements. That is the lens I am bringing to this review.

---

If you are finding value in these updates, please subscribe to my blog so you get notifications when I publish an update. Feel free to share with others who may find value in the content.