Admiral Development Corp. v. City of Maitland
Decision Date | 18 October 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 71--642,71--642 |
Citation | 267 So.2d 860 |
Parties | ADMIRAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CITY OF MAITLAND, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stephen P. Kanar, of Fishback, Davis, Dominick & Simonet, Orlando, for appellant.
James O. Driscoll, of Driscoll, Conrad & Langston, Orlando, for appellee.
Admiral Development Corporation, plaintiff below, has challenged the constitutionality of Section 13--8 of the Maitland Code. The lower court's ruling in favor of the City of Maitland, defendant below, upheld the constitutionality of Section 13--8 and additionally found that the actions of the plaintiff precluded raising any objection to the constitutionality of such ordinance.
Plaintiff, a firm engaged in the business of subdividing and developing land in central Florida, owned a 24.4-acre parcel of land within the City of Maitland. A proposed plat of the tract was submitted to the defendant to secure approval so as to allow plaintiff to subdivide the land. As a prerequisite to such approval plaintiff was required to comply with the provisions of Section 13--8, pertinent parts of which are hereinafter set forth:
'Sec. 13--8. Dedication of park and recreation area--When land is subdivided within the city.
'(a) When lands are subdivided within the city, at least five per cent (5%) of the gross area of such lands shall be dedicated by the owner to the city for park and recreation purposes. The location of such park and recreation area shall be recommended by the planning and Zoning commission, to the city council for its approval.
'(b) If, in the judgment of the city council, the land to be subdivided is too small for a park or recreation area to be dedicated from such land, then the owner shall pay to the city a sum of money, equal to five per cent (5%) of the value of the gross area, which shall be held in escrow and used by the city for the purpose of acquiring parks and recreation areas and for no other purpose.' 1
As a result of negotiations between plaintiff and defendant with respect to the area to be dedicated an agreement was reached whereby a lot containing 8.93-acres in the proposed subdivision would be dedicated for park and ercreational purposes and the payment of $1,500.00 would be made by plaintiff to defendant. 2
The plaintiff urges the unconstitutionality of Section 13--8 on basically the following grounds: (1) that the enactment of Section 13--8 is beyond the scope of the City's authority under its charter; (2) that the provisions of Section 13--8 are vague, indefinite and overbroad; (3) that in applying Section 13--8 the City exceeded the terms of its own ordinance; and (4) that to require a subdivider to subdivide land or provide money for park or recreational purposes as a condition for approval of a subdivision plat amounts to a taking of property without due process of law.
At the outset it is our view, and we so hold, that based upon the particular circumstances of this case the plaintiff is not estopped to question the validity of Section 13--8. See Hialeah Race Course, Inc. v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Fla.1971, 245 So.2d 625.
Directing our attention to the merits of plaintiff's first ground, we have reviewed the charter provisions of the City of Maitland (particularly Sections 33, 34, 40, 83, 85, and 87 of Chapter 59--1475, Laws of Florida) and are of the opinion that the adoption of Section 13--8 was Beyond the scope of these provisions. In 23 Fla.Jur. Municipal Corporations § 63, pp. 87--88, it is stated:
'. . . The general rule is that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise only such powers as are granted in express words, or those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers as expressly conferred, or essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of a corporation.
In City of Miami Beach v. Fleetwood Hotel, Inc., Fla.1972, 261 So.2d 801, the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed the limits of the exercise of municipal powers as follows:
' ' (Emphasis ours.)
The provisions of the City charter relied on by the defendant reflect the Absence of a grant of power that would serve as a source of authority to adopt Section 13--8; moreover the charter provisions do not contain sufficient language from which such authority can be reasonably inferred. Unquestionably, the City has the authority to enact ordinances to enforce the provisions of its charter; but nowhere in the cited sections of the charter do we find any provision expressly or impliedly authorizing the establishment of prerequisites to or condition precedents for the subdividing of lands within the city. That is Not to say that such authorization or power cannot be conferred upon the City by appropriate legislative action; But merely that the present provisions contain no such authorization. See in particular Associated Home Builders v. City of Walnut Creek, 1971, 4 Cal.3d 633, 94 Cal.Rptr. 630, 484 P.2d 606. 3
Our conclusion that the ordinance in question is beyond the scope of the City's authority comports with several recent decisions of our sister state courts which had occasion to construe ordinances Similar in purpose to Section 13--8. West Park Ave., Inc. v. Ocean Tp., 1966, 48 N.J. 122, 224 A.2d 1; Coronado Development Co. v. City of McPherson, 1962, 189 Kan. 174, 368 P.2d 51; People ex rel. Exch. Nat. Bank v. City of Lake Forest, 1968, 40 Ill.2d 281, 239 N.E.2d 819; McKain v. Toledo City Plan Commission, 1971, 26 Ohio App.2d 171, 270 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Board of Sup'rs of James City County v. Rowe, 740994
...Williamsburg and Busch Gardens.7 Courts in other jurisdictions have reached a similar conclusion. See, Admiral Development Corp. v. City of Maitland, 267 So.2d 860 (Fla.D.Ct.App.1972); Coronado Development Co. v. City of McPherson, 189 Kan. 174, 368 P.2d 51 (1962); Baltimore County v. Secur......
-
Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward County, 81-700
...ordinance which required the dedication of park land or the payments of fees in lieu of dedication. See Admiral Development Corp. v. City of Maitland, 267 So.2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). In Admiral Development a real estate developer challenged an ordinance as being beyond the scope of the c......
-
New Testament Baptist Church v. Dot
...acceptance of such benefits does not waive the right to contest invalid conditions of development." See Admiral Dev. Corp. v. City of Maitland, 267 So.2d 860, 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). However, we also note that Florida courts have applied the exhaustion of remedies requirement to land use c......
-
Sarasota County v. Taylor Woodrow Homes Ltd.
...conditions. 2 See Hialeah Race Course, Inc. v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, 245 So.2d 625 (Fla.1971); Admiral Dev. Corp. v. City of Maitland, 267 So.2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). We recognize Taylor Woodrow Homes' argument that it had no need to file suit unless and until the County formally......