Originally published September 30, 2026. Updated October 22, 2026.

St. Johns County commissioners rejected agricultural enclave certifications covering approximately 5,628 acres of Davis family and Heritage Development land, challenging how Florida’s new development law operates on the ground. The decisions put the county at odds with applicants seeking a streamlined route to residential development. They also exposed disagreements among commissioners and county staff over the law’s eligibility requirements. The dispute has now moved beyond commission chambers: The PARC Group filed for judicial review of the Davis property denial on October 19.

The conflict centers on who controls the transition from agricultural land to residential development. Florida lawmakers established a process that limits local land-use discretion once property qualifies. Commissioners rejecting these applications argue that the properties have not cleared that threshold. Developers maintain that the county must follow the state’s requirements rather than impose a different growth policy through certification votes.

Florida’s Agricultural Enclave Law Changes the Development Process

Senate Bill 686 took effect July 1, 2026, replacing the previous agricultural enclave comprehensive-plan amendment process with certification and streamlined development review. Qualifying residential plans must be treated as conforming despite conflicting local comprehensive-plan, future-land-use or zoning provisions. Subsequent review cannot require another public hearing or quasi-judicial proceeding. The law therefore changes the county’s authority over qualifying land, with consequences extending beyond a faster application schedule.

Certification depends on statutory requirements addressing ownership, agricultural use, surrounding land and public services. The law generally limits acreage to 1,280 acres, with a conditional 4,480-acre ceiling and another specified exception. Alternative eligibility routes make property boundaries and neighboring land designations consequential. Those details became central to the Davis and Heritage disputes.

Why Commissioners Rejected the Davis Family’s North Palm Valley Application

The Davis application concerns approximately 4,462 acres north of Nocatee Parkway and west of the Intracoastal Waterway. County records identify BR4700 LLC as the owner and Ellen Avery-Smith as the applicant. The requested residential density is one unit per acre. The PARC Group, the Davis family’s development partner, is pursuing the proposal.

On September 15, commissioners Krista Joseph, Clay Murphy and Ann Taylor voted to deny certification. Sarah Arnold and Christian Whitehurst opposed denial, citing county staff’s determination that the application met the law’s requirements. The disagreement concerned statutory eligibility, including boundary calculations and whether surrounding properties satisfied the development tests. The applicant disputed the objections and maintained that the property qualified.

The acreage dispute illustrates why certification requires close examination of the application map. Audubon Florida challenged the exclusion of portions of existing parcels, arguing that counting entire parcels would push the property above the applicable ceiling. That objection remains a contested interpretation, rather than an established court finding. The county’s rejection likewise does not permanently prevent the owner from pursuing development through another lawful process.

Heritage East and West Lost Certifications They Had Already Received

The Heritage dispute followed a different path: Commissioners first approved the applications, then reversed themselves. Heritage East encompasses 615 acres east of Interstate 95, while 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. The board approved their certifications August 19.

On September 28, Arnold joined Joseph and Taylor to reverse those approvals. Murphy and Whitehurst voted to retain them. The votes reveal different judgments about individual applications, rather than a fixed commission bloc opposing every enclave proposal. Murphy supported denying the Davis application but opposed reversing Heritage, while Arnold took the opposite positions.

Taylor challenged whether the county’s development area boundary satisfied the statutory urban-service-area requirement. County staff maintained that the boundary served that function because the comprehensive plan directed growth and infrastructure into the area. Their disagreement concerned whether the county’s planning framework met the state’s eligibility language. It placed the meaning of an infrastructure designation at the center of a decision affecting more than 1,100 acres.

Heritage’s Challenge Raises a Separate Question About Final Approvals

Heritage filed a September 23 petition seeking to prevent reconsideration of its certifications. Its argument was that the county lacked authority to reopen approvals already granted under the law. That issue differs from whether the properties originally qualified. A court could therefore confront both the eligibility standards and the legal finality of a certification decision.

That distinction matters to future applicants and residents alike. An approval that remains vulnerable to reconsideration creates uncertainty about when a development entitlement becomes dependable. An approval treated as final makes the quality of the initial hearing especially consequential. Either way, the first certification decision carries substantial weight.

October Update: PARC Takes the Davis Denial to Court

The dispute over North Palm Valley has advanced from an announced appeal to a filed court challenge. The Jacksonville Daily Record reported that PARC filed its petition October 19 in the 7th Judicial Circuit, seeking review of whether commissioners correctly applied state law. The case is identified as AP26-0006. The filing asks for judicial review; it does not establish that the county acted unlawfully.

The Daily Record also reported that no development plans had been submitted for the property as of its October 20 coverage. Certification would establish access to the statutory development process, while construction would still require additional review and permits. That separates the immediate court dispute from eventual decisions about a finished development. The present fight concerns eligibility for a particular legal route.

Roads, Schools and Water Remain the Practical Stakes

For neighboring communities, the consequences reach beyond certification terminology. Additional housing brings questions about traffic, school capacity, drinking water, wastewater and drainage. Evaluating those effects requires project-specific commitments, construction schedules and funding arrangements. A future infrastructure promise must be examined alongside the timing of the development it would serve.

The financial question deserves equal attention. Developer contributions, utility investments and public expenditures can support different portions of a project’s infrastructure. Residents need to know which improvements an applicant must deliver and which costs remain with public agencies. Certification alone does not provide that complete accounting.

The County’s Resistance Now Faces a Legal Test

The law requires written denial findings and provides a route to circuit-court review. That makes the evidence supporting each rejection central to what follows. Opposition to additional development does not, by itself, resolve whether an application meets the statutory requirements. Equally, a favorable staff recommendation does not eliminate the board’s responsibility to evaluate the record.

The Davis and Heritage decisions establish the opening chapter of a larger growth dispute. Landowners are testing the development opportunities Florida created, while commissioners are testing the authority counties retain. Courts now enter that contest through challenges to individual decisions. For residents, the enduring question is how those decisions translate into housing, infrastructure obligations and changes to their communities.

Florida Growth & Local Control Series