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,