Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/08/2011

Home

July 25, 2011 I Volume 51 No. 14 Zoning Bulletin land located in unincorporated Palm Beach County (the "County"). Those parcels were located in an agricultural -residential zoning district. Wilson purchased one of those parcels is 2005 (the "2005 Parcel"). In 2008, Plant Explorers filed a special permit application for the 2005 Parcel. The County issued a "Special Permit" which allowed the operation of the business on the 2005 Parcel, subject to certain condi- tions. Those conditions required Plant Explorers to comply with specific portions of the County's Unified Land Development Code ("ULDC"). Those conditions included: set -back provisions; time prohibitions on the operation of commercial vehicles; and buffer requirements. Apparently unhappy with the required permits and conditions, Wilson, Plant Explorers, and Excalibur Fruit Trees, LLC (hereinafter, collectively, "Wilson") filed a legal action against the County. Wilson asked the court to declare that the Special Permit conditions violated Florida's Right to Farm Act (S 823.14(6), Florida Statutes). Section 823.14(6) of that Act provides in relevant part that: "a local govern- ment may not adopt any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy to pro- hibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit an activity of a bona fide farm operation on land classified as agricultural land ...." Wilson also argued that the County lacked the authority to enforce provisions of its ULDC on farming activities. Wilson said this was be- cause such farming activities were not "development" (which charter counties were authorized to regulate) under Florida's Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (See SS 163.3164(6) and 380.04, Florida Statutes). That Act excluded the use of land for agricultural purposes from its definition of "development." The County responded by maintaining that the Right to Farm Act restricted only new ordinances, not the enforcement of preexisting ordi- nances. The County also argued that restrictions on the term "develop- ment" (under Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes) did not prohibit the County's ordinances. The County said its ordinances were authorized under more general grants of constitutional and statutory authority. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and decid- ing the matter on the law alone, the trial court issued summary judg- ment in favor of the County. Wilson appealed. DECISION: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The District Court of Appeal of Florida held that Florida's Right to Farm Act did not prohibit enforcement of county ordinances enacted prior to the Act's effective date. In reaching this conclusion, the court looked to the legislative intent and language of the Right to Farm Act. The court found that while § 823.14(6) prevented counties from "adopting" ordinances relating to agriculture, it did not address the enforcement of provisions already in place. 10 © 2011 Thomson Reuters