Seminole County v. City of Winter Springs

Decision Date26 May 2006
Docket NumberNo. 5D05-81.,5D05-81.
Citation935 So.2d 521
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals
PartiesSEMINOLE COUNTY, Florida, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. v. The CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, Florida, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Robert A. McMillan, Seminole County Attorney, Stephen P. Lee, Deputy County Attorney, and C. Allen Watts of Cobb & Cole, Deland, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Anthony A. Garganese and Erin J. O'Leary of Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D'Agresta, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Leonard Berger, Senior Assistant County Attorney, West Palm Beach, Amicus Curiae for The Florida Association of Counties, et al.

Thomas G. Pelham of Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A., Tallahassee, and Catherine D. Reischmann of Stenstrom, McIntosh, Colbert, Whigham, Reischmann & Partlow, P.A., Amicus Curiae for The Florida League of Cities, Inc.

LAWSON, J.

Seminole County, Florida, ("County"), appeals from a final judgment declaring invalid a County charter amendment allowing the County to regulate future development in a rural eastern section of the County. The City of Winter Springs, ("City"), cross appeals from the same judgment. We disagree with the trial court's conclusions that: (1) the ballot summary language explaining the charter amendment to the County's voters was misleading; and (2) the amendment violates the County charter's "single subject rule." We also find that the amendment constitutes a proper exercise of the County's home rule power under Article VIII of the Florida Constitution. Therefore, we reverse that part of the trial court's judgment invalidating the charter amendment, and affirm in all other respects.

Division of Local Government Powers under Florida's Constitution

Article VIII, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution requires the state to be divided into political subdivisions called "counties." Counties may be created, abolished, or changed by law, and may exist as either "charter" or "non-charter" counties. Id. Article VIII, Sections 1(f) and (g) address the powers of non-charter and charter counties, respectively, as follows:

(f) Non-charter government. Counties not operating under county charters shall have such power of self-government as is provided by general or special law. The board of county commissioners of a county not operating under a charter may enact, in a manner prescribed by general law, county ordinances not inconsistent with general or special law, but an ordinance in conflict with a municipal ordinance shall not be effective within the municipality to the extent of such conflict.

(g) Charter government. Counties operating under county charters shall have all powers of local self-government not inconsistent with general law, or with special law approved by vote of the electors. The governing body of a county operating under a charter may enact county ordinances not inconsistent with general law. The charter shall provide which shall prevail in the event of conflict between county and municipal ordinances.

The most significant feature of charter counties is the direct constitutional grant of broad powers of self-government, which include local citizens' power to enable their charter county to enact regulations of county-wide effect which preempt conflicting municipal ordinances. See Art. VIII, § 1(g), Fla. Const., D'Alemberte commentary, reprinted in 26A Fla. Stat. Ann. 155, 157 (West 1995) ("This entirely new subsection provides for the broadest extent of county self-government or `home rule' as it is commonly described . . . the power which may be granted to county governments under a charter is the power to have county ordinances take precedence over municipal ordinances.").

Article VIII, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution provides that "[m]unicipalities may be established or abolished, and their charters amended pursuant to general or special law." Like charter counties, the Constitution grants municipalities broad home-rule powers. A municipality "may exercise any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law." Art. VIII, § 2(b), Fla. Const. These powers, however, are limited for municipalities in charter counties, where citizens are granted the constitutional right to opt for county preemption of municipal regulatory power. Art. VIII, § 1(g), Fla. Const.; Broward County v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 480 So.2d 631 (Fla.1985).

County-City Conflict and the County's Charter Amendment

In 1994, the County acted to create an Urban/Rural boundary to protect rural and environmentally-sensitive lands in the eastern part of the County from urban sprawl. This boundary was situated along the eastern edge of the City, and was accomplished through an amendment to the County's Comprehensive Land Management Plan ("Comprehensive Plan").1 However, because the County's charter did not provide for County preemption of conflicting municipal land use regulations, the County's Comprehensive Plan amendment was not effective in controlling urbanization of its eastern rural lands.2

The City could simply annex property protected from dense development under the County's Comprehensive Plan. Once incorporated within the City's jurisdiction, the City could then incorporate the land into its own comprehensive plan and change the land use designation to allow for high-density development. Because the County's charter provided that the municipal ordinance would control in the event of a conflict, the provisions of the City's newly-amended comprehensive plan would then control over the rural designation in the County's Comprehensive Plan, and development would proceed.

This pattern was well documented in the record below, with testimony regarding a dispute that arose over development of a subdivision at the eastern edge of the City known as Battle Ridge. Litigation ensued between the County and the City. The litigation settled when the County agreed to withdraw its challenge, allowing the development to proceed, with the implicit understanding that this development would represent the easternmost limit of the City's urban expansion. Shortly thereafter, however, the City increased the size of the utility lines that serviced the 110 dwelling units planned for Battle Ridge to accommodate 1300 units. The City then proceeded to annex three additional parcels immediately east of Battle Ridge and within the County-designated rural area.

In response, the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners proposed a charter amendment to the electorate that would provide for County preemption of land use regulation in the rural eastern area of the County. The measure was placed on the ballot for public vote during the 2004 general election. The ordinance sought to amend the County charter by changing the language in Article I, Section 1.4 of the charter, from:

"Municipal ordinances shall prevail over County ordinances to the extent of any conflict." to:

"Except as otherwise provided by this charter, Municipal ordinances shall prevail over County ordinances to the extent of any conflict." (emphasis added).

The ordinance also sought to add a new substantive section to Article V of the Charter. That section would provide:

Section 1.2. Rural Boundary and Rural Area

a. There is hereby established a Rural Boundary as more delineated on that certain map titled "Rural Boundary Map" and dated August 10, 2004, and a "Rural Area" as described in that certain legal description titled "Legal Description of Rural Area" and dated August 10, 2004, both of which are on file in the official records of the Clerk of the Board of the County Commissioners. "Rural Lands," for the purpose of this Section, are those contained within the area depicted in the above referenced legal description. After the effective date of this section the Future Land Use Element of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan shall include a copy of the map and legal description.

b. The Board of County Commissioners may remove property from the "Rural Area" and amend the Rural Boundary accordingly, by ordinance whenever, in the opinion of the Board, such a change is necessary. Nothing herein shall authorize the County Commission to expand the "Rural Area" beyond the area contained in the above referenced legal description.

c. From and after the effective date of this section the future land use designations contained in the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan shall control the density and intensity of development on all Rural Lands, as that term is defined herein. The Board of County Commissioners must approve all changes to the future land use designations of all Rural Lands, regardless of whether some or all of the Rural Lands are located within a municipality.

d. The Board of County Commissioners may enact ordinances to implement this section. Municipal ordinances in conflict with this section or any implementing county ordinance are superseded to the extent of such conflict.

The obvious purpose of the amendment was to assure that the land use designations of the County's Comprehensive Plan would control the density and intensity of development on all land in the "Rural Area," regardless of whether the land was subsequently annexed into a municipality. The designated "Rural Area" only encompassed land in unincorporated Seminole County, except for one parcel annexed by the City after the charter amendment was approved for placement on the ballot.3

The charter amendment summary appeared on the ballot as follows:

CHARTER AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING RURAL AREA AND PREEMPTING MUNICIPAL COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AUTHORITY WITHIN RURAL AREA.

Shall the Home Rule Charter be amended to establish a Rural Boundary and create a "Rural Area" of the County, authorize future changes reducing the size of the "Rural Area" by County ordinance; provide that the Future Land Use Designations established in the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan shall apply to all lands, incorporated or unincorporated, within said "Rural Area," authorize...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • River Cross Land Co. v. Seminole Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 4 Junio 2021
    ...county to enact regulations of county-wide effect which preempt conflicting municipal ordinances." Seminole County v. City of Winter Springs, 935 So. 2d 521, 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (internal citation omitted) (holding that the amendment constitutes a proper exercise of the County's home ru......
1 books & journal articles
  • A primer on counties and municipalities.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 81 No. 4, April 2007
    • 1 Abril 2007
    ...535 So. 2d at 304. (7) Broward County v. Fort Lauderdale, 480 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1985). (8) Id. (9) Seminole County v. Winter Springs, 935 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. (10) FLA. STAT. [section] 252.38(2) (2006). (11) FLA. STAT. [section] 164.1041(1) (2006). (12) FLA. STAT. [section] 164.1051 (......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT