Opinion ID: 1699878
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Debatable Issue)

Text: These Defendants further answering state as follows: Records of the Planning & Zoning Commission indicate that on or about April 8, 1982, the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, appeared before the Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Commission; and, in accordance with that Commission's procedure, were allowed to make a presentation in support of their requested zoning change. Numerous opponents to the requested zoning change also appeared before the Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Commission and were allowed, in accordance with that Commission's procedure, to present arguments in opposition to the requested zoning change. The Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously voted to deny the rezoning request. On May 4, 1982, these Defendants, with the exception of Commissioner Moore, considered Plaintiffs' application, and, following a presentation by Plaintiffs in support of the requested rezoning heard a presentation by numerous opponents to the requested rezoning and took the matter under advisement in accordance with the Defendants' established procedure. A decision was rendered on May 11, 1982, denying the requested rezoning. Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the County Commission considered numerous debatable issues including the following issues in reaching a decision: (a) the residential character of the adjoining properties, (b) increased vehicular traffic flow problems that would be created along Columbiana Road, (c) the potential drainage problems created by the clearing and grading specifications of the proposed plans for the site, and (d) the availability of sewer service in the area. Each and every one of these issues was a debatable issue presented to the Jefferson County Commission and were among many issues considered by them in denying the requested rezoning. THIRD DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim) The Complaint fails to state a claim against these Defendants answering upon which relief may be granted. After trial, ore tenus, with sharply conflicting evidence, the judgment appearing earlier in this opinion was entered. The issues as stated by the parties have been set out and we must now look to the controlling principles of law in order to address those issues in light of the facts of this case and the judgment of the trial court. We think that no improvement could be made by this court on the statement of general principles of law governing cases of this nature found in Davis v. Sails, 318 So.2d 214 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975): The law is so well settled as to require no citations of authority that a city or county has the right and power, within the confines of applicable enabling statutes, to adopt zoning ordinances or regulations. Further, such zoning ordinances or regulations are, like other legislative acts, presumed valid. Two other rules or law, which sometimes become confused and intertwined, are the `substantial relationship rule', and the `fairly debatable rule'. The substantial relationship rule is substantive law, and may be simply stated as follows: In order for a zoning ordinance or regulation to be valid, it must have some substantial relationship to the promotion of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. When correctly applied, this rule is not in any manner modified by the fairly debatable rule. The latter rule, being a rule of procedure or application, may be simply stated as follows: if the application of a zoning classification to a specific parcel of property is reasonably subject to disagreement, that is, if its application is fairly debatable, then the application of the ordinance by the zoning authority should not be disturbed by the courts. Of course, it is always a matter for the court to determine whether a zoning authority acted reasonably or fairly or whether capriciously or arbitrarily. The fairly debatable rule applies to the application of the ordinance and does not modify the requirement that the ordinance itself and the application thereof must have a reasonable relationship to the health, safety, morals or general welfare. [Emphasis added.] The general law, which is also the law of Florida, as to the validity of a zoning ordinance or classification, as applied to particular parcels of property, is succinctly stated in Volume 101 C.J.S. Zoning as follows: ` The justification for zoning enactments is the greater benefit which accrues therefrom to the public as a whole, or the paramount interest of the public welfare and the realization that private interests must sometimes be subordinated to the public good, or    it must be found in some aspect of the police power asserted for the public welfare. Such enactments, however, are subject to limitations on the police power, and cannot validly be extended beyond the accomplishment of purposes rightly within the scope thereof. [Emphasis added.] `To be valid, they must be for the superior interest and rights of the public, or they must be predicated on a public interest and founded on a need of the community, and be conducive to, or subserve, the public welfare, or be for the public good. They must have a rational relation to the protection of the basic interest of society, and a public benefit must be derived from them. They are invalid if they disclose no purpose to prevent some public evil or fill some public need. [Emphasis in original opinion.] ` In order to be valid as a proper exercise of the police power, especially where their application will cause a destruction of property values, zoning laws, ordinances, by-laws, regulations and restrictions must advance, promote or tend or be designed to promote, the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, or be reasonably necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or welfare, or have or bear a real and substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or the general welfare; and it has been held that such enactments must bear the required relation with respect to the particular premises to which they are applied. ' . . . .  It is clearly the duty of the court to determine the validity of zoning ordinances as applied to a specific parcel of property. ... (Emphasis added.) Guided by these principles, after examination of the entire record, after a reading of the quality briefs of able counsel, after scrutinizing with care the learned trial judge's findings, conclusions and judgment, we will answer the issues as posed by the parties. We answer appellants' issue I in the affirmative. Also, we note with interest words of the trial court that the court does not mean to imply that the proposed development would have a negative impact on any of the elements enumerated above; however, since the court believes the decision of the County Commission did bear a relationship to the police power, and that its decision satisfied the `fairly debatable' test, the court does not need to go further. It is evident from a reading of the final judgment in its entirety, in context, that the zoning regulation here under scrutiny, was determined by the trial court to have a substantial relationship to the promotion of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. We agree. Regarding issue II of appellants, we need only state that the evidence and the law support the conclusion of the trial court that the commission's decision satisfied the fairly debatable test. The trial court in so concluding is correct and we hold that, under the evidence of record, application of the zoning classification R-1 to the specific property of appellants is reasonably subject to disagreement (fairly debatable); therefore, the decision of the Jefferson County Commission will not be disturbed. See generally Woodard v. City of Decatur, 431 So.2d 1173 (Ala.1983). Turning to the issues as stated by appellees, we think their first issue has been answered as well as their third issue. Regarding their second issue, we agree that a property owner may not seek a change in classification of property under a zoning ordinance, or regulation, and at the same time, and in the same proceeding, attack the constitutional validity of such ordinance or regulation. This would be self contradictory. One may not seek relief under an ordinance if it is constitutionally invalid, because the relief sought under it would be unnecessary if that same ordinance did not govern the right to the relief. See City of Homewood v. Caffee, 400 So.2d 375 (Ala.1981). However, we thought it desirable to address the other issues in the hope that by so doing further litigation with the attendant expenditure of attorney and judicial time and manpower, as well as expense, would not be required. For all the reasons stated, the judgment below is due to be and is hereby affirmed. AFFIRMED. FAULKNER, ALMON and ADAMS, JJ., concur. TORBERT, C.J., concurs in result.