City of Miami Beach v. 8701 Collins Ave.

• Decision Date: 17 December 1954
• Citation: 77 So.2d 428
• Parties: The CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. 8701 COLLINS AVE., Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 428

77 So.2d 428

The CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. 8701 COLLINS AVE., Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division A.

Dec. 17, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1955.

Ben Shepard and Joseph A. Wanick, Miami, for appellant.

Paul & Sams, Miami, and Ben Cohen, Miami Beach, for appellee.

MURPHREE, Associate Justice.

When the City of Miami Beach, appellant, re-zoned the site in December of 1950, appellee proceeded to formulate plans to build thereon the Hotel Biltmore Terrace, to contain 227 rooms and cost in excess of $1,000,000. It was decided to include within the structure a $250,000 basement to provide space for a jewelry shop, beauty parlor, clothing shop, beach wear shop, coffee ship, drug sundry shop, barber shop, and other similar shops usual in a hotal of that type, for convenience of the guests and to augment the income from the plant to the extent of $50,000 per annum. All contemplated businesses were conforming used under the zoning ordinance then in effect.

Around June 1, 1950 architects and a contractor were employed to prepare and execute the plan for the hotel. On August 21, 1951, upon completion of the design for the foundation and pilings, appellee applied for and received from the City a building permit for that portion of the building, and construction was promptly commenced.

On October 8, 1951 an amendment to the use regulations under the zoning ordinance went into effect, which disallowed a number of the shops that appellee had planned to include, such as a beach wear shop, clothing shop, jewelry shop, coffee shop, and others of like nature. Permissive uses before the amendment were quite broad, but by the amendment they were restricted to 'barber shops, beauty shops, tobacco, magazine, newspaper and drug sundry shops, and valet and massage service facilities.' (The ordinance referred to is known as 'Ordinance No. 289, zoning ordinance of Miami Beach, Florida, amended as of March 16, 1949.' Section 5, paragraph 4 thereof pertains to use regulations with respect to hotels of 100 rooms or more).

Appellee then sought an injunction in the Circuit Court to prevent the City from enforcing the terms of the amendment. Appellee advanced two grounds as a basis for the injunction, namely: the amendment was unconstitutional and void because it was arbitrary, discriminatory, and bore no substantial relation to the health, morals, welfare, or safety of the public; and second, the City was equitably estopped under the circumstances to enforce the provisions of the amended ordinance as against the appellee.

The Chancellor granted the injunction on the ground of estoppel, so did not find it necessary to rule on the constitutional point. In his decree, he said: that appellee * * * 'has made tremendous expenditures of money and has obligated itself for further tremendous sums of money all in reliance upon the zoning ordinances of the City of Miami Beach as they existed at the time of beginning of construction of the Biltmore Terrace Hotel * * * that such great expenditures and obligations would not have been incurred except in reliance upon said zoning ordinances as they then existed * * * and it would be inequitable to deny the relief prayed for * * *.'

This Court has recognized that a City may be equitably estopped to enforce a change in zoning regulations against one who has substantially altered his position in reliance upon the original regulation, and a building permit issued thereunder. See Texas Co. v. Town of Miami Springs, Fla.1950, 44 So.2d 808; Frink v. Orleans Corporation, 1947, 159 Fla. 646, 32 So.2d 425; Ex parte Wise, 1940, 141 Fla. 222, 192 So. 872.

Plans for the superstructure of the Biltmore Terrace showing all intended uses of the basement area, being incomplete, were not exhibited to the City at the time the foundation permit was issued, nor did appellee at that time otherwise advise the City of the nature of the shops it intended to install. The City,...