ST. JOHNS COUNTY, Fla. – The St. Johns County Commission voted 3-2 to deny two agricultural enclave applications previously approved Aug. 19, following a debate over whether the properties met Florida’s statutory requirements.
The applications were identified during the meeting as Heritage East and Heritage West. Commissioner Christian Whitehurst brought them back for a board discussion about how the county was evaluating agricultural enclave requests.
Recommended Videos
“I wanted to talk about the standards by which we’re evaluating these applications, and so it’s really that I wanted to prompt the discussion between the board while we evaluate the applications based on the letter of the law or by other variables that weren’t mentioned during the meetings and opened up for a board discussion,” Whitehurst said.
A central issue was whether the applications met the statute’s perimeter requirements, including provisions referring to an urban service area or line. County staff said it analyzed the county’s development area boundary as the equivalent of an urban service area.
RELATED | Who helped write SB 686? Inside the law reshaping development in St. Johns County
Jacob Smith, speaking for county staff, said, “We did analyze it as our development area boundary as the stand-in for that terminology.”
Commissioner Anne Taylor disagreed, saying the development area boundary did not meet the state’s definition of an urban service area.
“The development area boundary is a very general growth management line whereas an urban service area is a very specific designation that the statute specifically defines. So then we cannot treat them the same. They are not the same,” Taylor said.
Taylor said the state definition requires an area to be identified in the comprehensive plan, with public facilities and services already in place or identified in the capital improvements element. She questioned where the county had identified and funded specific road, water and sewer projects for the area.
“Clearly we don’t have that. We don’t have that,” Taylor said.
The applicants’ attorney, Robert Walters, argued that the properties met the requirements. He said the parcels were undeveloped, owned and controlled by Heritage Development, and had agricultural classifications for at least 10 years. He also said the application met the perimeter requirements and that the applicant had asserted it would negotiate with the county to provide public services.
Walters argued that county staff reached the same conclusion.
“Staff went through the application and determined that the two parcels met the requirements of the law and thus demonstrated through competent substantial evidence that all the requirements were met,” Walters said.
He also questioned whether the commission had authority to reconsider the applications and asked the board to uphold the previous approvals.
“For those reasons we go request that the county take no action today and uphold the prior approvals that occurred on August 19 of this year,” Walters said.
Residents raised concerns about water supply, traffic, stormwater, roads, schools, emergency services and continued development.
Whitehurst said the board should base its decision on evidence rather than political pressure.
“My remarks in summary were let’s make our decision based on the evidence, not on politics,” Whitehurst said.
He later thanked Taylor for bringing forward additional research.
“I appreciate you doing the work of bringing something of substance that I can actually consider,” Whitehurst said.
Taylor responded, “I cannot thank you enough because it took time to look into this even further. And if we did not have that time, we would not be here today.”
The commission then voted to deny both applications, 3-2.
