City of Miami v. duPont

• Decision Date: 28 December 1965
• Docket Number: No. 65-391,65-391
• Citation: 181 So.2d 599
• Parties: CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation of Florida, and Alice C. Wainwright, Appellants, v. Willis dePONT and Miren duPont, his wife, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 599

181 So.2d 599

CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation of Florida, and Alice C. Wainwright, Appellants, v. Willis dePONT and Miren duPont, his wife, Appellees.

No. 65-391.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 28, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1966.

John R. Barrett, City Atty., Edward J. Fitzpatrick, Asst. City Atty., William W. Charles, Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appellants.

John W. Prunty, Miami, for appellees.

Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal the defendant City of Miami and the intervenor-defendant Alice C. Wainwright seek reversal of a decree invalidating an inflexible zoning provision which restricted boathouses on residential property to twenty feet in width, forty feet in depth and fifteen feet in height. The circumstances of the case, and the legal propositions involved were set out in the comprehensive final decree entered by the chancellor as follows:

'The plaintiffs instituted this action against the defendant, City of Miami, as a suit in equity attacking the validity and constitutionality of certain sections of the zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami.

'Section 22(1) and Section 22(4)(a) of Article IV of Ordinance 6871 of the City of Miami limit the structure of boathouses to fifteen (15) feet in height, twenty (20) feet in width and forty (40) feet in depth. The plaintiffs maintain by their Complaint that this is an unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary limitation on the permissible size of a boathouse. The plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality and validity of these sections per se and, in the alternative, they challenge the validity of the application of these sections to their property and the contemplated development of same. The plaintiffs contend that these sections offend the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Sections 1 and 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Florida, F .S.A. Finally, the plaintiffs allege that they applied for and were denied a veriance by the City of Miami Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission of the City of Miami and that this action was arbitrary and improper.

'The essential allegations of the Complaint are denied by the defendant, City of Miami. The Court subsequently permitted Alice Wainwright as a neighboring property owner, to intervene as a party defendant. This intervening party defendant likewise filed and answer denying the essential allegations of the Complaint.

'After the issues were joined, the Court heard the evidence presented by the parties consisting principally of expert testimony and numerous exhibits. The issues of law were orally argued by counsel for the various parties and memoranda of law were filed. The Court has considered all the pleadings filed and the evidence introduced, together with the argument and memoranda of counsel.

'The evidence disclosed that the plaintiffs are developing certain property which they own as a very large, single family estate-type complex. The property being utilized consists of approximately five (5) acres and is located in the City of Miami in the Coconut Grove Section on Biscayne Bay and St. Gaudens Road. The property has a waterfrontage of approximately two hundred twenty-five (225) feet and extends from the Bay westward approximately eleven hundred feet (1100). The estate will contain structures having a total of approximately thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of area and the development will provide a full range of activities within the estate area, all oriented toward the waterfront. The plaintiffs propose to erect a boathouse on their property, thirty-eight (38) feet in which, ninety-six (96) feet in depth and twenty-four (24) feet in height.

'Plaintiffs' property is presently zoned R 1B by the City of Miami which provides certain minimum requirements for a residence such as a lot size not less than one hundred (100) feet by one hundred (100) feet and a building not less than six hundred fifty (650) square feet in area.

'It was admitted by all parties that the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Miami makes no specific provision for residential estates and has no section dealing entirely with an estate-type development, whaterfront or otherwise. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs have been confronted with restrictions which could never have been intended for such estate-size residences.

'The challenged sections of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance provide arbitrary size limitations for boathouse structures as set forth in plaintiffs' Complaint, to-wit: twenty (20) feet in width, forty (40) feet in depth and fifteen (15) feet in height. These limitations apply to all residential classifications and are imposed without any consideration or relationship to the size, location or use of the property involved or to the size and type of dwelling and other structures placed thereon.

'While the boathouse structure is considered an accessory building by the defendant, City of Miami, no other type of trarily restricted by the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Miami. In fact, the evidence showed that accessory structures for various uses, other than for boathouses, could have been erected on the same site location as that of the plaintiffs' same site location as that of the plaintiffs' proposed boathouse, and that such accessory structures could have been of the same size and design as the proposed boathouse structure.

'It should further be noted that the zoning ordinances of the City of Miami place no limitation or restriction on the size of a private boat which may be docked adjacent to private property, but when the boat is attempted to be placed in a covering or structure, the inflexible restrictions set forth in Sections 22(1) and 22(4)(a), Article IV of Ordinance 6871 of the City of Miami forbids such use.

'The defendants have failed to produce any substantial evidence indicating that any special problems exist with reference to boathouses which would require their strict limitation as to size. Moreover, the defendants have failed to show wherein boathouses possess some special...