One vote on Monday changed what could happen to about 1,166 acres on sides of Interstate 95, along with the possibility of as many as 15,000 homes.

Using an estimate of about nine and a half daily trips for each single-family home, that could eventually mean roughly 140,000 vehicle trips a day on State Road 207 and the roads connected to it. That is my rough math, not an estimate from the county.

So who made this decision?

The Board That Voted Two of the five county commissioners are facing scandal connected to an allegedly fake voter guide distributed before the 2024 election.

On July 21, the other three commissioners voted to declare that they had no confidence in those two members. They also directed the County Attorney to ask the governor to remove them. The governor has not removed them.

About 70 days later, all five commissioners were still in their seats. The two commissioners named in the July motion voted on opposite sides of Monday’s decision.

That is the board. Here is how the votes have gone.

Chairman Clay Murphy Clay Murphy ran for office in 2024 as one of three candidates endorsed by the county Republican Executive Committee against sitting incumbents. Growth was a major issue in that campaign.

The allegedly fake voter guide was created to help defeat Murphy. He won anyway. His campaign raised $118,633, while his opponent raised $263,031.

On Sept. 1, Murphy voted to have county staff challenge Florida’s agricultural enclave law or seek an injunction against it. That motion passed 3-2.

But here is how Murphy has voted on agricultural enclave applications:

Aug. 19: He voted against denying ENCERT 2026-05 and ENCERT 2026-06, the two Heritage parcels. The denial failed 2-3. Aug. 19: He voted to certify both Heritage parcels. That motion passed 3-2. Sept. 1: He voted against denying ENCERT 2026-01. The denial failed 2-3. Sept. 1: He also voted against approving ENCERT 2026-01. The approval failed 2-3. Sept. 28: He voted against denying both Heritage parcels. This time, the denial passed 3-2. In other words, Murphy has voted against denying every agricultural enclave application that has come before him.

The two Sept. 1 votes deserve more attention. Murphy voted against denying that application, then voted against approving it. Both motions failed.

The Sept. 15 agenda described the result this way: “No further action was taken on the application.”

That may sound neutral, but under the same state law Murphy had voted to fight three weeks earlier, it is not neutral. The county has 30 days to prepare a report, another 30 days to hold a hearing and 90 days total to act. If the board does not act, the parcel is certified anyway.

So under this law, doing nothing can have the same result as voting yes. It just happens without anyone’s name clearly attached to the decision.

There was also Murphy’s July 21 vote. He voted for the motion declaring no confidence in two fellow commissioners and directing a letter to the governor. He then said he did not support sending the letter.

When the County Attorney asked whether he wanted the vote taken again, Murphy said:

“I don’t think there’s any reason to re-do the motion. The motion was what it is. It was my mistake. I voted for it, so let’s just live with it.” Murphy chaired Monday’s meeting. At the beginning, he told the audience there would be no pontificating and asked people not to clap or call out during public comment.

One resident responded at the microphone:

“It’s your job to have this meeting. It’s very condescending when you talk like that and it’s very hurtful, very hurtful. And I hope that that’s not your intent, but I want to tell you as a citizen, it feels like a complete shutdown of our voices.” After the final vote, Murphy told the room it could clap.

Someone can campaign against growth and later vote in ways that help growth move forward. That is allowed. But those votes should still be counted and discussed.

How the Other Commissioners Voted Here is the basic voting history without putting it into a chart:

Christian Whitehurst: He was not endorsed as part of the county Republican committee’s 2024 slate. He voted to certify the Heritage parcels on Aug. 19 and voted against denying them on Sept. 28. Sarah Arnold: She was not endorsed as part of that slate. She voted to certify the Heritage parcels on Aug. 19, then voted to deny them on Sept. 28. Clay Murphy: He was endorsed in 2024. He voted to certify the Heritage parcels on Aug. 19 and voted against denying them on Sept. 28. Krista Joseph: She was not part of the endorsed slate. She voted to deny the Heritage parcels on Aug. 19 and again on Sept. 28. Ann Taylor: She was endorsed in 2024. She voted to deny the Heritage parcels on Aug. 19 and again on Sept. 28. Joseph and Taylor have been consistent on these applications. They voted against them in August and again in September. Taylor made Monday’s motion to deny the applications, and Joseph seconded it.

They were also two of the three commissioners who voted in July to ask the state to take action concerning the two commissioners facing charges.

Whitehurst called the special meeting that brought the Heritage parcels back before the board. He took criticism for calling the meeting, but his vote was consistent with how he voted in August.

Whitehurst’s campaign raised $217,260 during the 2024 election cycle. His closest opponent raised $27,343. That means he raised almost eight dollars for every dollar raised by that opponent.

The Vote That Decided It Sarah Arnold cast the deciding vote to deny the Heritage applications. She did not explain her decision.

Arnold’s term ends in November. She did not run for reelection. Four other candidates ran for her District 2 seat, and Arnold was not one of them.

That means she cast the deciding vote on the largest agricultural enclave application the county has considered about seven weeks before leaving office. She gave no reason during the meeting, and she did not provide one afterward to people who asked.

Arnold’s Campaign Money Arnold’s campaign finance records are public and worth reviewing.

Her 2022 campaign raised $207,795.60. Of that amount, $75,700 came from interests connected to building, development, construction, real estate and land.

Those donations came through 83 separate contributions. Seventy-two of them were for $1,000, which is the maximum contribution allowed under state law for a county race.

That industry-related money made up about 36 cents of every dollar Arnold’s campaign raised.

The donors include many well-known names in the county’s growth and development economy:

Dream Finders Homes and its founder, with each giving the maximum amount Pulte Group ICI Homes Ashley Homes Eastland Development Group Eastland Partners Gatlin Development Franklin C. Gatlin III Four separate Roberts companies based in Lake Butler and connected to land, timber, site development and capital Individual contractors and land developers from St. Augustine, Ponte Vedra Beach and Jacksonville Three political committees, including one called Building Florida’s Future But there is an important detail here.

I searched the campaign records for Chris Shee, MasterCraft, Heritage Development, Todd Zehner, Ansbacher Law and the Business Park Circle address. I did not find a contribution or even a mention connected to any of them.

So the records do not show what some people might expect. They show that Arnold received a large amount of campaign money from the homebuilding and development industry in general. Some of those donors compete for the same buyers in the same housing market as the Heritage applicant.

But the records do not show money from the applicant itself.

Arnold’s sworn Form 6 financial disclosure appears consistent with that. She reported a net worth of $1,042,000 and two sources of income over $1,000: the county and United Way of St. Johns.

Part E of the form was left blank, meaning she reported no ownership interest in a business.

That leaves the unanswered question of why she changed her position between August and September.

Arnold will not face voters again in this position. She has already declined to resign after another commissioner asked her to step down. At this point, explaining her vote would not cost her an election.

But so far, there has been no explanation.

What Happens Next The board’s decision to deny the applications may be legally correct. Ann Taylor’s motion was detailed and carefully put together.

At the same time, the county’s deputy attorney told the board, while answering questions from Chairman Murphy, that county staff had reviewed the comprehensive plan and believed the application fit that plan.

Three commissioners disagreed with their own staff and voted to deny the applications. They are allowed to do that. But when commissioners reject their staff’s conclusion on something this large, the public should hear their reasons at the time of the vote.

The written order now goes to the County Attorney. It will need findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting a decision that county staff did not recommend.

And it will come from a board that still cannot agree on whether two of its own members should even be sitting in the room.