HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 .
•
• ~.j
k ly ) -
The ordinance now reads:
"A wild noxious or poisonous growth of plants,
vines, weeds, or underbrush, or weeds or grass
exceeding twelve (12) inches hig~? within a,radius
eateading a distance of 80 feet frog any building
or to the-nearest roadway, whichever-is closest,
within the City, is hereby declared~t"o be a fire
hasard endangering the publYc safet"=,; "and also.
constitutes a publ"ic nui'sance WhY'ch:--ia hereby
_ prohibited, and therefore, must be abated in an -
area 80 feet surrounding any building or to the -
nearest roadway, whichever is closest.''
Plaintiff contends that this ordinance is-ambiguous and
indefinite, and is therefore unconstitutional and fails to provide -
due .process of law in that it does not give adequate notice of the
- conduct forbidden. Plaintiff also contends the ordinance is
arbitrary, - unreasonable, discriminatory and overreaching and has
no rational relation to the health, welfare or safety of the
community.
Defendant contends that this ordinance-is clear, definite _
and certain in its terms, and the purpose of the ordinance is to -
-control the spread of wildfires and elimination of nuisances, and
that the ordinance bears a reasonable relation for the protection
of the health, safety and welfare of .the citizens within the City. -
Bot__h Plaintiff's and Defendant's experts on fire control
agree that buildings contained within eighty-feet radius are less
exposed to danger by fire by the cutting bf grass and weeds to a
height of less than twelve inches. A lot clearing ordinance Was
held constitutional in the case of Flesch v. Met"ropol"itan-Dade
- County, 240 Sold 504 (3d DCA 197-~.-sa_ahat case, the Court- held
-that this ordinance provided sufficient standard to guide the City
Manager in the execution of his duties and held that the-ordinance
was merely a-regulation of use of private property in order that it
will not be used to the detriment of the general public. Similarly,
the City of Port St. Lucie ordinance is merely a regulation of the
use of private property to prevent fire hazards or public nuisances
and is a reasonable regulation.
Plaintiff has failed to prove that the ordinance is
- -
clearlyarbitrary and unreasonable and without substantial relation
- -2-