Update, Sept. 14. The county answered. The Office of the County Attorney released its answer to the amended complaint and the mediator’s report, and said the board may close Tuesday’s session on a case that did not settle: eight hours of mediation on Aug. 14 ended with no agreement. The special magistrate’s report went to the board on Sept. 16, 2025, and the board took no action on it. The documents and the county’s position are here.

The county commission spends Tuesday morning in the auditorium. It spends part of Tuesday morning in a room the public may not enter.

That is allowed. Fla. Stat. § 286.011(8) lets a board close a session with its lawyers when it is a party to litigation, so long as it says so first. The county said so. Its calendar carries a notice that the board will convene a private attorney-client session at 9:30 a.m. Sept. 15, in the Executive Conference Room next to the auditorium, confined to settlement negotiations and litigation expense strategy.

The notice lists who will be in the room: County Administrator Joy Andrews, county legal counsel, Chair Clay Murphy, Vice Chair Ann Taylor, and Commissioners Christian Whitehurst, Sarah Arnold and Krista Joseph. A court reporter will also attend.

It names the case. Robinson Improvement Company v. St. Johns County, Case No. 3:25-cv-01275-TJC-LLL.

It does not say what the case is about.

The court file does.

What the county wrote down in 2019

Start with the ordinance, because the county wrote the ordinance.

Ordinance 2019-7 changed the future land use designation on about 2,673 acres from Rural/Silviculture to Residential-B. The land lies west of Interstate 95, south of County Road 208 and north of County Road 214. Chair Paul M. Waldron signed it. The rendition date stamped on it is Jan. 17, 2019, the Department of State acknowledged receipt Jan. 22, and the Clerk recorded it at Book 246, Page 185.

Attached to it is a one-paragraph text amendment, Exhibit C, and it reads in full:

Development within the 1,666 acres of the Robinson Property, as defined in Ordinance 2019-7, shall be limited to a maximum of 3,332 dwelling units. No development will occur on the subject property prior to 2026. Proposed changes to increase the residential density or add non-residential uses are subject to the provisions of chapter 163, Florida Statutes, as related to Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

Residential-B allows two units per net acre. Two units on 1,666 developable acres is 3,332. The number is not an aspiration. It is arithmetic, and the county did the arithmetic and wrote the answer into its comprehensive plan for one specific piece of ground.

Most land use categories give a density and stop there. This one gave a house count and a start date.

What the county got for it

The complaint says the property has been in the same family for more than a century and under timber for most of it, and that the county came to the owner with a problem.

The problem was CR 2209. According to the complaint, the county had committed to the Florida Department of Transportation that it would build a north-south road west of I-95 in exchange for a variance from state concurrency rules, and the original alignment ran through wetland mitigation banks, which made that right-of-way effectively unbuyable. The complaint says the county asked the owner to donate about 7.4 miles of right-of-way and stormwater sites across two properties, roughly 258 acres, and that the plan amendment was the consideration for it.

At the adoption hearing, the complaint quotes then-Commissioner Henry Dean:

This is basically allowing us to acquire … if not all, but the final major piece of right-of-way for a highway that’s desperately needed, and we’re able to acquire it without any cash coming from our somewhat limited budget, and we’re getting development that will probably, in my opinion, head in this general direction in roughly five or six years anyway… I’m going to just guess, and I’m no appraiser, but I’m guessing that this is probably somewhere between 6 and 8 million, if you had to put a dollar figure on the 224 acres, if we went to condemnation.

That is paragraph 41, page 11 of the complaint. The complaint also states that no one spoke against the amendment.

For a sense of the going rate, the special magistrate’s report notes that in 2017 the county paid $1,225,000 for 12.7 acres of right-of-way just north of this property. That is more than $96,400 an acre.

Two documents, one piece of dirt

A comprehensive plan says what may be built. Zoning says what may be built now, and the zoning here never moved. It stayed Open Rural, one-acre lots on well and septic. The complaint’s estimate of what Open Rural yields on this land is 800 to 900 houses.

So in 2024 the owner applied to rezone the property to a planned unit development for 3,332 units, the number in the plan.

The Planning and Zoning Agency recommended denial Oct. 17, 2024. The Board of County Commissioners held its hearing Nov. 5, 2024, and denied the application. The complaint says the vote was unanimous and that members cited the number of homes, the timing, and the effect on transportation facilities that are already deficient.

The order was rendered two days later.

The middle step

Florida gives a landowner something between a denial and a lawsuit. Under the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act, Fla. Stat. § 70.51, an owner may request a special magistrate, who mediates first and, if that fails, holds a hearing and answers one narrow question: does the government’s decision unreasonably or unfairly burden the use of the land.

The owner filed Nov. 18, 2024. The parties mediated March 28, 2025, and did not settle. The contested hearing ran July 25, 2025, in the county auditorium, with witnesses, documentary and video exhibits, and comment from the public.

On Aug. 19, 2025, Special Magistrate J. Michael Traynor issued his report. He found that the county’s denial was unreasonable and unfairly burdened the use of the property.

He then did the thing the statute is actually for, and made six recommendations meant to leave both sides standing. Build two lanes of CR 2209 through the property before anyone can move into a house. Hold units to 350 by 2031, with similar annual limits through 2035. Put single-family lots of at least three-quarters of an acre along the boundaries with existing neighborhoods. Set aside park land with the county and school land with the district. Designate some commercial ground inside the property so residents are not all driving out for a gallon of milk. Do the last three with the intent of lowering overall density.

The report is nine pages. The recommendations are on pages 8 and 9. The complaint says the owner was willing to accept them.

The complaint says the board declined to take the report up, and that under the Act a local government that neither accepts nor rejects a recommendation inside 45 days has rejected it.

The suit

The complaint was filed Oct. 21, 2025, in the Middle District of Florida. Fifty-five pages, seven counts: a Penn Central regulatory taking, a taking without just compensation, equal protection, a state regulatory taking, state substantive due process, declaratory judgment under Fla. Stat. § 163.3215, and equitable estoppel. The civil cover sheet cites 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and describes the cause as deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law. Declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief. Jury demanded.

The equal protection count is the one anyone who watches this board should read. The complaint alleges there are 38 properties in the county carrying site-specific text amendments that set a specific unit count, that the board approved matching rezonings for 36 of them, and that this is one of the two it did not.

One more number, because the file does not settle it. The complaint puts the county’s proportionate-share transportation cost for this project at $52.1 million. The special magistrate’s report puts it at approximately $49,030,159, as determined by the county. Two documents in the same court file, three million dollars apart, neither one explaining the other.

The docket since

Senior Judge Timothy J. Corrigan has the case. Magistrate Judge Laura Lothman Lambert is referred on it.

An amended complaint was filed Feb. 13, 2026. The county answered March 30. A case management and scheduling order issued April 20. A mediator was appointed May 27, another in August, and a mediation report was docketed Aug. 19, 2026, a year to the day after the special magistrate’s.

The newest entry is a motion to amend, correct, modify or supplement, docketed Sept. 8, 2026.

Seven days after that filing, the board closes the door.

What is not in this story

The operative pleading is now the amended complaint, and it is not publicly retrievable. Neither is the county’s answer. Anyone reading this should hold that in mind: one side’s pleading is one side’s pleading.

We also do not know what the mediation report says. The docket carries the entry, not the document.

Ordinance 2019-7 is quoted here from the Clerk’s own recorded copy, obtained separately from the court file.

The Tattler asked the county for comment at 12:59 p.m. Sept. 9, directing six on-record questions to the Office of Public Affairs with a deadline of 5 p.m. Sept. 13.

Wayne Larson, the county’s Director of Public Affairs, answered 37 minutes later. His reply reads, in full: “Thanks for reaching out. The County Attorney and his leadership team have been copied.” He copied three more county addresses on it.

That is an acknowledgment. It is not an answer, and none of the six questions has one. The deadline ran out at 5 p.m. Sunday. The answer to all six is still nothing, four days on and one day before the door closes.

Tuesday’s session will be transcribed. Under § 286.011(8) that transcript becomes public when the litigation is over, which is a real disclosure and a slow one.

The ordinance said no development before 2026.

It is 2026.

What we asked, and what came back.
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .