John Hawley
Sep 30, 2026
St. Johns County’s rejection of Davis and Heritage development certifications puts Florida’s new agricultural enclave law, local growth controls and thousands of acres of proposed development under scrutiny.
SB 686 gives qualifying landowners a faster route to development. Three denied certifications covering approximately 5,628 acres now put the law’s eligibility rules and local government authority in focus.
St. Johns County’s agricultural enclave dispute has expanded beyond the Davis family’s land north of Nocatee. After denying certification for that 4,462-acre tract on September 15, commissioners reversed earlier approvals for two Heritage Development properties on September 28. The three decisions affect approximately 5,628 acres and expose disagreements about how Florida’s new development law should operate. More applications remain on the county’s register, making these disputes relevant to landowners and residents across the county.[1][2]
The immediate question is whether each property qualifies for agricultural enclave certification under Senate Bill 686. Certification opens a streamlined development route; denying it does not permanently prohibit development through other lawful processes. The larger question is how much authority counties retain when state legislation changes their land-use procedures. For residents, the practical stakes include roads, schools, water, drainage and the opportunity to participate in decisions.
What Does Florida’s Agricultural Enclave Law Change?
SB 686 became Chapter 2026-34 and took effect July 1, 2026. Sponsored by Sen. Stan McClain, the legislation passed the Senate 34–2 and the House 90–20. It replaces the previous agricultural enclave comprehensive-plan amendment process with certification followed by a streamlined development review. The Legislature’s official record shows Gov. Ron DeSantis approved the bill April 20.[3]
The central change is that qualifying residential plans on certified land must be treated as conforming even when the county’s comprehensive plan, future land use designation or zoning would otherwise conflict. Subsequent review cannot require another public hearing or quasi-judicial process, and the county cannot require an agreed review schedule longer than 180 days. Certification therefore changes the county’s authority over land use, rather than simply making an ordinary rezoning hearing faster. The act’s special provisions expire January 1, 2028.[4]
What Makes Land Eligible for Agricultural Enclave Certification?
Eligibility requires more than an agricultural tax classification or a nearby subdivision. The statute addresses unincorporated, undeveloped land under single ownership or control, agricultural use, surrounding development and public services. Several alternative perimeter tests apply, and applicants must establish which route their property satisfies. The definition also limits eligibility to counties with populations of 1.75 million or less.[4]
The law generally sets a 1,280-acre ceiling, with a conditional 4,480-acre ceiling and another specified exception. Those conditions make the acreage and surrounding-development evidence especially important for larger tracts. Public-service eligibility can involve existing or scheduled infrastructure, an alternative provider, or a binding offer to fund the applicant’s proportionate share of improvements. A promise of future growth and evidence of adequate services are consequently different matters that commissioners must examine.[4]
Why Did St. Johns County Deny the Davis Family’s Nocatee-Area Application?
The Davis application, ENCERT 2026-01, identifies BR4700 LLC as owner and Ellen Avery-Smith as applicant. It covers approximately 4,462 acres north of Nocatee Parkway, west of the Intracoastal Waterway and east of the Duval County line. County records identify the requested density as one residential unit per acre. The PARC Group, the family’s development partner, is involved in the proposal.[5][6]
On September 15, Krista Joseph, Clay Murphy and Ann Taylor voted to deny certification; Sarah Arnold and Christian Whitehurst opposed denial. Joseph’s motion asserted that the property did not satisfy the statutory definition. Questions included boundary calculations and whether the surrounding parcels met the required development tests. Avery-Smith disputed those objections and maintained that the application qualified.[6]
Audubon Florida separately challenged the acreage calculation, arguing that portions of existing parcels had been excluded to stay below the 4,480-acre ceiling. Its calculation using entire parcels reached approximately 4,569 acres, compared with the application’s 4,462.09 acres. That is a contested interpretation, not an established judicial finding. PARC subsequently announced its intention to appeal; that announcement should not be confused with a verified court ruling or a completed appeal.[7][8]
Why Were Heritage East and Heritage West Approvals Reversed?
Heritage East covers 615 acres east of I-95; Heritage West covers 550.78 acres west of it, both south of State Road 207. Chris Shee’s Heritage Development Company of NE Florida LLC owns the properties. Both certifications were approved August 19.[2]
On September 28, Arnold joined Joseph and Taylor to reverse those approvals, while Murphy and Whitehurst voted to retain certification. The change shows that commissioners’ positions differ by application: Murphy supported the Davis denial but opposed the Heritage reversals. Arnold took the opposite positions on those votes. Jacksonville Today reported that she did not explain her changed Heritage vote during the meeting.[1][2]
Taylor argued the county’s development boundary did not meet the statutory urban-service-area requirement; staff disagreed. Heritage filed a September 23 petition arguing the county could not reconsider completed certifications. Eligibility and the finality of approval are therefore separate disputes. Their resolution will matter to future applicants.[2]
Which Other St. Johns County Agricultural Enclave Applications Are in the Pipeline?
The county’s public register lists seven later applications without a withdrawal label in the records reviewed for this article. Their appearance establishes that a filing exists; it does not establish approval, a staff recommendation, or a scheduled commission hearing. The register contains earlier withdrawn entries for some project names, so counting every record as a separate active development would overstate the pipeline. These seven filings warrant monitoring as review progresses.[9]
Application | Project listed in county records | Register creation date |
ENCERT 2026-10 | Adler Creek | September 1 |
ENCERT 2026-11 | Carter Road Associates | September 1 |
ENCERT 2026-12 | Star IV | September 1 |
ENCERT 2026-13 | Pacetti Oaks | September 1 |
ENCERT 2026-14 | Osceola Lakes North | September 14 |
ENCERT 2026-15 | Osceola Lakes South | September 14 |
ENCERT 2026-16 | King | September 21 |
The same register marks earlier filings for Osceola Lakes, Adler Creek, Star IV Investments, Sandy Creek and Entrada as withdrawn. A withdrawal may reflect a changed application strategy and should not automatically be described as a commission denial. Separately, commissioners approved the approximately 310-acre AFI property application September 15, with Arnold, Murphy and Whitehurst in favor. That approval demonstrates that the county has continued to certify some properties while rejecting others.[9][10]
Is St. Johns County Challenging SB 686 in Court?
County leaders have pursued a broader legal strategy against SB 686 while addressing individual applications. Reporting on the September 1 meeting described a vote to seek outside counsel and an injunction, alongside concerns about the county’s standing to initiate a challenge. Firms consulted reportedly considered defending a developer’s lawsuit after a denial a stronger procedural position. Murphy has also advocated legislative repeal.[10][11]
Three distinct questions now matter: whether a property meets the statute, whether the county can reverse an existing certification, and whether the statute itself withstands a constitutional challenge. Those questions can produce different outcomes. Florida’s Constitution makes county home-rule authority subject to state law, so a reduction in local control alone does not establish unconstitutionality. An authorized effort to seek an injunction also does not establish that a court has granted one.[12]
Why Roads, Water and Schools Remain Central to the Debate
Residents have raised concerns about traffic, water quality and water supply during the enclave hearings. Those concerns require project-specific evidence to determine whether they affect statutory eligibility or later development review. The essential reporting questions are whether infrastructure is available, what improvements are funded, when they will operate and who bears the cost. A proposed number of homes is only part of that assessment.[1][4]
Water supply and water quality deserve separate scrutiny, as do school capacity and road capacity. A development may have a plan for obtaining drinking water while still requiring careful wastewater and stormwater analysis. Likewise, planned road improvements do not establish that capacity will be available before occupancy. Following these commitments from certification through actual construction will give residents a clearer measure of how growth affects existing neighborhoods.
What Should Residents Watch Next?
The next useful records are written denial orders, court filings and rulings, staff compliance reports and hearing notices for the later applications. Each should explain which legal test is being applied and what evidence supports the decision. Project acreage should remain separate from proposed housing counts, and certification should remain separate from construction approval. For the Davis and Heritage properties, the commission’s votes are significant decisions whose durability may now depend on judicial review.