St. Johns County commissioners approved two more agricultural enclave applications October 20, opening a development route for approximately 241 acres while the county defends its rejection of a much larger Davis family property near Nocatee. Carter Road Associates passed 4–1, and Pacetti Oaks passed 3–2. The decisions complicate the image of a county resisting Florida’s new development law at every turn. Commissioners are approving some applications while rejecting others, making the distinctions between those decisions increasingly important.

The county’s application register provides a broader picture: 16 agricultural enclave filings, including six marked withdrawn. Reconciling those entries with the decisions reviewed produces three approved applications, three denied or reversed, and four awaiting final decisions. That record shows more than a dispute between one developer and one commission. It reveals an emerging pattern of smaller approvals, larger rejections and unresolved applications that will test the county’s consistency.

Carter Road and Pacetti Oaks Win Approval

Carter Road Associates sought certification for approximately 200.75 acres at the northern end of Carter Road, west of Thompson Bailey Road. County staff concluded that the application appeared to satisfy the statutory requirements. Jacksonville Today reports that the proposal anticipates approximately 260 homes. Ann Taylor cast the lone vote against certification.

Pacetti Oaks involves approximately 40.5 acres near Six Mile Creek in the World Golf Village area. Jacksonville Today reports that representatives agreed to reduce the allowable density from five units per acre to two to secure commission support. Its certification passed by a narrower 3–2 vote. The reported concession makes the written approval terms important to understanding what development will ultimately be permitted.

The decisions establish access to the agricultural enclave development process. They do not provide every approval necessary to begin construction. Subsequent plans and applicable permits remain consequential. Residents therefore need to follow both the certification decision and the documents that translate it into an actual neighborhood.

How Many Agricultural Enclave Applications Has St. Johns County Received?

The county’s public ENCERT register lists 16 application records as of October 22. Six carry an explicit withdrawal label, including earlier versions of projects that subsequently returned under new application numbers. The remaining ten include completed decisions and unresolved requests. Counting all 16 as separate developments waiting for approval would overstate the pending list.

The distinction between filings and projects matters. Adler Creek and Star IV each appear under an earlier withdrawn filing and a later application, while the register contains an original Osceola Lakes entry followed by separate north and south filings. Those histories affect any calculation of how many proposals the law has generated. A withdrawal also records an applicant’s action, rather than a commission denial.

Smaller Approvals Predate This Week’s Votes

The October approvals were not the county’s first certifications after it began resisting the law. On September 15, commissioners approved the approximately 310-acre AFI Property application on the same day they denied the approximately 4,462-acre Davis application. The approved minutes record Sarah Arnold, Clay Murphy and Christian Whitehurst supporting AFI, with Krista Joseph and Taylor opposed. They also record the AFI applicant agreeing to 1.08 units per gross acre.

Murphy’s votes are particularly relevant to the comparison. He supported denying the Davis application while supporting AFI’s certification. The minutes therefore document different decisions by the same commissioner at the same meeting. That establishes an application-specific approach, although the legal soundness of each decision depends on its supporting record.

The approvals now identified involve properties of approximately 40.5, 200.75 and 310 acres. The rejected applications concern approximately 4,462 acres at North Palm Valley and the two Heritage properties, each exceeding 550 acres. That is a visible size pattern within the decisions reviewed. Acreage alone, however, does not explain whether each property meets the law’s separate eligibility requirements.

Carter Road’s Maximum Density Was Never an Approved Housing Plan

The Carter Road packet demonstrates how a theoretical development figure can overshadow the proposal actually discussed. Staff identified an adjacent property with density of 13 units per net acre and included a maximum-potential calculation of 2,609 units. The same report expressly warned that the adjacent density was neither the applicant’s proposed density nor an approval of that density. At the time of the written review, the applicant had not specified a housing count.

That distinction changes how the October decision should be described. The reported 260-home proposal is substantially smaller than the packet’s theoretical calculation. Presenting the certification as approval for thousands of houses would disregard staff’s warning. Presenting the reported proposal as permanently binding would also require examination of the final written terms.

For residents, the important documents are those that establish the development’s enforceable limits. A hearing representation, a certification decision and a recorded restriction perform different functions. Their wording determines whether a stated limit follows the property through later development review. That is where the practical value of a concession becomes measurable.

The Approvals Change the Political Narrative, but Do Not Prove a Litigation Strategy

Approving some applications allows county leaders to point to a record of implementing a law they oppose. Politically, that complicates any characterization of St. Johns County as refusing all agricultural enclave development. It also directs attention toward the specific reasons for rejecting the larger proposals. Those are fair conclusions from the voting record.

The record reviewed does not establish that commissioners approved smaller applications to improve appearances before a court battle. That explanation remains a hypothesis requiring evidence from statements, communications or other records. The approvals themselves show different outcomes, rather than the purpose behind them. Their significance in litigation would depend on the legal arguments and relevant factual comparisons.

There is a documented legal-strategy backdrop. Earlier reporting described outside lawyers advising that the county could occupy a stronger procedural position defending a developer’s lawsuit than initiating its own challenge to the legislation. That advice helps explain why litigation following a denial was foreseeable. It does not establish why commissioners approved Carter Road, Pacetti Oaks or AFI.

PARC’s Court Challenge Still Turns on the North Palm Valley Record

The PARC Group filed October 19 for judicial review of the North Palm Valley denial, according to the Jacksonville Daily Record. The proceeding asks whether commissioners correctly applied state law when finding the Davis property ineligible. PARC maintains that the application qualified, consistent with county staff’s evaluation. The new approvals do not resolve that disagreement.

A county can approve one qualifying property and deny another that fails a statutory requirement. Demonstrating that distinction requires the relevant facts, calculations and written findings for each application. Approval of smaller properties neither validates the Davis denial nor establishes that it was improper. The comparison becomes meaningful when it identifies how the county applied the same legal requirements to different records.

Our Part 2 report on PARC’s court challenge examines that dispute. The October approvals add context to it. They shift attention from whether the county will use the law at all toward how consistently it administers the process. That is a more precise accountability question.

Star IV Keeps the Unresolved Applications in Focus

Commissioners postponed Star IV until November 3, citing procedural concerns, according to Jacksonville Today. The county register also lists Osceola Lakes North, Osceola Lakes South and King among the later filings. These applications keep the issue before the county beyond the Davis litigation. Their records will provide additional comparisons as decisions emerge.

Timing matters because the law requires certification when a local government fails to approve or deny an application within 90 days after receipt. Applying that provision requires the actual receipt date and relevant procedural history. A register’s creation date alone cannot establish that a particular application has crossed the deadline. Withdrawals and subsequent filings make careful chronology especially important.

The Next Test Is Whether the Written Decisions Explain the Difference

St. Johns County’s resistance now operates alongside a growing record of approvals. The county has demonstrated that it will certify some properties under the law. It must also explain the statutory and evidentiary distinctions supporting its rejections. Neither a smaller proposal nor a larger one answers those questions by itself.

For residents, the next measure is what the approvals actually deliver. Housing limits, infrastructure obligations and development schedules need to remain visible as projects advance. For developers, the decisions help establish how the county interprets the new process. For the courts, the consequential material remains the law and the record supporting the decision under review.

Sources

• St. Johns County: Agricultural enclave application register, reviewed October 22, 2026. Lists 16 filings and six withdrawal labels. Disposition totals above reconcile the register with decisions reviewed. webapp.sjcfl.us

• Jacksonville Today, October 21, 2026: St. Johns County OKs more development on farmland. Reports the October votes, Carter Road’s anticipated housing count, Pacetti Oaks’ density reduction and Star IV’s postponement. Jacksonville Today

• St. Johns County: Carter Road Associates application and staff report. Documents acreage, preliminary eligibility findings and the distinction between neighboring density and a proposed development. stjohnsclerk.com

• St. Johns County Clerk: September 15, 2026 approved minutes. Records the Davis denial, AFI approval and AFI density representation. stjohnsclerk.com

• Florida Senate: SB 686 enrolled text. Governs certification, written denials, development review and statutory deadlines. flsenate.gov

• Jacksonville Daily Record, September 1, 2026: County legal-strategy discussion. Reports outside-counsel advice concerning a potential challenge to the legislation. www.jaxdailyrecord.com

• Jacksonville Daily Record, October 20, 2026: PARC Group appeals denial of North Palm Valley agricultural enclave. Reports the October 19 court filing.