Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 04 19 Entered into Record by Captain Tolleson Re: Order Denying Petition for Writ of ProhibitionDate: April 19, 2005 ENTERED 1NT0 THE CAPTAIN TOLLESON RECORD BY -- - ~..- -.._....,-~---......-,~~------. ... _....---r e ' - . . -- ---.., .....y ~.. ,... ... ~... ..., ~ uyc , IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE N0.03-CA-t35i-if3-K THOMAS A. BtNFORD, Petitioner, v. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, a Florida municipality, ,JOHN BUSH as Matyor, Respondent. C~Op~( QRDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROH8ITION Petitioner, THOMAS 81NFORD, seeks a Writ of Prohibition to prohibit the City of Winter Springs from enforcing its sign code on his property lying withfng the City. For the reasons exQressed below the Petition is Denied. SEPAf~4jION OF POWERS The Constitutions of the United States and of the State of Florida separate all powers of government Into three branches, vtz: the legislative, the executive and the judicial. Chiles v. Children A B C D E & F, 5r39 So.2d 289 (FIa.1991). The court in Chiles explained that the separation of powere doctrine encompasses two fundamental prohibitions: first, that no branch of government may encroach upon the powers of another; and, second, that no branch may delegate t0 another branch its constitutionally assigned power. As Illustrated by Chiles, the separation of powers doctrine is not some Historic relic of a bygone era but, Instead, remains a fundamental principle underlying ouf system of government, designed to ~:.~, .: keep the individual branches of government separate to preiv~rl~ the fusion of the ~~,~ ~' powers of any two branches into the same department wh~h would ultimately result in the destruction of liberty. Ch11es, 588 So.2d a# 262-264. See also, Locke v. Hawkes, 595 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1992). r The essence of ieglslative power la to establish public policy by the enactment of general rules of law for future uniform application to specific factual instances. In the land use arena, the executive function also executes, carries out, effectuates, or applies the legislative enactment by initially (a) interpreting the intent of legislation, {b} determining the facts relating to a specific condition or event, and (cj applying th8 legislated general rule of law to the facts of the spedfic instance or case. When questions arise as to the true intent of the legislation or as to Its legality under Constitutional and statutory provisions and common law or as to its proper application in a particular instance, or ss to the truth of the facts involved in the p&rticular case, the final determination of those matters is by an adjudication by the judicial branch of government. In Florida, local municipal governments are created by Art. VIII, s. 2 of the Florida Constitution and regulated by P.S. Chapter 1 Bg, The Municipal Home Rule Powers Act. Municipalities have alt governmental powers necessary for aU municipal purposes, except as otherwise provided by general law. land use regulations by municipal governments arise from the police powers of said governmental units. It is unquestioned that local munidpaf governments have exclusive jurisdiction over land use regulation within the boundaries of the municipality, except as proscribed by general law. The land use code (in this case, the sign code portion of the land use code) reserves to the same local legislative body that enacted the original ordinance adopting the land use policy {l.e., city council or hoard of county commisslonere) the decision- making in the process of applying the general provisions of the ordinance to individual parcels of land. In practice, the local government wears many functional hats and often exercises alt three governmental functions in land use matters. In Florida, city governments act in a true legislative function when originally enacting, and In making substantive amendments to, genera! zoning and other land use ordinances but they also act in an executive capacity when they hire and supervise empbyees and agents Qrder Denying Writ of Prohibition Binford v. City of W inter Springs Case No. 03-CA-661.16-K Page 2 (e.g. Gcde Enforcement Officers) and appoint administrative (P & Z~ boards, to execute, apply and enforce land use ordinances. Local governmental bodies also act in the judicial mode through appointed code enforcement boards, with authority to hear and decide issues in cases and controversies involving specific instances and also to impose penaltfas (F.S. Chapter 182). The exercise of the Judicial function occurs directly when the bcal governmental authority reviews the actions and recommendations of Its own employees and boards as to issues involving the application of land use regulations In specific cases Involving particular circumstances and parcels of land. Where Q land use decision Constitutes truly legislative action, the "fairly debatable" or deferential standard of review is properly employed by reviewing courts a9 in the review of legislation relating to many other subject matters. 5se, e.g., Village of Euclid v. Ambler Reaify Co,, 47 5.Ct. 114 (US 182t3) So long as a truly legislative decfaion is "fairly debatable" and open to dispute or controversy on grounds that make sense as tp whether the zoning or other legislative action pr¢t~ts the public health, welfare, safety, or morals of the community, the property owner has a formidable burden in challenging the regulatory action and the regulatory action will be upheld, unless the zoning classification or land use would be arbitrary, unreasonable or confiscatory. Snyrxer v Boarol of County Gbm'rs pf Srevard County, 5®5 So.2d 65 (Fta.App. 5 Dist.1881}. The adoption pf the City of Winter Springs sign code was a legitimate legislative action of the City of Winter Springs and it iS not within the provincq of this Court to second guess the wisdom of that enactment. 1NRIT OF PR©MIBITIG1tU A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary writ extremely narrow in scope and operation by which a superior court, having appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over an inferior court or tribunal, may prevent that Court or tribunal from exceeding Its jurisdiction or usurping jurisdiction over matters nvt within its Jurisdiction. As stated Order Oenyfng Writ of Prohibition Binlord v. city of Winter sprW,gs Case No. 03-CA-651.1 B-k Page 3 .. ~ . above, (t is unquestioned that the City of Winter Springs has jurisdiction to implement a sign Code and enforce same, Prohibition may be invoked only in emergency cases to forestall an impending injury where no other appropriate and adequate legal remedy exists and only when damage fs likely to follow. Prohibitbn therefore may generally be granted only when it is shown flip lower trlbunnl is without jurisdiction or (s Alt®mpting to act In excess of its jurisd~tlon. It will not lie to prevent the mere erroneous exercise of jurisdktion by an inferior tribunal. T.D.B. v. Kirk, 468 So.2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1 S84); Lawrence v. Orange Courtly, 4pd Sa.2d 421 {Fla. Stn DCA 1981); School Roarn- of Marlon County v. Angel, 404 So.2d 359 {Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Florida WaferServlces Corp. w. Robinson, 2003 WL 21817929 (FIa.App. 5 Dist.2003). Petitioner has adequate legal remedle8 avallAbte to him if he betiev~as the City's code enforcement actions are unlawful, Prohibition is not one of those remedies. WHEREUPON R IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED The Petltton for Writ of Prohibition is hereby denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 21p day of August, 2003, at Sanford, County, Florida Gopies to: Thomas A. Binford Debra S. Babb-Nutcher, Esquire Order Denylnp Wnt of Prohib(tion Binford v. City of Winter Springs Case No. 03-CA•651-16-K Page 4 Copie famish®d thls~a'~°~ da of ~Of~Y ~udiCi$1 Assistant