Townley v. Marion CountyTownley v. Marion County
By their amended complaint, plaintiffs (appellants) challenged the validity of Marion County Ordinance 73-5, whereby zoning regulations promulgated by the board of county commissioners were made applicable to all the area of Marion County outside incorporated municipalities. Upon consideration of the county‘s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court entered its final judgment finding Marion County Ordinance 73-5 to be a valid exercise of the powers of self-government granted the Board of County Commissioners of Marion County by
Prior to 1973, the Marion County Board of County Commissioners (Board) enforced zoning regulations pursuant to certain special acts of the Florida legislature which restricted its authority to specific limited geographical areas in the unincorporated area of the county. However, neither these special acts nor the areas defined therein are involved in this controversy.
In 1973, the Board, by enactment of the subject ordinance, declared its zoning regulations
The primary issue posed is whether the trial court erred in holding that a county, not operating under a county charter, could enact zoning regulations inconsistent with Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. We hold that it cannot.
It is elementary that counties are political subdivisions of the state and thus derive their powers from the constitution and laws of the State of Florida.
An abstract of the Board‘s authority to enact the subject ordinance is necessary then for our determination. It is conceded by the Board that such authority is not derived from a special act. So, the constitutional grant of self-government as is provided by general law must be scrutinized.
“(1) The legislative and governing body of a county shall have the power to carry on county government. To the extent not inconsistent with general or special law, this power shall include, but shall not be restricted to, the power to:
.....
“(h) Establish, coordinate, and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public“. (emphasis supplied)
Clearly, the legislature has by general law granted to the Board the power of zoning the property here involved.
Having already observed that we are not concerned here with any special law, our inquiry is thus restricted to the question of whether the subject ordinance conflicts with any general law.
Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, entitled County and Municipal Planning for Future Development, is a general law that provides a mechanism for the adoption and enforcement of zoning regulations. It specifically exempts special acts relating to zoning or planning.
“(2) The provisions of this Act in its interpretation and application are declared to be the minimum requirements necessary to promote the public health, safety... .”
The broad powers of zoning granted by the provisions of
The trial court, citing an Attorney General‘s Opinion (075-63), was of the view that the language of
It is our view that the “supplemental and in addition to such other authority” relates
The Board having conceded by its brief:
“For purposes of disposition of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the COUNTY conceded that in enacting Ordinance 73-5 it had not adopted a formal resolution electing to proceed under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, nor adopted a comprehensive general plan and provided for annual review thereof in the manner prescribed by Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.”
the judgment of the trial court is REVERSED.
SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur.