St. Johns County isn’t ready to seek an injunction over developments made possible by Florida’s new agricultural enclave law, but it isn’t done exploring legal action.
At its Aug. 4 meeting, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners directed county attorneys to consult with outside counsel to determine whether seeking an injunction against Senate Bill 686 is worth the county’s time and taxpayer dollars.
Senate Bill 686, signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, created a streamlined review process for residential development on land certified as an “agricultural enclave.” Under the law, which went into effect July 1, a property qualifies if it is unincorporated, undeveloped, under single ownership, at least 75% surrounded by existing development and located in a county with fewer than 1.75 million residents.
Landowners meeting those criteria can apply directly for Agricultural Enclave Certification, bypassing the county’s standard comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning process. Once an application meets the statutory requirements, the county’s ability to deny it is limited.
In St. Johns County, findings of the consultation with outside counsel are expected back at the board’s Aug. 18 regular meeting. That is one day before a public hearing on six pending agricultural enclave applications filed between July 1 and July 7, including a 4,462-acre proposal from the Davis family, founders of Winn-Dixie, in northern St. Johns County west of the Intracoastal Waterway. A seventh application filed July 29 does not have a hearing scheduled.
County Attorney Richard Komando said filing a lawsuit would not automatically stop the agricultural enclave review process. A court would have to grant a temporary injunction before the county’s review of applications would be halted.
During the July 21 commission meeting, residents urged the board to seek relief against SB 686. At the Aug. 4 meeting, that pressure surfaced among commissioners themselves, with differing views on whether the county should act immediately or first determine whether it has a viable legal option.
Saying she was “disappointed” with the path the commission chose, Commissioner Krista Joseph was the most vocal advocate for pursuing an injunction, arguing the county should move now rather than allow more acreage to advance under the new law while commissioners deliberate.
Commissioners Sarah Arnold and Christian Whitehurst urged caution, questioning whether the county should commit public money to litigation without first knowing whether it has standing or a reasonable chance of success. Whitehurst also noted the county is defending four lawsuits filed by developers over denied projects.
‘Count the cost first’
Chair Clay Murphy said the county needs legal guidance before determining whether it has a viable challenge to the law.
“We wanted to get consultation with an outside consultant to find out the viability of getting an injunction, and the second thing is we wanted to find out how much it was going to cost,” Murphy said following the meeting.
Murphy said some residents have argued the county should pursue legal action regardless of the cost, but he said commissioners have a responsibility to weigh the potential outcome before spending taxpayer dollars.
“As a fiduciary of people’s money and people’s tax dollars, I think it’s important for us to count the cost first,” Murphy said.
Murphy said the key questions are whether the county has standing and whether an injunction could succeed.
“If they come out and say, ‘Yeah, you have a really good opportunity of having standing and being able to halt this,’ then I would be for going forward,” Murphy said. “But we need to ask that question. I’m not qualified to answer it, but the experts are.”
Murphy said his concerns with SB 686 center on the loss of local control.
He said there are situations where the law could help address gaps in future land use boundaries, but he said the legislation went beyond that by limiting the county’s ability to deny qualifying applications.
“The idea that there is some kind of local control for 686, I don’t think is accurate,” Murphy said. “I think that we are bound by whatever the law says.”
Murphy said the county is required to approve applications that meet the statutory criteria, even if commissioners believe a proposed development is not appropriate for the area.
“I’m a law and order guy,” Murphy said. “But the law says that if they check all the boxes, that we are almost forced to say yes, even if we don’t feel it’s good for our county.”
Murphy said he may have missed earlier information about SB 686 before it passed, which could have given commissioners an opportunity to engage constituents, as the board focused on defeating separate legislation known as the “Blue Ribbon” bill.
“I do have a responsibility to know what’s going on in Tallahassee, and I didn’t know about this,” Murphy said.
Consisting of House Bill 299 and Senate Bill 354, Blue Ribbon legislation would have created a fast-tracked development framework for large-scale real estate developments across rural areas of the state if certain provisions were met, including that 20% of housing be reserved for “missing middle.”