Tag: AgEnclave

Posted in Ag Enclaves, BOCC, St. Johns County

September 1 St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners Meeting – Focus on Ag Enclaves

Posted on by Beth Tate

North Palm Valley Agricultural Enclave: No Approval, No Denial—and the Clock Is Still Running

With 13 items on Tuesday’s agenda, it was going to be a long meeting regardless. But the continued hearing on the North Palm Valley Road Agricultural Enclave certification became the dominant—and most procedurally confusing—discussion of the day.

I’ll keep this post focused on the Agricultural Enclave. Watch for my next post addressing the proposed conservation property-tax levy scheduled for the November 3 ballot.

The North Palm Valley application remained Agenda Item 3 but was moved forward to be heard second, at Commissioner Krista Joseph’s request, because so many residents had come to speak, including some who had taken time away from work.

Even before the item was heard, however, the public comment process became confusing. Commission Chair Clay Murphy allowed residents to address the Agricultural Enclave during general public comment, even though the application remained on the regular agenda for a continued public hearing. The Board’s published rules describe general public comment as the opportunity to address matters not scheduled on the regular agenda.

Some residents spoke then. Others believed they would be able to speak after the applicant’s presentation when the formal hearing resumed. That created understandable confusion over whether public comment on the application had already occurred and whether residents who waited for the agenda item would still be heard.

Link to Public Comment: Public Comment

Several recurring themes emerged during public comment, many of them echoing legal and factual arguments that had circulated on social media before the meeting.

Themes in Public Comment on Ag Enclaves:

Most speakers addressing Senate Bill 686 and the North Palm Valley Road certification raised similar concerns, including:

  • Whether the applicant could use a metes-and-bounds description to carve approximately 4,462 acres out of larger tax parcels containing more acreage;
  • Whether the statutory January 1, 2025 eligibility date had been satisfied;
  • Whether at least 50 percent of the property’s perimeter was surrounded by qualifying development;
  • Whether vacant but platted lots should count as “developed” property;
  • Whether the land had been continuously used for bona fide agricultural or silvicultural purposes;
  • Potential impacts on groundwater, water pressure and future water supply;
  • Environmental impacts, including wetlands, wildlife habitat, drainage and flooding;
  • Transportation, school and public-service demands;
  • The potential financial burden on existing residents for infrastructure required by future development;
  • The loss of local government authority under the new state law; and
  • Whether the County should deny the application and defend that decision in court rather than initiate a separate challenge to the statute.

One speaker supported a more pragmatic approach to eventual development and cautioned against treating “no development” as the only acceptable outcome.

Item 3: North Palm Valley Road Agricultural Enclave certification

The approximately 4,462-acre application had been continued from August 19 so staff could review the northern boundary for compliance with Sections 163.3162 and 163.3164, Florida Statutes. County staff and the applicant characterized the northern-boundary question as the limited purpose of the continued hearing. Several residents and commissioners nevertheless raised broader questions about whether the application satisfied the statute.

The applicant’s land use attorney made that point clear and reminded Commissioners that if public comment after the applicant’s presentation on the boundary analysis strayed into other topics, that would give the applicant leeway to bring rebuttal to those comments.

Watch the full continued hearing here: N. Palm Valley Ag Enclave Continued Hearing

Boundary and parcel issue

Growth Management Director Mike Roberson reported that the County surveyor had reexamined the legal description. Staff found that the metes-and-bounds description closed properly and constituted an accurate legal description of the property.

The applicant’s attorney, Ellen Avery-Smith, presented that:

  • Florida law defines a parcel as land capable of being described with sufficient definiteness to establish its location and boundaries;
  • The owner may designate the portion of the land to be used or developed as a unit;
  • Fifth District Court of Appeal precedent permits the owner to define a parcel through a metes-and-bounds legal description;
  • The application therefore could include approximately 4,462 acres without including the entirety of every underlying property identification number; and
  • The situation differed from the Orange County example Ag Enclave application, cited by some residents in Public Comment. In the example application, the applicant relied on tax parcel numbers and a map but did not provide a separate metes-and-bounds description.

Arguments Presented During the Continued Hearing

During the continued hearing, residents challenging the application focused more specifically on the boundary analysis and the evidence supporting the statutory criteria. They argued that:

  • The boundaries may have been drawn specifically to remain below the statutory 4,480-acre ceiling;
  • Portions of existing tax parcels could not necessarily be treated as independent qualifying parcels as of January 1, 2025;
  • The applicant had not adequately demonstrated that at least 50 percent of the perimeter was surrounded by qualifying urban development;
  • Vacant platted lots, seawalls and subdivision plats should not automatically be treated as qualifying development;
  • The historical agricultural or silvicultural use of the property had not been adequately documented;
  • The Board should require parcel-by-parcel evidence supporting the perimeter calculation; and
  • The broader environmental, water and infrastructure consequences justified denial or, at minimum, additional independent review.

One specific point of dispute was whether intentionally vacant land within approved developments to the south should be considered “developed.” The applicant responded that platting is itself included within Florida’s statutory definition of development and provided subdivision plats, property records and other materials intended to substantiate the perimeter calculation.

Commissioners’ discussion

Commissioner Whitehurst said County staff had repeatedly concluded that the application met the statute, even after the Board requested additional scrutiny. He distinguished the certification proceeding from an ordinary rezoning, where the Board has broader discretion, and said the Board’s responsibility was to apply the limited criteria established by state law.

Chairman Murphy also said he believed the applicant had demonstrated compliance and that the law itself—not an individual application that appeared to meet its requirements—should be challenged. However, when the approval motion was made, Murphy joined Commissioners Joseph and Taylor in voting against it. Murphy had also voted against denial. With the chairman opposing both possible dispositions, neither motion received the three votes needed for Board action.

Commissioners Taylor and Joseph maintained that both the statute and the supporting evidence remained subject to interpretation. They favored denying the application and allowing a court to determine whether the applicant had established the required acreage, boundaries and surrounding development.

Motions and outcome

The Board took three consequential votes, which caused quite a bit of confusion.

  1. Motion to deny the certification: Failed 3–2. (Commissioners Whitehurst, Arnold and Murphy voting no)
  2. Motion to retain outside counsel and pursue legal action against Senate Bill 686, potentially including injunctive relief: Passed 3–2. (Commissioners Whitehurst and Arnold voting no.)

County counsel cautioned that outside attorneys viewed an affirmative County challenge as an uphill fight, particularly regarding standing, and had previously suggested that the County would be in a stronger position defending a local denial.

  1. Motion to approve the Agricultural Enclave certification: Failed 3–2. (Commissioners Joseph, Taylor and Murphy voting no.)

The Board therefore ended the September 1 meeting in an unusual position. A majority opposed denying the application, but a different majority also opposed approving it.

The property was not certified by the Board on September 1, but the application was not denied. Under the statute, if the County does not formally approve or deny the request within 90 days of receiving it, the property must be certified as an Agricultural Enclave.

At the September 3 budget hearing, Commissioner Joseph requested that the North Palm Valley application be placed on the Board’s September 15 agenda. If placed on that agenda, the application will return to the Commission before the statutory deadline, giving the Board another opportunity to take formal action.

The September 1 votes did not resolve the application, but they revealed the divisions that will follow it into the next hearing. Commissioners Joseph and Taylor supported denial. Commissioners Arnold and Whitehurst supported approval. Chairman Murphy voted against both motions while supporting a separate legal challenge to Senate Bill 686.

The central question for September 15 will be whether one of those positions changes—or whether the Board again fails to reach the three votes required for either approval or denial.

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.

Posted in Ag Enclaves, BOCC, Florida Legislature

How We Will Evaluate Agricultural Enclave Applications Under SB 686

Posted on by Beth Tate

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.