Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...As a result, something may legally constitute a public nuisance under chapter 823 although it may technically comply with existing pollution laws codified in chapter 403. Finally, and of critical importance, the enactment of Florida's Right to Farm Act, section 823.14, Florida Statutes (1995) (hereinafter "Farm Act"), provides a solid basis for the conclusion that chapter 403 was not intended to supersede chapter 823....

...efense to a public nuisance action in connection with agricultural operations which were "not a nuisance at the time of its established date of operation... if the farm operation conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices." § 823.14(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). The Farm Act specifically states that "[i]t is the purpose of this act to protect reasonable agricultural activities conducted on farm land from nuisance suits." § 823.14(2), Fla....

...ALTENBERND, Judge. Pasco County appeals a final judgment which enjoins its enforcement of waste disposal ordinances against Tampa Farm Service, Inc. The trial court determined that the activities of Tampa Farm were protected under the Florida Right to Farm Act, section 823.14, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...The trial court agreed and entered a final judgment restraining Pasco County from enforcing its environmental regulations. In order to understand the error which occurred in the trial court, it is important to analyze three subsections of the Florida Right to Farm Act separately. Section 823.14(4)(a) protects a farm which has been established for at least one year from being declared a public or private nuisance "if the farm operation conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices." [1] Subsection (4)(a) contains four exceptions which are not material to this case; however, it is noteworthy that the four exceptions involve activities which would rarely, if ever, be regarded as acceptable agricultural practices. Section 823.14(4)(b) protects an established farm from being declared a nuisance merely because of: 1) a change in ownership, 2) a change in the type of farm product being produced, or 3) a change in the conditions in or around the locality of the established farm. Thus, Tampa Farms is free to sell the farm, grow strawberries, or allow urban development in the neighborhood without fear of a lawsuit to abate its activities. Subsection (5) of section 823.14 is the critical subsection in this case....

...dure which is developed in the future to produce hay and chickens — no matter how disruptive to its neighbors — because the methods it used in 1982 were legal. Tampa Farms essentially convinced the trial court that a change was not excessive under section 823.14(5) if it was a generally accepted agricultural practice under section 823.14(4)(a)....

...The statutory language and the goals of the Act do not support this interpretation. Even if a practice is agriculturally acceptable, it may cause unreasonable degradation for the established neighborhood. This seems to be the very problem which the exception in section 823.14(5) was designed to solve....

...In this case, however, the evidence strongly supports a finding of a substantial change in the odor of the locale. Thus, we remand this case to the trial court for a new trial to determine whether the change in fertilizer has resulted in a substantial degradation of the locale that falls within section 823.14(5) and, if so, to determine whether the county's regulations are valid under traditional nuisance rules to the extent that they regulate degradation from the 1982 threshold. Reversed and remanded. RYDER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 823.14(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), states: No farm operation which has been in operation for 1 year or more since its established date of operation and which was not a nuisance at the time of its established date of operation shall be a p...

...The keeping of diseased animals which are dangerous to human health, unless such animals are kept in accordance with a current state or federal disease control program. 4. The presence of unsanitary places where animals are slaughtered, which may give rise to diseases which are harmful to human or animal life. [2] Section 823.14(5), Florida Statutes (1987), states: WHEN EXPANSION OF OPERATION NOT PERMITTED This act shall not be construed to permit an existing farm operation to change to a more excessive farm operation with regard to noise, odor, dust, or fumes where the existing farm operation is adjacent to an established homestead or business on March 15, 1982. [3] Section 823.14(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), defines "farm operation" as: [A]ll conditions or activities by the owner, lessee, agent, independent contractor, and supplier which occur on a farm in connection with the production of farm products and...

unambiguously defined by section 823.14(3) as “any ... animal ... useful to humans.” § 823.14(3)(c), Fla. Stat

...es of the case. See id. Further, it cannot be said that chapter 403 impliedly repealed chapter 823 in light of the fact that the Florida Legislature specifically adopted the Right to Farm Act as part of chapter 823 after chapter 403 was enacted. See § 823.14, Fla....

buildings located on a farm.10 Question Two Section 823.14, Florida Statutes, the "Florida Right to Farm

defense, and the case proceeded to trial. See § 823.14, Fla. Stat. (2017). At the trial, the

substantially the following question: Does section 823.14, Florida Statutes, allow the Suwannee County

...rce the provisions of its ULDC on farming activities, notwithstanding the limited definition of "development" in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the trial court entered final summary judgment in the County's favor, prompting this appeal. Section 823.14(6), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part: It is the intent of the Legislature to eliminate duplication of regulatory authority over farm operations as expressed *1250 in this subsection....

...duplication of regulatory authority *1251 over farming operations. We disagree. The first sentence states: "It is the intent of the Legislature to eliminate duplication of regulatory authority over farm operations as expressed in this subsection. " § 823.14(6), Fla....

...poses." § 380.04(3)(e), Fla. Stat. If agricultural uses are excluded, then the terms of section 163.3164, et seq., would not apply to them, because they do not constitute "development." Other statutes may restrict agricultural land uses. See, e.g., § 823.14(6), Fla....

permitting process pursuant to sections 604.50 and section 823.14, Florida Statutes. Question One Section 553

...the Code Enforcement Board of Orange County with operating an unauthorized "junkyard" on his agricultural zoned land because he "stored" a bushhog, a bulldozer, a crane, a backhoe, and *599 various other equipment and materials outdoors at his farm. Section 823.14(4), Florida Statutes, provides that a farm operation, except under conditions not involved herein, shall not be considered a nuisance....

...agricultural production in this state. Certiorari is granted and the order of the appellate division is quashed and the matter remanded with instructions. CERTIORARI GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED. PETERSON, J., and COBB, W., Senior Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Section 823.14(3)(a), Florida Statutes, defines a farm as "the land, buildings, support facilities, machinery, and other appurtenances used in the production of farm products." Apparently the Code Enforcement Board did not consider this definition in determining whether the backhoe or bushhog, etc....

limited to, any product derived therefrom." § 823.14(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (2022). Kollmann cites