FL INFORMAL 2017-07-14

Can a Florida town's driveway-permit ordinance be applied to a property used for bona fide farming, or do agricultural preemptions block enforcement?

Short answer: It depends on scope. The Town of Grant-Valkaria's ordinance applies on its face only to driveways for single-family and duplex residential structures, so it doesn't conflict with the agricultural preemption. As applied to agricultural land without residential structures, the ordinance can survive only if it doesn't prohibit, restrict, regulate, or limit a bona fide farm operation.

Disclaimer: This is an official Florida Attorney General informal opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Florida attorney for advice on your specific situation.

Plain-English summary

The Town of Grant-Valkaria has Ordinance 2008-01, which requires certain road improvements before the town will issue a driveway permit. The town's attorney asked whether three Florida agricultural-preemption statutes (§§ 163.3162(3)(a), 604.50, and 823.14(6)) prevented the town from enforcing the ordinance against property used for a farming operation.

The AG's office offered informal observations rather than a formal opinion (because the AG doesn't interpret local ordinances). The key points:

Section 1.1(b) of the town's ordinance appears to limit its application to driveway permits for single-family and duplex residential structures. So when applied within that scope, there's no conflict with the agricultural preemptions, which protect farm activities, not residential development.
For agricultural land without a residential structure (where the ordinance might be applied to a driveway connecting only to a farm operation), Florida's agricultural preemption in § 163.3162(3)(a) kicks in. The statute provides:

"A governmental entity may not exercise any of its powers to adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit an activity of a bona fide farm operation on land classified as agricultural land pursuant to s. 193.461…"

Implication: A local ordinance that doesn't actually "prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit" a farming activity can still apply to agricultural land. AGO 2009-26 reached the same conclusion. Here, the town's driveway ordinance regulates road improvements, not farming activities. Whether enforcement crosses the preemption line depends on whether the requirement, in operation, restricts the farm activity itself.

The opinion also flags AGO 2013-01, which concluded that § 604.50 exempts nonresidential farm buildings, fences, and signs from municipal land-development regulations.

The AG was careful to note: this office doesn't interpret local ordinances. The town has to make the application-specific call.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2017. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: What was the scope of Florida's right-to-farm preemption?
A: Section 163.3162(3)(a) prohibited any governmental entity from adopting or enforcing any ordinance, resolution, regulation, rule, or policy that prohibits, restricts, regulates, or otherwise limits an activity of a bona fide farm operation on agricultural-classified land (as classified under § 193.461).

Q: Did all local ordinances become unenforceable on agricultural land?
A: No. The preemption applied only when the ordinance had the effect of prohibiting, restricting, regulating, or limiting a farming activity. Generic ordinances (e.g., dust suppression, traffic safety, noise from non-farm sources) that didn't reach into farming activities could still apply.

Q: Was the Town of Grant-Valkaria's driveway-permit ordinance enforceable on a farm property?
A: To the extent the ordinance applied to single-family and duplex residential driveways, yes. To the extent the ordinance touched purely agricultural driveways (without a residential structure), enforcement depended on whether it actually restricted farming activity. The AG didn't make that determination; the town has to.

Q: How did § 604.50 fit in?
A: Section 604.50 specifically exempts nonresidential farm buildings, farm fences, and farm signs from municipal land-development regulations. AGO 2013-01 applied that statute to determine which structures could be regulated.

Q: What about § 823.14(6)?
A: Section 823.14(6) (now part of the Florida Right to Farm Act, in chapter 823) provides similar preemption protections. The AG mentioned it in the question but didn't apply it directly; the analysis hinged on § 163.3162(3)(a).

Q: Could the town just ignore preemption and enforce its ordinance?
A: No. Preempted ordinance enforcement is unlawful and can lead to declaratory or injunctive relief and (under some statutes) attorney-fee awards.

Background and statutory framework

Florida's agricultural preemption regime aims to protect farming from local regulation that would, in effect, suppress agricultural use. The Legislature enacted § 163.3162 (the Right to Farm-style preemption inside the Community Planning Act) and reinforced it with § 604.50 (specific exemptions for farm buildings, fences, and signs) and § 823.14(6) (the Right to Farm Act).

The bona fide farm-operation test ties to § 193.461, which classifies land as agricultural for property-tax purposes when it is used primarily for "bona fide agricultural purposes." The classification is the threshold inquiry: if the land isn't classified as agricultural under § 193.461, the preemption doesn't kick in.

Florida case law (e.g., Markham v. PPI, Inc., on which AGO 2026-05 relied) reads "bona fide" broadly to capture commercial agriculture, equestrian operations, and similar uses. The 2017 opinion sits within that framework: it reaffirms that local ordinances aren't categorically blocked from agricultural land, but they can't reach the actual farming activity itself.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- § 163.3162, Fla. Stat. (Agricultural Lands and Practices)
- § 193.461, Fla. Stat. (Agricultural classification of land)
- § 604.50, Fla. Stat. (Nonresidential farm buildings, fences, and signs)
- § 823.14, Fla. Stat. (Florida Right to Farm Act)

Prior AG opinions:
- Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 2009-26
- Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 2013-01

Source

Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/municipal-ordinance-applied-to-farm-land
Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/8036

Original opinion text

July 14, 2017

Mr. Karl W. Bohne, Jr.

Attorney for the Town of Grant-Valkaria

Post Office Box 410818

Melbourne, Florida 32941-0818

Dear Mr. Bohne:

On behalf of the Town of Grant-Valkaria (town), you ask substantially whether sections 163.3162(3)(a), 604.50, and 823.14(6), Florida Statutes, preclude the enforcement of a town ordinance requiring certain improvements to roadways before a permit will be issued for a driveway to access property upon which a farming operation is located.

While this office does not interpret the provisions of a local code or ordinance, I would note that Ordinance 2008-01 for the town appears to apply to granting driveway permits for single-family and duplex residential structures.[1] To the extent the ordinance is applied only when granting driveway permits for single-family and duplex residential structures, there is no conflict between the ordinance and the before-mentioned statutes.[2] As applied to agricultural land used for a farming operation and not containing a residential structure, the following comments are offered.

Section 163.3162, Florida Statutes, has as its stated purpose "to protect reasonable agricultural activities conducted on farm lands from duplicative regulation."[3] More specifically, in subsection (3)(a), the act states:

"A governmental entity may not exercise any of its powers to adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit an activity of a bona fide farm operation on land classified as agricultural land pursuant to s. 193.461. . .[.]"

This office has found that to the extent a local regulation does not "prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit an activity of a bona fide farm operation[,]" it may be applied to land which is used for such an operation.[4] You have provided a synopsis of the requirements that were imposed in the town's ordinance 2008-01 regarding unpaved roads. As reflected in your letter, the purpose of the ordinance is to provide a mechanism for property owners to access their property by providing for improvements to public right-of-ways. To the extent there is no prohibition, restriction, or regulation of farming activity in the town's ordinance, it may be applied to lands zoned for agricultural purposes.

I trust these informal comments will be of assistance to you in the enforcement of the town's driveway permitting ordinance consistently with state law.

Sincerely,

Lagran Saunders

Director

Opinions Division

ALS/tsh

[1] Section 1.1(b)

[2] But see Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 2013-01, in which this office concluded that s. 604.50, Fla. Stat., exempts nonresidential farm buildings, farm fences, and farm signs from municipal land development regulations, consistent with the statutory exemption from any county or municipal code or fee.

[3] Section 163.3162(1), Fla. Stat.

[4] See Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 2009-26.