St. Johns County Commissioners voted to approve agricultural enclave applications for two large properties and rescheduled their decision for a third during a special quasi-judicial meeting on Wednesday, Aug. 19.
The issue has drawn much criticism from county residents, but the board had little or no choice but to approve the applications in keeping with mandates outlined in a new state law.
The properties, once certified agricultural enclaves under Senate Bill 686, could mean the addition of thousands of new homes, as well as thousands of additional vehicles on the already overcrowded roads in the county.
The law that expedites the approval process for developing land formerly deemed agricultural went into effect July 1. That same day, landowners applied to have six properties in the county certified as agricultural enclaves. Since then, county staff has judged that three of the applicants have not met the standards as stated in the law.
The three remaining properties, two of which are to be developed by the same company, came before the commission Wednesday.
Unlike other types of applications for development, those defined by SB 686 require action by the county within 90 days. If the county fails to act, the properties become agricultural enclaves by default.
If the county denies the application, it must do so in writing and state findings of fact. The applicant then has 30 days to petition the circuit court.
The law sets forth a number of criteria with which the applications must conform to be approved. In preparing for Wednesday’s meeting, county staff found that the three properties under consideration met the standard.
All that was left for the commission to do was approve them.
But that didn’t mean opponents, including those on the board, didn’t try to find a way to deny.
County Commissioner Krista Joseph made several motions in that direction, but all failed to pass.
The first two applications came from Heritage Development Company of Northeast Florida. The properties were designated Heritage Development East at 615 acres and Heritage Development West at 551 acres. They are located on either side of I-95 south of State Road 207.
Because of a provision within the law, each is eligible for up to 13 single family units per acre, for a combined total of 15,158. The exact number is not yet certain, as mitigating factors, such as the presence of undevelopable wetlands, may force adjustments.
Resident Joe McInerney estimated that these developments could add 6,000 vehicular trips to S.R. 207 during peak hours. He said the road is already at 96.6% of capacity with a current 4,200 trips at peak hours.
He urged the commission to deny the applications, first on the basis of a pre-existing state law and then on the basis of inadequate infrastructure.
“Clearly, clearly, it’s going to adversely affect 207,” he said.
Heritage Development East and Heritage Development West were both approved by the board, 3-2. Joseph and Commissioner Ann Taylor dissented in both cases.
County Commissioner Clay Murphy expressed frustration with the situation, saying that St. Johns County had “growth fatigue” but that he could not think of a legal reason to deny the applications.
“We need a break,” he said. “And, unfortunately, I can’t legally give our county a break.”
The third application came from a limited liability company, BR4700 LLC, as represented by attorney Ellen Avery-Smith.
This property encompasses 4,462 acres north of Nocatee and east of the Duval County line. In accordance with the law, the property would be eligible for six single family units per acre for a total of 26,772. However, Avery-Smith said repeatedly that the property owner wanted to limit the density to one unit per acre.
Even then, that would mean 4,462 units, subject to the same mitigating factors as above.
McInerney again urged denial based on inadequate infrastructure.
Even at one unit per acre, he estimated the vehicular impact of at additional 3,800 trips during peak hours.
“Where do they go?” he asked. “Where do they go?”
He said that currently, with about 2,500 cars, the Roscoe-Palm Valley Road area was 133.8% over capacity.
Joseph expressed concern about all the new traffic en route to the beach.
“When we have this many people that want to get to one entrance to the beach, they go down Mickler Road,” she said. “They are going to collapse our infrastructure.”
Avery-Smith gave reasons why approval would not dictate the precise composition of the proposed development.
“The next step in the process is the approval of a development plan,” she said. “That development plan doesn’t mean that environmental laws, proportionate share, concurrency, right-of-way construction permits, subdivision construction plan — these things — will not be required.”
She noted that the plan would still have to go before the St. Johns River Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for review, and that it would need utility permits from JEA and the state Department of Environmental Protection and still have to go to county staff for permitting.
“The plan does not waive your Land Development Code requirements,” she said.
But in a county that has experienced what Murphy termed “growth fatigue,” public trust in the face of any proposed development was at low ebb. There were questions about the proposal’s perimeter calculations, the claim that the property adequately qualified under the law’s agricultural provisions and more.
One resident submitted a petition opposing the proposed development signed by more than 2,000 people.
Murphy made a motion to continue the discussion regarding the BR4700 property until the next regular County Commission meeting with time certain at 9 a.m. Sept. 1.
The vote was 4-1 with Commissioner Sarah Arnold voting no.
