(State law preempts local regulations)
Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.
In what the attorneys for the defendants/counter-plaintiffs are calling “a decisive legal victory,” the judge in a local case involving a wedding venue last week ruled in favor of Sheila and Mark Winchester, owners of the Homestead Barn and founders of the Homestead Ministries.
In a 44-page order issued on Monday, Feb. 17, Circuit Court Judge Dawn Caloca-Johnson found that Jefferson County exceeded its authority by attempting to regulate the Homestead Barn, which is exempt from local codes under Florida law.
“The court concluded that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners never had the legal authority to impose local regulations on the Homestead Barn,” reads a memorandum from the Winchesters’ legal counsel, Attorneys Kristal Beharry and Beth Miller. “The court determined that the county exceeded its authority by trying to enforce local codes on a property protected by state preemption. The court’s decision not only solidifies the Winchesters’ property rights but it also serves as a landmark affirmation of state-level legislative authority over local government overreach.”
The memorandum goes on to state that the Winchesters, the Homestead Barn and the Homestead Ministries also prevailed in their countersuit against the county, with the court finding that the Homestead Barn constitutes a non-residential farm building, which is exempt from any county code other than for floodplain management regulations.
“Therefore,” reads the memorandum from Beharry and Miller, “pursuant to section 86.011, the court declares that, for as long as the Homestead Barn constitutes a nonresidential farm building, the Winchesters do not need to obtain a special exception permit in order to use it for commercial special events.”
Finally, the court denied the county’s request for a permanent injunction against the facility and dismissed its subsequent request for a temporary injunction.
“The ruling emphasizes that Florida law preempts local regulation of nonresidential farm buildings on lands used for bona-fide agricultural purposes,” the attorneys’ memorandum reads.
Per the court’s Findings of Fact, the Winchesters own a 93-acre parcel off Whitehouse Road that has been in the family since before 1933 and that has primarily been used for farming practices. When the Winchesters assumed ownership of the property, they converted it into a certified timber farm, with The Homestead Barn tucked in its midst.
Starting out as a pole barn, the structure underwent several alterations that, according to the court record, in time allowed for the better management of water intrusion and further allowed for its use as a storage space for farming equipment. In time also, wooden walls were erected to envelope the structure and the interior was partitioned “to create room for dry storage,” according to court testimony.
“No longer simply an open pole barn, the Homestead Barn now houses several rooms designed – as its own website advertises – to accommodate various needs,” reads the court order. “For instance, the concrete floor has been painted to be used as a dance floor. The Homestead Barn now also has five separate rooms within it, each one air conditioned. One room is used as a dressing room or bridal suite. It is handicap accessible and outfitted with sinks, double-vanity mirrors, makeup stations and sofas. In addition, there is a male restroom and female restroom, each with three stalls apiece. Lastly, there is a large commercial kitchen, also handicap accessible, an upright freezer, three food-preparation tables, and a 30-year-old commercial coffee maker.”
The reason for the barn’s conversion from a structure mainly serving the needs of timber farming to one also accommodating weddings was simple, per the court order.
“For the Winchesters,” the court order states, “wedding season is an opportunity to generate additional revenue by using the Homestead Barn as a commercial venue, hence the renovations.”
For their neighbors, however, living next to a commercial event venue has unsurprisingly been like living next to a commercial event venue, the court order goes on to say.
It cites four neighboring property owners who testified in court about the amplified music and general noise coming from the venue, as well as the increased traffic on their narrow road due to the barn’s periodic events. Their complaints to law enforcement, the four said, had largely been ineffective.County Manager Shannon Metty, who was planning official when the Winchesters first applied for a special exception permit in 2019, testified that the original request was for a gathering place for a ministry “to mentor young boys in what it means to be a man today.”
Nowhere within the application, according to Metty’s testimony to the court, did it state that the Barn would be used as a large-scale commercial venue.
Believing that the proposed use constituted an institutional land use, according to the court record, Metty wrote the Winchesters that a special exception permit was unnecessary. She advised, however, that “should the retreat expand in the future, permitting will be required,” according to the court order.
Subsequently, the Florida Department of Health in Jefferson County issued a letter of violation alleging that the Homestead Barn was using an undersized septic tank intended to serve a single-family residence, when in actuality it was “an event facility of over 6,000 feet with an advertised client seating capacity of 80 or more people per event.”Before the health department would issue a septic tank permit, moreover, it required that the Winchesters first get a development order from Metty, who by that point no longer believed that the activities at the Homestead Barn were institutional.“Rather, she found they constituted a commercial activity, for which a special exception approval would be required,” reads the court order.Special exception permits, which allow for uses not normally allowed within certain land-use categories, typically come with conditions to mitigate their potential detrimental impacts.Based on the health department’s request, the Winchesters applied for a special exception permit, which the planning commission heard and recommended for denial in March 2021 after two hearings and despite Metty’s recommendation for approval with stipulations. The planning commission’s reasons for rejection centered on the issues of incompatibility and offsite impacts, according to the court order.Subsequently, in May 2021, the Board of County Commissioners heard the special exception application permit and concurred with the planning commission’s recommendation to deny it.Despite the county denying the application, however, the facility continued to host events, which led to the litigation that has been ongoing since, with separate complaints and counter complaints filed.“Based on the litigation,” states the court order, “it is clear that the Winchesters no longer believe a special exception permit is required for them to host commercial events because they believe the Homestead Barn is first and foremost a barn.”
The court order explores the duality of the barn, which it states is “like a coin,” with two sides: one an events side and the other an agricultural side. The order contains several photos to illustrate the two uses.
The court asks the question, which of the two sides is the Homestead Barn’s primary use, with the county contending that it is primarily a commercial events venue and the Winchesters arguing that its primary use is agricultural, because “for the vast majority of time, it is used for storing farming equipment.”
“Based on the evidence presented at the trial,” states the court order, “the court agrees with the Winchesters.”
It cites two reasons for its conclusion. “First, the Homestead Barn is indisputably used for agricultural purposes,” states the judge, citing applicable state law and the various agricultural activities conducted in relation to the tree-farming operation, including the storage of farming equipment.
Second, the court found, when it comes to time, the overwhelming use of the Homestead Barn is for agricultural purposes, notwithstanding the county’s argument that the barn is used as a commercial events venue 20 to 22 weekends a year. But that, per the court order, leaves about 320 days a year when it still serves as a barn.
“Even though aspects of the Homestead Barn are plainly commercial in nature and the county correctly argues that, from a financial perspective, the Homestead Barn’s commercial revenues dwarfs its harvesting revenue,” money is only one factor “and not the end-all, be-all determinant of a structure’s primary use,” the court order states.
The judge, in fact, found that time was a weightier consideration in determining a structure’s primary use, citing applicable case law.
“The record reflects that the Homestead Barn is physically used for agricultural purposes approximately 87 percent of its time,” the court order states. “This is a sufficient ratio for concluding that its primary use is for agricultural purposes.”
The court order next deals with several procedural issues involving the county’s complaint against the Winchesters, their for-profit corporation (the Homestead Barn), and their not-for-profit corporation, (Homestead Ministries) and officials’ pursuit of temporary and permanent injunctive relief.
The order details the various motions and counter motions filed since the start of the litigation, noting that only the county’s complaint for permanent injunctive relief and counterclaim had proceeded to trial.
The order next goes into a lengthy analysis of the basis of the injunction and the various arguments made by the two sides, rejecting some, accepting others, and adding qualifying caveats in some instances.
The court order underscores that a permanent injunction is an extraordinary remedy that must only be granted sparingly and that the burden of proof falls on the party seeking the injunction.
“The county contends that it has established a clear legal right because the Winchesters have violated a law, code, or ordinance,” the judge states. “However, at the same time, the Florida Legislature is authorized to enact general laws preempting all regulations in an area of the law. It is this concept that is fatal to the county’s attempt to enjoin the Winchesters.”
The court order further states that “if the legislature has elected to preempt a specific subject, local ordinances regulating that subject are precluded.” It lists three areas in which the Winchesters had successfully argued that the legislature had used preemption to preclude local regulation. The three are agritourism; agricultural lands and practices; and nonresidential farm buildings.
Per Florida law, according to the court order, a local government may not adopt or enforce a local ordinance that prohibits, restricts, regulates or otherwise limits an agritourism activity on land classified agriculture land.
Ceremonial, per the court order, is one of the activities allowed under the definition of agritourism and it is one that “fits the bill for weddings held on the farm.”
The court order finds that the state preemption applies likewise to agricultural lands and practices and the broader area of nonresidential farm buildings, with the exception of floodplain management regulations.
The court order deals with several other issues related to the litigation that are too lengthy to detail here.
In conclusion, the judge writes: “The county has raised valid concerns about what is essentially an unregulated, large-scale commercial event venue. The neighbors credibly testified that these commercial events have disrupted their lives. But the Florida Legislature has determined that when a building is primarily used for agricultural purposes, located on lands used for bona fide agricultural purposes, and not used as residential dwelling, it is a nonresidential farm building exempt from any county code. Thus, even though those concerns are valid, the court must recognize the state’s superior legislative authority validly exercised in this case.”