Growth, property taxes and county services. Two major questions for St. Johns County. Examine the records, compare competing arguments and make up your own mind.
THE 1565 COALITION / PUBLIC RESEARCH
For residents, commissioners and staff. Facts, official positions, our analysis and unresolved questions stay clearly labeled.
LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT
What does the law require? Which applications meet those requirements? Where do the evidence, competing interpretations and missing records affect the answer?
State law and application records
PROPERTY TAXES & COUNTY SERVICES
What could change for residents? Examine the County’s conditional revenue forecast, likely cuts and fee increases, and a framework for weighing who bears the cost.
County forecast and announced preparations
SB 686 and Amendment 3 address different questions. The Amendment 3 revenue forecast is not an estimate of losses caused by SB 686. Forecasts are conditional; our decision framework is labeled as a value judgment.
Research current through October 1, 2026. Five filings have full hearing packets; the seven pending ones are screened from the public portal, ordinances and County GIS until their packets post. A denial or approval by the Board is a fact; whether a site meets the statute is a separate question, and we keep them apart.
What the law does, how a certification works, and the one question that decides most of the cases now pending. Written for residents; the professional record follows below.
Since July 1, 2026, the owner of farm or timber land that is mostly surrounded by development can ask the County to certify it as an agricultural enclave. Certified land can then be built with single-family homes at the density of a neighboring parcel or subdivision, as a conforming use, without the usual plan amendment or rezoning hearings. The law sunsets Jan. 1, 2028.
As of Jan. 1, 2025 the land must have been undeveloped, in one owner's hands, in bona fide agricultural use for five years, within the acreage caps, and surrounded by enough qualifying land: either 75 percent of its edge against existing or mapped development, or (for sites under 700 acres) 50 percent against land mapped for development and 50 percent inside an urban service area. Parcels across a road or canal count.
The County has 30 days from receipt to issue a written report, 30 more to hold a hearing, and if it has neither approved nor denied within 90 days, the land is certified by default. A denial needs written findings and can be appealed to circuit court within 30 days.
Four of the seven pending sites can qualify only if the County's Development Area Boundary counts as an "urban service area." County staff said yes in August; a Board majority said no on Sept. 28 and reversed two approvals; the applicants have gone to court. The County's own maps show only two small Urban Service Areas, both near Durbin Creek, far from any pending site. Both readings, side by side.
Sixteen filings since July 1. One certification stands (AFI, 310 acres). Three were denied, including the two Heritage reversals now in litigation. Five were withdrawn, three of them refiled as smaller applications. Seven are pending, on 1,086 acres, with the first County reports due Oct. 1 and the first default date Nov. 30. Every filing, one line each · Report 03: the seven pending filings, mapped.
Hearings are public and each pending filing will be heard by the Board between late October and December. Hearing packets post on the Clerk's agenda page about a week before each meeting; we read them and update this page the same day. If you own land next to a filing, the perimeter maps in Report 03 show whether your parcel is being counted, and how.
Research current through October 1, 2026. Reports, staff recommendations and Board votes are reported as what they are; whether a site meets the statute is our analysis, labeled as such. Professionals: the evidence register with every finding, calculation and review question is further down, and the complete reports are in downloads.
This guide takes no position for or against an applicant or political party. It tests claims against the law and record, presents supported competing arguments, and discloses what remains unknown.
An assertion in an official packet is not automatically an official finding. Fair treatment means consistent evidentiary standards, not equal weight for every claim.
Coastal neighborhoods. Agricultural roots. Schools and public services. A clearer understanding of county decisions starts with the places they affect.
Sunrise along the Atlantic · 2007
Photo credits
Potato Growers Association building · 2009
Photo credits
School district campus · 2018
Photo creditsPhotographs document these places at the dates shown. They do not identify enclave applicants, establish eligibility or indicate a proposed service cut.
Sixteen filings, including withdrawals and refilings; not sixteen approved developments. One line on each, then the full record a click away.
*The Sept. 15 votes on AFI and North Palm Valley are documented in draft minutes submitted for Oct. 6 approval; the Sept. 28 Heritage reversals are reported in contemporary news coverage. Signed final orders were not yet reviewed.
142 findings across 16 filings, each tied to one of 30 review questions drawn from the statute. A finding is a documented fact, a disputed question or a gap in the record; it is not a verdict, and the count is not a tally of failures.
How to read it. Filter by filing or by review question. Each finding shows what the record says, our assessment, what would resolve it, and its citations. Five filings rest on full hearing packets; the seven pending filings rest on the portal, ordinances and the Coalition GIS screen (35 findings and 41 perimeter calculations added Oct. 1); four withdrawn filings have portal records only. Linked consequences are grouped so one problem is not counted several times.
Research current through October 1, 2026. A later document, hearing packet or court ruling may change a finding; changes are logged in Updates and corrections.
Check the statement, its context and its evidence. Keep factual accuracy, legal uncertainty and intent separate.
Attorneys, staff, administrators, commissioners, citizens—and this Coalition. The same evidentiary rules apply. The examples below demonstrate the system; none is attributed to a real speaker.
The numbers describe factual support, not honesty, intent or a probability of winning in court. They must not be averaged into a personal reputation score.
Identify the omitted fact, explain how it changes the reasonable takeaway, and evaluate context. Purpose requires separate evidence. A false statement is not automatically a deliberate lie.
Draft in this browser, then export to keep your work. Nothing here is sent to a speaker or published. Unsaved entries are lost when the page reloads. Imported approval checkboxes are reset.
Explore the county commission districts, then use the County’s address lookup for your location.
Showing all five commission districts.
Commission districts are different from school attendance zones, municipal boundaries and utility service areas. This overview does not establish parcel boundaries or SB 686 eligibility.
Passing one perimeter alternative is only part of qualification. Ownership, agricultural use, acreage, services and other applicable requirements remain.
The perimeter provision expressly looks to adjacent parcels across a right-of-way, body of water or canal. An enclave need not be enclosed on every side. The law provides separate service and urban service area tests.
No express universal crossing-distance limit, projection method or rule requiring every commonly owned parcel to be included was identified in the enacted text. These omissions are not permission to skip ordinary intervening land or invent a boundary methodology.
The homestead proposal creates the modeled revenue reduction discussed here. SB 686 governs agricultural enclaves. Their fiscal effects must be measured separately.
The appearance of U.S. Department of War (DoW) visual information does not imply or constitute DoW endorsement.
Budgets determine how services are funded. The analysis below separates documented county actions, conditional forecasts and our decision framework.
Photographs provide local context; they do not indicate a proposed closure or cut, or endorsement of this project.
If Amendment 3 passes. Annual reductions against the no-amendment baseline, not cumulative annual additions.
Protect essential service outcomes, verify recurring savings, then compare who bears each replacement cost. No option is burden-free.
Your inputs below are hypothetical annual amounts, not county proposals or revenue estimates. Restricted revenues cannot automatically fill a General Fund gap.
FOLLOW THE RESEARCH YOURSELF
Evidence leads, calculations and confidence labels each have a specific purpose. None is an official certification.
See how source quality, context and uncertainty shape a fair fact check. Examples are clearly labeled illustrations.
Explore the claim-review standardRead and search a PDF in your browser, inspect extraction gaps and export your worksheet. Export before closing to keep your work.
Open the local document readerView the dated commission-district overview and use the County’s address lookup. District lines do not establish enclave eligibility.
Explore the district mapDrop a hearing packet from the Clerk's site into this page to read it, search it and work through the 30 review questions in your own browser. Nothing is uploaded anywhere; this is a reading aid, not a certification.
Add an ENCERT packet and any supplements. Files stay in your browser and are not uploaded to The 1565 Coalition.
Maps and signatures still require visual checking. OCR may take several minutes. Keep this tab open.
Each page keeps its source file and PDF page number. Missing text remains a visible gap.
Automatic extraction statistics and source-page leads appear after reading. Merits findings start as not reviewed; keyword matches do not establish eligibility.
Thirty review questions include alternative routes and procedural checks. Export before adding or clearing files; a changed packet resets these findings. Confidence is a category with a rationale, never approval odds.
“Cannot qualify on the submitted facts” differs from “could never qualify.” A failed alternative route, absent document, staff typo or disputed interpretation must not be presented as an incurable legal defect. See Appendix C of the report for the full protocol.
Every edition is dated. Material corrections are listed here and left visible; nothing is silently rewritten.
To report an error, write to hello@the1565.com with the page and the source. Corrections that change a finding are noted in the finding itself and here.
This edition reviews nine complete agenda packet PDFs covering five distinct applications, all sixteen portal filing records, selected hearing minutes and state legal and fiscal materials. It does not claim a licensed survey, complete court-docket examination or independent authentication of every exhibit.
The record review edition corrects AFI’s previously unresolved grouping, identifies the distinct Heritage routes, adds Sandy Creek’s preliminary deficiencies and later forestry materials, and separates draft September 15 minutes from approved minutes.
There are no automatic updates. Every public result must retain its source, evidence category and research cutoff.
The Coalition focuses on how county rules, fees and review processes affect residents and small businesses. Its commitment here is nonpartisan: document the rule, inspect the evidence, explain the tradeoffs.
Justin’s background includes Army contracting and acquisition and county procurement work. A February 2023 county record identifies him as Senior Procurement Coordinator. This experience informs questions about process and public spending; it is not a claim of legal, surveying or doctoral credentials.
Independent of St. Johns County government. The report includes the author’s fuller biography and perspective disclosure.
Support the 1565 Coalition’s continued development and maintenance of this site: hosting, document tools, source updates and careful public research.
Reading, downloading and checking the research is free. Contributing is always optional.
Contributions do not buy a favorable finding, influence a rating, move a packet ahead in the review queue or provide greater access to public research. The same standards apply to everyone.
Contributions are not yet open. Payment details will appear here when the recipient and disclosures are ready.
Make a voluntary contributionTax deductibility has not been established. This site does not claim that contributions are tax-deductible.
This site does not collect payment-card details or publish donor names. A connected payment provider will handle payment information under its own terms and privacy policy.