IN HAEC VERBA: Special Magistrate's August 19, 2025 report and recommendation on Agrihood development

Read Special Magistrate J. Michael Traylor's report and recommendation on Robinson property PUD proposal under Florida Statute 70.51:

Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act

Section70.51 Florida Statutes

Parties: Enforcement Action: The Property: Property Owner: Robinson Improvement Company, LLC

(‘Robinson”)

Government Entity: Saint Johns County (“County”)

Saint Johns County’s Rezoning Denial of PUD 2024-09

2673 Acres West of I-95 between CR208 and CR214

Special Magistrate Report and Recommendation

This Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act (FLUEDRA) or

(“Act”) (Florida Statute 70.51) proceeding involves a decision by the Board of County

Commissioners of Saint Johns County, Florida to deny PUD 2024-09 submitted by Robinson

Improvement Company, LLC to rezone approximately 2673 acres of their property located

West of I 95 between CR 208 and CR 214 from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development

(PUD). This matter came before me, the Special Magistrate duly selected by the parties, for

hearing on July 25, 2025, to consider the Request for Relief brought by Robinson. At the

hearing, testimony was offered by witnesses called by both Robinson and the County and

was given by members of the public. Additionally, documentary and video exhibits were

received and presented from the parties and exhibits and written comments were also

provided by members of the public. The Special Magistrate has considered the testimony

and documentary evidence presented and has heard and considered arguments of counsel

for both Robinson and the County. The written submissions of counsel requested by the

Special Magistrate have also been reviewed and considered. Based on the record provided,

I hereby make the following findings and recommendation:

1. Procedural History

In 2024, Robinson submitted an application to the County (PUD 2024-09) to rezone

approximately 2673 acres from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow

for a maximum density of 3, residential dwelling units for property located on the north side

of County Road 214, south of County Road 208 and between Interstate 95 and County Road

13 A N.

Initially, on October 17, 2024, pursuant to the County’s Land Development Code, the

Robinson’s application for the Planned Unit development (PUD) was first brought to a public

hearing before the St. Johns County Planning and Zoning Authority (PZA) which

recommended denial of the rezoning application.On November 5, 2024, pursuant to the County’s Land Development Code, the St. Johns

County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on Robinson’s PUD 2024-09

rezoning application at which time they denied the Robinson’s request.

The Order signed by the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners Denying PUD 2024-

09 was rendered on November 7, 2025.

On November 18, 2024, Robinson timely filed a Request for Relief from the County’s

denial pursuant to The Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act

(FLUEDRA) and the County filed its response.

Pursuant to the requirements of FLUEDRA, the parties convened for a Mediation

Conference with the Special Magistrate on March 28, 2025, but were unable to reach a

resolution during mediation.

On Friday, July 25, 2025, the process culminated in a public hearing (the “Contested

Hearing”) held at the St. Johns County Auditorium during which witnesses called by the

parties presented testimony and counsel for the parties submitted documentary evidence

in support of their positions and members of the public also offered testimony and exhibits.

2. Undisputed Statement of Facts

The Property included in the PUD application has been owned by Robinson for over a

century and for at least the last sixty years has been under continuous timber management.

Before 2019, under the County’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) the Property was

designated Rural Silviculture (R/S). The surrounding lands are mainly designated R/S with a

portion of the lands to the southwest designated Agriculture (A1) and to the north are

Residential-B (Res-B).

The Property is zoned Open Rural (OR) with surrounding properties also zoned (OR) and

with residential developments to the north and east under Planned Rural Development

(PRD) or Planned Unit Development (PUD).

In 2017, the County paid $1,225,000.00 for 12.7 acres (over $96,400. per acre) for the

right of way north of the Property to CR 208. This property was acquired as part of the

County’s agreement to build County Road 2209 as a condition for its receipt of a rule

variance from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to alleviate local traffic on

Interstate-95. Since that year, the County has actively funded and constructed portions of

the CR 2209 roadway.

In January 2019, the Property, which was formerly designated Rural/Silviculture (R/S),

was now designated Residential-B in the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan (the Plan)

through a county staff-initiated amendment which provided specifically that the maximum

2development on the Property would be 3,332 residential units with any development delayed

until 2026. The Residential-B designation allows for up to two residential units per net acre.

Also in January 2019, after years of discussions and concurrent with the Plan

Amendment, the Robinson Improvement Company and the County entered into an

“Agreement for Donation of Right-of-Way and Stormwater Site” which provided for the

donation of over seven (7) miles of right-of-way and related stormwater facilities for the

construction of a portion of County Road 2209.

As stated in the 2019 Staff report, in part:

The County is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to

change the Future Land Use Map to Residential-B, which allows

up two residential dwelling units per net acre. Based on the

1,666 acres of developable acres within the project boundary,

the maximum theoretical yield under the Residential-B FLUM

designation is 3,332 residential dwelling units.

This proposed amendment expands the Development Area

Boundary to the south and allows for the protection of the CR

2209 corridor by the donation of Right-of-Way. The Right-of-Way

provides a connection south of County Road 208 to just north of

County Road 305. The entirety of County Road 2209 would

extend from Race Track Road to County Road 305, allowing a

north/south alternative to I-95. This alternate route has long

been identified as a need by the County. The County’s Long-

Range Transportation and Capital Improvement Plan includes

portions of the corridor that would allow for completion of the

Right-of-Way. The County has and will continue to work with

various property owners to acquire Right-of-Way. This corridor

will serve and benefit the existing and future growth of St. Johns

County and residents of surrounding areas. As the corridor is

developed, this centralized area of the County will likely

demonstrate the potential for economic development and job

opportunities. Nearby residents will also benefit from trails and

sidewalks that may be provided within the Right-of-Way for

bicycle and pedestrian use.

As previously stated, there is no development plan or rezoning

with this proposed amendment. In the future 2026, it is

anticipated a PUD zoning change will be submitted and

reviewed according to the land development regulations and

permitting requirements in place at that time.

3Accordingly, at that time, County staff recommended adoption of the proposed

amendment. Their findings were “based upon the following information: the public benefit

for the completion of CR 2209, application materials, consistency with applicable policies

of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land development Code requirements and other relevant

information available to staff.” A clear reading of this Staff Report reflects the anticipated

economic and residential development expected along this CR2209 corridor.

St. Johns County’s Land Development Code requires A Planned Unit Development

(PUD) application for developments over ten acres. Accordingly in 2024, Robinson

submitted its PUD rezoning application requesting 3332 residential units consistent with the

maximum allowed under the RES-B designation under the Plan. The PUD provided for the

delayed construction that was also consistent with the plan.

Under Robison’s PUD application, access to the planned development was to be

through the constructed CR 2209 section from CR 208 to CR 214 which was to be built in two

phases. Also, Robinson agreed it was responsible for the required transportation

proportionate share for the proposed development at an estimated cost of approximately

$49,030,159 as determined by the County. Both CR 208 and CR 214 are currently two-lane

roads. The Amendment to the Plan was done to facilitate the continued construction of CR

2209 to the south.

3. Role of The Special Magistrate

The intent of the FLUEDRA process is to provide an opportunity to reach an agreeable

resolution of land use disputes between local governments and property owners and to

avoid the time, expense and uncertainty associated with litigation. The act emphasizes that

the Special Magistrates first responsibility is to “… facilitate a resolution of the conflict

between the owner and the governmental entities to the end that some modification of the

owner’s proposed use of the property or adjustment in the development order or

enforcement action or regulatory efforts by one or more of the governmental parties may be

reached.” Sec 70.51(17)(a), Fla. Sta.

Therefore, as Special Magistrate my initial primary focus was an attempt to seek a

compromise between Robinson and the County that would generally meet the respective

goals and expectations through a mediation proceeding. Since no agreeable mediated

resolution was realized, the Act provides that the parties proceed to a Contested Hearing.

4. The Contested Hearing

At the Contested Hearing, both Robinson and the County were represented by

exceptionally competent counsel who ardently argued their respective positions. While

heavy emphasis was placed on the facts and various provisions of both the County’s

Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The scope of this proceeding limits my

role to solely determine whether the County’s denial of the Robinson PUD application

4unreasonably or unfairly burdens the use of Robinson’s property. Sec. 70.51(17)(b), Fla.

Stat. This standard departs significantly from that which is customary for disputes revolving

around property rights or quasi-judicial decisions.

Trav Carter testified, as Robinson’s representative, regarding the family’s historical

ownership and use of the Property as timber producing. He testified regarding the

discussions with the County involving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the

Agreement for Donation of Right-Of-Way and Stormwater Sights. He further testified that

because of his family’s reliance on the County’s representations, they have not negotiated a

new timber lease nor developed a plan for its use as wetlands mitigation banks. He also

testified how the Right of Way donation negatively impacted the sale price of the family land

to the south of the Property. He testified that the County is retreating from its expressed

representations and not acting in good faith.

Douglas Miller, a professional engineer experienced in infrastructure and project

development, testified regarding his understanding of the County’s concurrency problem

with FDOT along a section of Interstate I-95 and the need for development of an alternate

north-south route in order for FDOT to grant a variance. He described his meetings with

county staff and the various benefits the County would receive from the Right of Way

donation by Robinson. These include the absence of mitigation banks, non-removal of

conservation easements, no cost to the County, and a shorter route. The negotiations ended

with the County introducing the legislation that led to the amendment to the Comprehensive

Land Use Plan and the Future Land Use Map which included specific conditions and the

Right of Way Donation Agreement. Mr. Miller also testified that a right of way through the

Property would fragment the property and prevent its use for wetland mitigation and timber

operations.

Jeffrey Crammond, a professional engineer who specializes in Traffic Engineering and

Transportation Planning, testified that the County’s Comprehensive plan considers the

impact on roads generated by the number of units and timing. He testified that Robison was

prepared to meet their obligations for their proportionate share cost in the amount of $56.7

million using the County’s methodology. He testified that this is in addition to the estimated

$61.5 million Robinson would spend to build CR 2209 from CR208 to CR214. He also

testified that where an applicant provides mitigation, a rezoning cannot be denied because

of existing road deficiencies. In summation, Mr. Crammond testified that the PUD, as

presented with the Agreement, met all the required criteria to mitigate traffic impacts.

However, he did not dispute that traffic deficiencies would continue to exist.

Lindsay Haga, a Professional Land Planner, testified that the PUD, as presented, met

all the applicable requirements in the County’s Land Development Code. As to the

requested waivers, she testified that they were common and necessary for this size

community and were routinely granted by the County for other large, planned communities.

Additionally, she offered testimony that when a county’s plan has a stated number of units

attached to a property, that number is factored into its future plans for traffic and

5infrastructure needs. She further testified that the County Commission had just recently

voted on the 2050 Plan version with the Property still designated for the 3332 units with no

discussion or concerns raised regarding area compatibility. Finally, Ms. Haga testified

regarding the phased development of the Property and road completion with no unit

development before 2028 and only 5500 homes could be developed before 2031.

Sean Mullen testified regarding his appraisal which was received in evidence. He

testified that his valuation of the Property with open rural zoning was $26.75 million and with

PUD approval $73.3 million and that the Plan amendment without a PUD provides no value

to Robinson. He also, consistent with other testimony, testified that the Right of Way

Donation negatively impacts the Property’s value and prohibits its use for wetland mitigation

banks.

Jacob Smith, St. Johns County Planning Division Manager, testified that any rezoning

application includes a compatibility review. He testified about the subject Property is rural

in character and is bordered by low density residential on the southeast and northeast. He

also pointed out that the Staff’s Report Aerial Map, the FLUM and Zoning Map, all depict

surrounding properties as mainly agricultural and silvicultural. Mr. Smith also pointed to the

Plan’s limit on density and the County’s right to consider other “site-specific” factors with a

rezoning application, including “design, compatibility, infrastructure, site characteristics,

and other similar considerations.”

Dick D’Souza, St. Johns County’s Assistant Director for Transportation, testified that

the PUD as developed would affect traffic patterns on the roads serving and near the

property. He testified that the County has not designed or funded any construction of CR

2209 south of SR16 to meet the Robinson Property. He also testified as to the initial impact

of the PUD on CR 208 which would continue its deficient threshold. However, Mr. D’Souza

did admit that Robinson would meet its proportionate share under the County’s LDC and

state law.

The Magistrate heard testimony from numerous residents of the County. Many were

from the St. Johns County residential community of Shearwater. Their testimony, criticizing

the developer, together with documentary exhibits presented a picture of a development

that was not constructed or completed as advertised. They testified and emphasized their

concerns that this same developer, Freehold Communities, might now be involved with the

Robinson PUD project. Some other residents testified about the rural nature of the area and

their concern that a development of this size would negatively impact surrounding

properties. They were also concerned about the increase in traffic on CR 208 and CR 214,

which are two lane roads. In general, they testified that this was just two much development

for this area of the County.

65. Special Magistrate’s Findings

In considering whether the County’s Order denying Robinson’s PUD application was

‘unreasonable or unfairly burdens use’ of the Property, consideration has been given to

the Property’s historical use. Also, taken into account were the reasonable expectations of

the owner at the time, the FLUM amendment and the Right of Way agreement were

negotiated with the County. Consideration has also been given to the current state of

development with the lands bordering the Property.

The special Magistrate also considered the purpose of a comprehensive land plan

and its relationship to zoning. A comprehensive plan sets forth long term expectations for

growth which should guide future zoning and development action but is not meant to make

immediate land use changes. In other words, it does not change existing zoning. In this case,

the County enacted a comprehensive plan amendment which clearly anticipated a

specifically designated increased density for the Property. Additionally, testimony at the

hearing pointed out that the County in its 2050 Comprehensive Land Plan submitted to the

State of Florida confirmed the Res-B designation for the Property and even included the 3332

residential units in its housing calculations even though it had denied zoning for that number

of units.

When considering the circumstances surrounding the County’s initiative to amend

both the text and FLUM for this Property in their Comprehensive Plan, together with the

planned donation and construction of the CR2209 right of way by Robinson, the parties

negotiating clearly envisioned development beyond the 1 unit per acre that the Property was

then, and is currently zoned. Even though the Plan amendment references further

government approval for development, the fact remains that the expectation was for

approval of development consistent with envisioned infrastructure being provided to the

County at Robinson’s cost. It is also clear that Robinson has spent substantial funds

planning for the development of this Property based on those discussions.

Although the County has not yet requested a right-of-way donation under the CR 2209

Agreement, given the County’s other land acquisitions and roadway developments, it is

reasonable to conclude that the County intends to fulfill its obligations to the FDOT and

complete the CR 2209 corridor. Accordingly, with CR 2209 sections currently being

completed and with some right-of-way land already acquired, the only efficient route for that

roadway is through the Robinson Property to continue south.

After reviewing Petitioner’s FLUEDRA Request for Relief, the County’s FLUEDRA

response, the testimony and exhibit evidence, and legal arguments presented at the

Contested Hearing and witness summaries submitted, the Special Magistrate finds that the

County’s denial of Robinson’s PUD application was unreasonable and unfairly burdens

Robinson’s use of the Property. Specifically, I find that Robinson had a reasonable

expectation that the County would approve a PUD with a density greater than that allowed

7under open rural zoning and that the County’s denial together with the Right of Way Donation

Agreement constituted an unfair burden.

6. Recommendation

Section 70.51(19) of FLUEDRA states, in pertinent part:

(b) If the special magistrate finds that the development order or enforcement action,

or the development order or enforcement action in combination with the actions or

regulations of other governmental entities, is unreasonable or unfairly burdens use of the

owner’s property, the special magistrate, with the owner’s consent to proceed, may

recommend one or more alternatives that protect the public interest served by the

development order or enforcement action and regulations at issue but allow for reduced

restraints on the use of the owner’s real property, including, but not limited to:

1. An adjustment of land development or permit standards or other provisions

controlling the development or use of land.

2. Increases or modifications in the density, intensity, or use of areas of development.

3. The transfer of development rights.

4. Land swaps or exchanges.

5. Mitigation, including payments in lieu of onsite mitigation.

6. Location on the least sensitive portion of the property.

7. Conditioning the amount of development or use permitted.

8. A requirement that issues be addressed on a more comprehensive basis than a single

proposed use or development.

9. Issuance of the development order, a variance, special exception, or other

extraordinary relief, including withdrawal of the enforcement action.

10. Purchase of the real property, or an interest therein, by an appropriate governmental

entity.

Notwithstanding my findings above, there is merit to the County’s concern with traffic

impact on CR 208 and CR 214 and the compatibility of a PUD of this size with the surrounding

area. When I first moved from Jacksonville to Saint Johns County in 1976, it was a rural

county and, I believe, there were less than 50,000 residents. Now, the county is far less rural

and has an estimated population of over 346,000 residents. As the County’s 2050

Comprehensive Plan projects, the residential needs of the County will continue to grow and

will need to be met with planned development.

Therefore, in accordance with the Act, I am also making the following recommendations

to the parties with the hope that future litigation will be avoided with a resolution that

achieves mutual benefit:

1. Have the PUD provide that at least two lanes of CR 2209 be developed through the

property before any residential units are available. This will allow vehicular access

to both CR 208 and CR 214 and lessen the initial burden on a single roadway.

82. Have the PUD reduce the number of units available by 2031 to 350 units and set a

similar unit restriction for each year from 2032 through 2035. This will allow for a

more staggered density increase consistent with the anticipated increased

housing needs articulated in the Comprehensive Plan

3. To shield the impact on the neighboring residential properties, have the PUD

provide the lots bordering those properties should be only for single family homes

and should be on lots at least three quarters of an acre in size. This would also

lower the proposed density.

4. Have the PUD provide designated space for a future fire station in coordination

with the County and also provide space for a future school in coordination with

the School District. (If it fits in with the long-range plan of either the Department

or the District).

5. Additionally, Have the PUD designate, and the County approve some land within

the Property for commercial use to serve the community’s residents and would

lower vehicle traffic trips outside the PUD. Additionally, setting aside land for this

use should also result in lower density.

6. Taking the actions in numbers 3, 4, and 5 above should be done with the intent to

lower the overall density on the Property.

These recommendations were meant to provide a more staggered development

consistent with the County’s future housing needs as expressed in its current and 2050

Comprehensive plans. They were also meant to lessen the immediate traffic impact on CR

214 and CR 208 and provide time to address future roadway development and to lower the

overall density of the PUD.

The foregoing Report and Recommendation of the Special Magistrate has been

submitted to the parties on this 19th day of August 2025.

J. Michael Traynor

_____________________________________________

J. Michael Traynor, Special Magistrate

cc:

Ryan Ross, Esq. (rross@sjcfl.us)

Zach Miller, Esq. (zwmillerlaw@gmail.com)