Debates about stricter tree preservation rules in St. Johns County have been raging for years. | Tim Mossholder, Unsplash
Published on August 6, 2025 at 2:17 pm
Free local news and info, in your inbox at 6 a.m. M-F. Sign up for the Jacksonville Today newsletter.
Two small tweaks to St. Johns County’s tree preservation rules passed this week, but it’s a far cry from what was initially proposed.
County Commission Chair Krista Joseph initially proposed a 14-point plan to strengthen tree protection standards. The idea finally passed Tuesday afternoon as just two. She’s disappointed, but she said she will continue to fight for stricter tree regulations.
Jacksonville Today thanks our sponsors. Become one.
Joseph’s initial proposals included mandating larger vegetation buffers separating housing developments, notifying homeowners if clearcutting is slated to occur near their homes and instituting more ways for the county to prevent trees from being torn down.
But months of back-and-forth and debates over whether stronger tree protections violated private property rights whittled down Joseph’s 14 points to just three — and only two of those narrowly passed by a 3-2 vote of the County Commission on Tuesday.
The rules that passed are:
- Standardizing St. Johns County’s tree measurement methods by measuring all trees by the diameter at breast height.
- Increasing the fees developers must pay for deficiencies of trees on a finished project. If a developer promises to include a certain amount of trees, and the final product is lacking, they must now pay $100 per inch for the missing trees compared to the $25 that was previously required.
Jacksonville Today thanks our sponsors. Become one.
Joseph and County Commissioners Clay Murphy and Ann Taylor supported those two regulations. County Commissioners Sarah Arnold and Christian Whitehurst opposed them.
“It’s very disappointing to go from 14 suggestions to two,” Joseph said. “And the main one is the clearcutting that everybody wants to see … and it didn’t pass. And that was the whole reason I ran for office.”
Whose trees are these?
The contentious discussions over stricter tree protections exposed ideological differences among the five elected Republicans who make up the Board of County Commissioners.
Joseph recalled Tuesday that she was encouraged to run for office after driving through the Julington Creek Plantation neighborhood and seeing how few trees there were.
Since she was elected, Joseph has maintained that she represents the will of the people she spoke to on the campaign trail who are unhappy with the pace of development in St. Johns County. That sentiment seemingly played a role in the election of two other commissioners in 2024.
Murphy and Taylor positioned themselves as in favor of slowing things down.
In the year since their election, Joseph has found a staunch ally in Taylor, who has supported her calls for stricter tree protection since Day 1.
While Joseph and Taylor say they are still in favor of strong property rights, the two argue that undeveloped land — public or private — is ultimately a public benefit.
But when it comes to private property rights, Murphy has leaned toward fellow commissioners Arnold and Whitehurst. Those two commissioners have repeatedly argued that while the pace of the county’s growth has been rapid, their stance as Republicans is not to tell people what they can and can’t do with their property.
Murphy’s siding with Arnold and Whitehurst on some discussions about tree ordinances has sparked contention among the County Commission. During a recent meeting, Commissioner Taylor called attention to Murphy’s campaign promise to preserve the county’s natural resources.
The varying ideological stances among the group of Republicans was on full display this week while discussing the tree regulations.
Whitehurst said he is a supporter of conservation and lauded the county coming together to oppose development in protected lands, but he argued that some of Joseph’s proposals could run afoul of everything from state law to the U.S. Constitution.
“Where I’ve had issues in the past, and where I continue to have issues today, is where the government forces the view of maybe a select people on everyone,” Whitehurst said.
He, Arnold and Murphy took issue with the third of Joseph’s surviving tree rules. That rule would have mandated that developers of planned unit developments — projects with more flexible rules than the county’s zoning typically allows for — preserve more vegetation.
For projects larger than 40 acres, developers would have been required to preserve 10% of that vegetation compared to the 5% that is currently mandated.
Whitehurst argued that the increase from 5% to 10% would be a violation of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which states: “… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Siding with Arnold and Whitehurst on the issue, Murphy was worried about the legal ramifications of the proposal.
Those concerns weren’t unfounded. Before the County Commission met this week, attorney Ellen Avery-Smith, who has represented a number of developers, gave the county commissioners a letter urging them to throw out the third proposal.
She said such a rule would be “disproportionate and burdensome” for landowners, and some on the commission read her letter as a potential legal threat.
Joseph shrugged off any potential legal challenges, saying the proposed rules were “not unreasonable”
“So we get sued,” Joseph said. “How many attorneys do we have? Six? I’m not afraid of this.”
Murphy, Arnold and Whitehurst formed a three-person majority to axe the third requirement, but Murphy switched sides to support Taylor and Joseph in enacting the remaining two provisions.
What comes next?
Speaking with Jacksonville Today, Joseph said her disappointment about the tree ordinance that passed is because she truly believes the people of St. Johns County want stricter protections for trees.
“I am very loyal to the voter and to what they want me to do,” Joseph said. “I’ll bring it back, and it may not go anywhere, but I will keep trying. I never give up.”
As for what the tree protections may look like if they come back, Clay Murphy offered one suggestion: allowing developers to build denser neighborhoods if they preserve more vegetation.
Joseph said she won’t support that. She cited infrastructure concerns about dense residential housing developments.
While she said she does not oppose development, she said she wants balance.
“I think our community wants balance between how it looks now and how it should look in the future,” Joseph said. “And I don’t think in the future we want urban centers. I think that’s not what our county is all about.”
