Davis v. Situs Inc., R--376

• Decision Date: 10 April 1973
• Docket Number: No. R--376,R--376
• Citation: 275 So.2d 600
• Parties: G. M. DAVIS et al., Appellants, v. SITUS INCORPORATED et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 600

275 So.2d 600

G. M. DAVIS et al., Appellants, v. SITUS INCORPORATED et al., Appellees.

No. R--376.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 10, 1973.

Wayne M. Carlisle, County Atty., for appellants.

James F. Lang, Chandler, O'Neal, Avera, Gray, Lang & Stripling, Gainesville, for appellees.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellants, constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County, have appealed a final judgment directing that the parcel of land involved herein be rezoned from the residential classification which restricts construction to residential building to the classification of administrative-professional which permits construction of office buildings.

This suit was instituted by appellees as the owners of a triangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately three acres which is bounded on the north, south, and westerly apex by two four-laned heavily-traveled arterial highways and on the east by a large drainage ditch constructed over a forty-foot easement separating appellees' land from the residential lots which adjoin it on the east. It is appellees' position that the land owned by them is no longer suitable for residential purposes for which it is presently zoned, but that its highest and best use consistent with the character of the neighborhood is for administrative-professional purposes such as an office building. Appellees contended that the presently existing zoning restrictions constitute a confiscation of their property and under the circumstances now existing are capricious, arbitrary, and unreasonable.

At the trial of this cause each side offered numerous exhibits and the testimony of expert witnesses in support of their respective contentions. As is invariably true in cases of this kind, the testimony was in sharp conflict as to whether the present zoning restrictions were reasonable and proper or whether they were unreasonable, arbitrary, and confiscatory. A petition signed by most of the residents living within 400 feet of appellees' property requesting approval of the rezoning application was introduced in evidence.

It is appellants' position that in ordering the property to be rezoned to a less restrictive classification, the trial court either ignored or acted in violation of the judicially established 'fairly debatable' rule. Under this rule if the question of whether a zoning ordinance meets the constitutional tests of serving the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public is open to dispute or controversy on grounds that make sense and are fairly debatable, then the court should not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning authority. ¹ It is because of this alleged transgression of the fairly debatable rule by the trial court that appellants seek reversal.

In the final judgment rendered in this cause the court found from the evidence adduced that the parcel of land in question is not suitable as residential property, for which purpose it has a...