Loading...
101846 MINUTES City COMMISSION, SANFORD, FLORIDA, October 18 at ~: P 46 The City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida. met in adjourned session at the City Hall in the City of Sanford, Florida, 8t 3:00 o'clock P ~ October 18,1946. Present: Co~issIoner H.James Gut, ~ayor. " Geo .D.Bishop " W.C.Hill " Lea R. Lesher " Robert A ~,~illiams City ~anager & Clerk H N Sayer. ~eeting called to order by the Chairman who annou~ed that the purpose of the meeting was to confer wi~ Attorney G.W. Spencer who had Oeen engaged Dy the City Com- mission to render an opinion as to the legal status of t~ permit granted the Central Florida Quick Freeze & Cold Stoarge Company, Inc. to construct and operate an abattoir at 401-09 W. Thirteenth St., as a result of the petition submitted to the Commission at the meeting 6f October 14, by the residents within said vicinity, protesting against the construction and operation of an abattoir at this location and requesting the Commission to revoke said permit. Thereupon Attorney Spencer submitted the following legal opinion: October 17,1946. Honorbale City Commission City of Sanford, Florida. Dear Sirs: You have requested of me an opinion as to the legal status in which the City Co[mmission now finds itself with reference to the passing and adoption of an ordinance permitting the operation of abattoirs within the City of Sanford and the issuance of a permit for the operation of an abattoir to Central Florida Quick Freeze and Locker Plant on 13th Street and Elm Avenue. You also desire my opinion as to the liability of the City to Central Florida Quick Freeze and locker Plant should you repeal said ordinance and revoke said permit after the expenditure by said concern of several thousands of dollars in installing its abattoir subsequent to the passing and adoption of your ordinance and %ne issuance of your permit. The first question to present itself ~: IS THE CITY WITHIN ITS LEGAL RIGHTS TO PASS ~ND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE PE~ITTING THE OPERATION OF ABATTOIRS WITHIN THE CORPORATE LI~ITS~ The law seems to be well founded that a governing body of a municipality may pass and adopt ordinances in this regard. A city may by ordinances exclude the operation of slaughter houses within its municipal limits or from thickly populated portions of the city. Such ordinances have been uniformly sustained on account of the offensive odors wnlch arise from such establishments. In this regard it has been held that a power conferred upon a city in its charter to ' regulate the erection, u~e and continuance of slaughterhouses' within the city includes the power Of total prohibition within specified limits or localities. ~nlle it may be said that the question whether a slaughterhouse is or is not a public or common nuisance depends upon the circumstances of each particular case, the power of municipal corporations to limit the existence of such houses to particular locslitles and to regulate such business or trade as a valid exercise of the police power, and in general e×lsts as a means of preventing nuisances and of preserving the health and comfort of the public, so long as the ordinances passed for such purpose contravene no constitution- al rights, and follow the general rules of law with respect to city ordinances in general. Regulatory ordinances may be made applicable to a slaughterhouse erected wlthin the city limits before the adoption of such ordinance, wire. out violating constitutional rights of the owner. Legislation of this kind is based on considerations of the health and comfort of the residents of the co~munlty." 48 A.Juris. ~60-461. "While the business of slaughtering animals for food or the business of conducting and operating a slaughterhouse for %hat purpose is a legi- timate business, it is of such nature t~at, however well conducted, it is naturally repulsive and offensive to the senses, and one from WhiCh offensive odors and stenches almost invariably emanate. ~oreover, if such ~usiness is improperly or negligently managed or conducted it becomes a menace to public health Dy reason of dan~er both from uns~ni- MINUTES CITY CoMMission, SANFORD, FLORIDA,. Octo0er 18 at 3:00 P _19 46_ subject to police regulation by the state or by duly authorized subdivisions thereof, pursuant to the general principle of constitutional law giving the state the right under its police power to regulate any and all kinds oI' busi- ness for the protection of the public health, morals, or welfare , subject to restrictions of reasonableness of classification and of the means of regulation adopted. The legislature may properly prescribe the conditions under which slaughterhouses may serve the public. And likewise, municipal corporations, when possessed of delegated powers in this r~spect and subject to constitutional limitations, may regulate slaughterhouses or abattoirs to the end that nuisances may be prevented and the health and comfort of the puelic preserved . Such regulations may be upheld as conditions or incidents of sanitary measures adopted for the protection of public health against dangers incident to the slaughtering and marketing of meats under unsanitary conditions, or in the exercise of the police power to prevent nuisances, or upon the 6rou~ that the business of slaughterhouses is so affected w~Tth the public interest as to subject it to regulation." 48 Am. Juris .459. Chapter 585.34,Florida Statutes Annotated provides: "That the State Livestock S~nitary Board has control over slaughtering of meat producing animals within the state of Florida and provides that any person so engaged shall make aoolication to said board for a permit to transport and sell their products at any place within the limits of the State of Florida, and further provides that such permit may be revoked by the board at any time when the esta01ishment issued such permit violates any of the regulations prescribed for efficient inspection and sanitation." Section 386.13, Florida Statutes Annotated provides: "Unclean and filthy slaughterhouses, rooms, buildings, or places where sheep, hogs,cattle , or other animals are slaushtered within any incorporated city or town or any unicorporated town or village of the State of Florida are declared nuisances injurious to health; and any person creating , keeping, or maintaining such nuisances who shall fall, after due notice from %ne State Health Officer to abate tne s~ame, shall be fined not more than $50.00." From the above authorities it will therefore be seen: 1. That the City of Sanford, Florida, has power and authority under its Police Power to pass and adopt an ordinance allowing the operation of abattoirs within the corporate limits under its sanitary regulations, andunder the regu- lations of The State Board of Health. 2. That the law generally is that such business can be conducted as any other business so long as it is properly conducted and does not become a mena~ce to public health ~nd unless the same ia operated in an unsani- tary manner or emits therefrom offensive odors affecting those living in the vicinity of then possible infection to the public from contaminated meat affecting consumers. 3. That the State Livestock S~nltary Board must issue a permit before slaughtering can be conducted by the licensee. 4. That it is an offense against the laws of the State of Florida to operate an unclean and filthy slaughterhouse within the corporate limits and that the operation of an unclean and filthy slaughterhouse is declared by State to be a nuisance injurious to public health. "A slaughterhouse is not per se a public or private nuisance, independently of the manner in which and the place at which it is conducted, and the mere location and maintenance of a slaughter- house in a city under express legislative authority cannot be condemned as a public nuisance. It is not to be deemed a nuisance merely because it is situate in a populace place, or in close proximity to a dwelling house." 48 Am. Jurls.463. "The Court must assume that the use of a building for killing poultry is wholly inoiI'ensive, ~here, in a proceeding to com- pel revocation of a permit for such use of a building, no contention is made that the business is a nuisance, or in any way offensive." Eetros vs Superintendent and Inspector of Buildings. 306 ~ass. 368; 28 NE (id) 233; 128 A.L.R. 1210 "The business of slaughtering animals for food is not a n~isance, as a matter of law, independently of the manner in which is conducted, if the slaughterhouse is situated in a new and sparsely settled portion of a city, in the neighborhood of stockyards and other slaughterhouses." it Ballentine v Webb , 84 Mich 38, 4~ NW.485 , 1) LRA 321 "The mere presence of a slaughterhouse within 300 feet of a dwelling does not constitute a nuisance." Hu4ihson vs Win~hsm, 121 Wash. 32?; 20? Pac 2; 27 ALP 32~. "Generally, however, when located in a thickly populated co~munlty, slaughterhouses are deemed prima facie a nuisance, on account of the noxious vapors and noisome smells and s__---{~ 2m%-~te~ %her~m.ir~ ~--Juris-'~--~ MINUTES CiTY COMMISSION, SANFORD, FLORIDA, October 18 at 3: P ~{ 19. 46 question "Slaughterhouses may become nuisances by reason of their environment and m~nagement; and when %his has been satisfactorily e~,ablished their continuance may be restrained by a court of equity.But when deemed a nuisance because of the unsanitary manner in which they are operated, their operation will not be enjoined until the o~mer has had a reasonable time and opportunity to make their operation sanitary." 48 Am Juris 463-46~. "The Noise 2f animals kept at a slaughterhouse may be a nuisance w~-~-gh w~_il_ be__en---~ned at t~-~ ~uit of aperson livin~--ne'a~ b-~ althoug~ ~f will not J~'~if~ %'h~ des~ruct-~'of a sla---~terhouse business for the sole purpose of ridding a neighborhood of such noise." 48 A m Juris 464. The above quotations of the law resolve itself into the second question: IS THE OPERATION OF AN ABATTOIR WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE NUISANCE? It seems to me that the authorities above cited completely answer this in that it is not in itself per se a public or private nuisance , nor is it in itself a prima facia public or private nuisance unless by the operation thereof it emits therefrom noxious vapors or noisome smells or stenches. Nor is the operation of t~e slaughterhouse a private nuisance which may be enjoined by a court of equity unless by the operation thereof, it emits noxious vapors and noisome smells and stenches injurious to public health. Nor would the noise of animals kept for slaughtering be a private nuisance except to persons living in the near proximity thereof and such private nuisance may be abated by suit brought by that person to enjoin the keeping of animals near the slaughterhouse. The law generally as above outlined is not unlike the law as decided by the Supreme Court of ~lc~ida. In the case of Gtogger_v Bell et al , decided January 31,19~1, by the Supreme Court of Florida and reported in 200 So.page 100, the Supreme Court sustained the lower court of Dade County, Florida, in enjoining the construction of an animal reduction plant on the ground that the operation of such a plant would constitute both a public nuisance and a private nuisance notwithstanding that the owner had expended about $1,800.00 for lands and in construction of the plant after given permission so to do by the City of Miami. In its opinion,the Court Said: "It is shown that the odors emanating from the plant will materially affect these properties, that such odors carry for great distances and that they often affect the health of those nearby besides causing nausea and discomfort." In the case of Seaboard Rendering Co. v Conl~n ~ecided by the Supreme Court of Flor~a on April 9, 1943, reported in 12 So (2d) 882. the supreme Court sustained the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in issuing an injunction restraining the operation of an animal reduction plant as constituting a nuisance but said in the opinion sustaining the lower court that the operator of the plant admitted the Justification of entering the injunction and intimated in the opinion that the reason for the granting oi' the injunction was the emission of obnoxious odors therefrom and the party against whom the injunction was issued questioned the validity of the injunction on the ground that he had not been given an opportunity to remedy the objections by eliminating the objectionable odors and the Supreme Court stated that the lower court in giving the operator time to process its livestock on hand before issuing the permanent injunction did not overcome the objectionable odors and said: "During this period ( the period of tl~ given by the Court) it was shown that the offensive and objectionable odors still emitted. He (the Chancellor in the lower court) concluded ~'rom his study and knowledge of the litlg~tlon that it was not practicable for the factory, a__~s then operated , to function witho~ being a nuisance. Bearing in mind the concession of the apgellant and the findings of the Chancellor we feel that there is no occasion for our disturbing the final decree and we are not swayed from this view by the sug- gestion ~hat provision ought to be included for revision of it ag~inst the day when some process l__s developed kY which manufacture ma~ be resumed without the emission of obnoxious odor~. "*******If, as time .pa~ses, science evolves a pEocess for the manufacture o_~f products in the plant so that persons living ~earby are not o.[fended by the odors and are not therefore disturbed in the enjoyment of their property the appellant has aqcesls to the court for relief ~,rom the restraint placed ~pon l__t." From the information at hand for the purpose of rendering this opinion, I am informed that the abattoir to b e operated by Central Florida Quick Freeze Locker Plant is one of the most modern in Florida and that all of the slaughter- ing will be done indoors, and that a complete modern plant has been installed for the purpose of completely deodorizing the abattoir and that no noxious vapors, odors,noisome smells and stenches can possibly emit therefrom, since it is my understanding that the deodorization is by filterins and by emission of all refuse such as blood, etc, after deodorization into the sewage system of the city. MINUTES CITY COMMISSION, SANFORD, FLORIDA, October l~ at 3:00 19 I am further informed that the abattoir to be operated by said company, in addition to being modern in every respect, has been approved by the State Board of Health, and with this approval, the public health could not be in danger. If, however, in the management and operation of this abattoir it is so conducted as to become a menace to the public health of the community or the nearDy resicenta, the StateBoard of Health would promptly condemn the same and said resident would have their remedy by seeking enforcement o£ the state law Dy the State Livestock Sanitary Board in revoking the permit of said com~ny and imposing the penalty as provided oy statute for failure of said company to comply with the law and the sanitary standards promulgated by the State Board of Health. So it would seem from the aOove quoted cases from the State of Florida that our courts, like other courts throughout the country, base their theory of a public or private nuisance upon the emission of noxious odors from a slaughterhouse or animal reduction plant. However, our Supreme Court in the SEABOARD RENDERING CO!~PANY case above cited took the long range view and state that ~f, as time oasses, sclenqe evolves a process for the manufacture oi' p~oducts in the plant ........... which would elminate these objective odors that the injunction should be lifted. Taking this view connected with the information that both ~our governing body and I have as to the type of abattoir now being installed by the licensee with the knowledge that such plant is of such modern design that no noxious or offensive odors could possibly emit therefrom, it would be my opinion that the same would not constitute a public or private nuisance. In addition to the general police power under which the city may control abattoirs or public nuisances, Section ~ of the city charter provides that the city has power "to regulate, restrain or prevent the carrying on of manufactories dangerous in creating or producing fires or so obnoxious or offensive in nature as to constitute a nuisance." so it would seem that the city not only has authority under its general police power but has charter authority to regulate abattoirs within its limits. With respect to the above, I thus conclude: (a) an ordinance construction That the City of Banford is within its legal rights to pass and adopt permitting the operation of abattoirs within the city of Sanford when the and operation thereof has been approved Dy the State Board of Health. (b) That the operation of such abattoirs is not a puolic or private nuisance, per se. (c) That in order to enJoln theoperation of said abattoirs any private citizen would have the burden of proving that the operation thereof is a public or private nuisance. (d) That the location of the abattoir is within the zoned commercial district of the city of Sanford, Florida, and that having been zoned as commercial the operation of a orLvate business could not be prohibited by the city governing board unless the operation thereof would be in violation of some city ordinance or state law. The next question presented to me by your governing body is: ~;HETHEP THE CITY ~OULD BE LIABLE IN D~,~AGES TO CENTRAL FLORIDA Q~'ICK FREEZE AND LOCKER PLANT BY REASON OF ITS HAVING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED OWDINANCES ~398 PER~ITTiNG THE OPERATION OF ABATTOIRS THE CONSTRUCTION 0= WHICH HAS BEEN AnPROVED BY THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH AND THE OPERATION OF '&~ICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PULES AND REGULATIONS PROVIDED BY SAID BOARD AND BY THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT FOR THE IN- STALLATION OF AN ABATTOIR WHEN AFTER THE ADOPTION OF SAID ORDINANCE AND THE ISSUANCE OF SAID PERMIT SAID CO~[PANY HAS SPENT SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS IN INSTAI,LING ITS SAID ABATTOIR IN PREPARATION TO ~ERATION OF THE SAME. This qusstioa I would be forced to answer in the negative. That is to say, that the city of Sanford, Florida, would not be liable in damages should it repeal Ordinance ~398 and my authority therefor is as follows: "An ordinance establishing a locality within which slaughterhouses may be maintained may be repealed in the exercise of the police power thus granted and another established." 48 Am Jurls 462; 18 Annotated cases 4~0. from the ab~¥~ I have answered the ouestions presented to me by your governing I Dellev~-~-/~ s~ort time alloted to m~ to make a search of the law, I, of course, have not had opportunity to read all of the cases on the subject as they are numerous but the majority cases in every respect seem to support the view above outlined and support my views rendered in this opinion. Respectfully yours, GWB: hn. Garland W. Spencer body Messrs Alex Johnson and Worrest Gatchel, President and Secretary,respectively MINUTES CITY COMMISSION, SANFORD, FLORIDA- 0~t. nh~ ]~{ nf, ~.'~}C~ ]~ ~ 19 ._ o'clock P.~. October 2Z, delivery on some of the equipment. Thereupon after considerable discussion, final action wss deferred, pending further consideration. Further request next received from the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company for permit to rebuild their freight warehouse on North Myrtle Avenue of frame structure with sheet metal sides and roof, which is located in the fire zone. Request denied. On motion duly carr~d, $109.00 for reconstructing the said work to be done by A.J.Thompson Construction Company, Orlando. There being no further business the meeting then adjourned until 1:30 1946. Attest: the Commission next authorized an expenditure of intersection of French Avenue and Fourteenth Street,