St. Johns County will seek an injunction against a new agricultural enclave law as part of a strategy to forestall the proposed addition of 4,000 homes in Ponte Vedra.
Such action has been characterized by legal experts as a likely “uphill battle,” but it may remain the only option for opponents.
The decision to pursue an injunction was approved by the County Commission at a meeting Tuesday, Sept. 1.
Some members of the public speaking at the meeting requested that the enclave application be denied outright.
The board didn’t do that, though Commissioner Krista Joseph tried. Her motion failed by a vote of 3-2, with commissioners Clay Murphy, Christian Whitehurst and Sarah Arnold voting no.
While noting that he didn’t like that the proposed enclave qualified under the law, Whitehurst moved for approval of the application. He was joined only by Arnold and that motion also failed. The motion was probably not necessary as the law provides for an application’s automatic approval on Sept. 29, 90 days after the law’s effective date, barring an effective, narrowly defined denial.
Ultimately, Murphy introduced a motion to take the fight to the state to oppose the law via an injunction. That was passed 3-2, with Whitehurst and Arnold voting no.
An injunction could freeze further action on the application until the court decides the case but may not retroactively nullify it even if the injunction succeeds.
Senate Bill 686, passed in April, expedites the approval process for developing land formerly deemed agricultural. It went into effect July 1. That same day, landowners applied to have six St. Johns County properties certified “agricultural enclaves” according to the new rules.
Since then, two have been approved, three have been denied and one — a 4,462-acre property owned by BR4700 LLC — was the subject of the quasi-judicial meeting, which had been continued from an Aug. 19 proceeding so as to resolve questions regarding whether the property as described in the application conforms to the law’s definition of an agricultural enclave.
The primary focus was a triangular slice of land, which the application excludes from consideration. By this exclusion, the property in its entirety is reduced — for the purpose of the application — from 4,568.95 acres to 4,462. This allows it to meet the requirement that an agricultural enclave may not exceed 4,480 acres.
The exclusion drew criticism from members of the public, but the attorney representing BR4700, Ellen M. Avery-Smith of Rogers Towers Attorneys at Law, explained that, regardless of what is included under parcel ID numbers, case law allows landowners to define their properties.
One speaker asserted that the land did not meet the law’s “continuous agricultural use” clause, but that was rebutted using an affidavit in which the president of Callahan Timber wrote that the property “in its entirety has been in continuous bona fide agricultural use” for more than 20 years.
Another question involved the law’s mandate that at least 50% of the surrounding land be existing development. Opponents pointed out that much of that surrounding land contained no structures and thus did not qualify. However, Avery-Smith argued that these properties, having been platted, qualify as development.
