SAVE OUR COUNTY COALITION, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ANSEL A. WITTENSTEIN, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES; BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, ETC., APPELLANTS, V. ANSEL A. WITTENSTEIN, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A citizens' coalition sought to place a land-use moratorium ordinance on the ballot through the initiative and referendum process. The trial court enjoined election officials from placing the ordinance on the ballot, finding it facially invalid under Florida's requirement that ordinances embrace one subject briefly expressed in the title. The appellate court affirmed, finding the ordinance's description of geographic boundaries violated the statutory requirement.
The proposed ordinance was facially invalid because it violated Florida Statutes Section 125.67, which requires that the subject of an ordinance be briefly expressed in its title. Here, the imprecise description of the geographic boundaries (using uncertain western boundary references to flood control dikes) rendered the title inadequate and the subject matter not briefly expressed.
[1] An ordinance is facially invalid if its title fails to briefly express the single subject matter embraced by the ordinance, as required by statute.
[2] A legal description of a geographic area is insufficient if it relies on an imprecise term like 'quadrant' and contains ambiguities regarding boundary definitions.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Every ordinance shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title.”
Statement of Florida Statutes Section 125.67 requirement that formed the basis for finding the ordinance facially invalid
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSave Our County Coalition prepared and circulated an initiative petition for an eighteen-month moratorium on zoning and building in a portion of Browa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant, Save Our County Coalition, purportedly acting under an initiative provision of the Broward County Charter, prepared and circulated a petition calling for the adoption by referendum of an ordinance directing an eighteen month moratorium for zoning and building in Broward County or a portion thereof. When the number of signatures required by the Broward County Charter were obtained, the petition was presented to the Supervisor of Elections for certification and submission to the Board of County Commissioners of Broward County.
Appellee sued to enjoin the Board of County Commissioners and the Supervisor of Elections (a) from spending public funds to count the signatures on the initiative petition, and (b) from placing the proposed ordinance on any ballot. The evidence adduced at final hearing showed the title to the proposed ordinance is:
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAND USE PLANNING; REQUIRING DEFERMENT OF FINAL DECISION ON PETITIONS FOR ZONING OR REZONING, DEFERRING GRANTING OF BUILDING PERMITS, FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME, WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SOUTH WEST QUADRANT OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE TERMINATION OF THE ORDINANCE, AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE.
The body of the ordinance in Section 1(h) defined the boundaries of the area involved as:
“On the South by the southern boundary of Broward County, on the west by the central and southern flood control district’s dikes, on the north by State Route 84 and on the east by Flamingo Road,
However, Section II of the ordinance in question provides:
“Section II. Each local government of Broward County having jurisdiction to grant zoning or rezoning petitions shall defer for the duration of this Ordinance any final decision on any such Petition.”
There was testimony in the record by an expert in land surveying that the word “quadrant” used in the title to the ordinance is an imprecise term as regards land descriptions. But in any event, the legal description contained in Section 1(h) would not fall within the southwest quadrant of Broward County. This is so because the description of the western boundary of the area as the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District’s dike is uncertain, as there are at least three major dikes in the area, and any one of those dikes could be the western boundary.
The trial court ruled that the proposed ordinance was facially invalid, and he enjoined the Broward County Election officials from placing the proposed ordinance on any ballot. The Coalition and Broward County have each appealed from the final judgment containing those rulings.
Among other reasons the trial court gave for finding the proposed ordinance facially invalid was the failure of the ordinance to comply with Section 125.67, Florida Statutes (1975). In material part that statute provides:
“Every ordinance shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title.”
Because of the description of the western boundary of the area the ordinance would apply to, the subject of the proposed ordinance was not “briefly” described in the title.
Our appellate function is to determine from the record whether there is any competent substantive evidence to support the judgment under review. Our study of the record impels us to the conclusion that the judgment is adequately supported by the proof adduced.
Appellee has cross assigned as error the failure of the trial court to rule on its contention that the Broward County Char ter does not authorize the enactment of new ordinances by the initiative and referendum. Having found that the proposed ordinance was invalid on its face, the trial court declined to pass on the question involved in the cross assignments of error. Because the trial court resolved that the proposed ordinance was invalid on its face, he was not compelled to rule on the initiative and referendum question. We also decline to pass on the question.
In view of the foregoing the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
ALDERMAN, C. J., and GREEN, OLIVER L., Associate Judge, concur.