Edelstein v. Dade County, 64-475
| Decision Date | 16 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-475,64-475 |
| Citation | 171 So.2d 611 |
| Parties | Ralph EDELSTEIN, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wepman & Wepman, Miami, for appellant.
Thomas C. Britton, County Atty., and St. Julien P. Rosemond, Asst . County Atty., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
The appellant filed two separate petitions for writ of certiorari seeking to have reviewed a zoning resolution of Metropolitan Dade County which resulted in the appellant's property being rezoned from business use to residential use. The appellant on this appeal seeks reversal of a single order denying certiorari on both petitions.
In 1960 a previous owner of the land involved obtained rezoning of the property from residential use to business use. Objectors to this previous rezoning brought two separate actions which proved of no avail. Kelly v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 714, and McCreary v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 337.
Subsequently, the appellant purchased the property. Thereafter, the County Planning Department recommended that the property should again be rezoned for residential use. This was done in an attempt to bring it into compliance with overall general plans for the area. Upon application of the Zoning Director, the property was rezoned for residential use.
On this appeal the appellant contends that the County was estopped to make the change because he had relied upon the business zoning when he purchased the property. He further contends that the rezoning is invalid because it restricts the use of the property without a relation of the public welfare, health or morals.
Appellant's contention that the County is estopped cannot be sustained inasmuch as a property owner does not have a vested right in a particular zoning in the absence of the expenditure of money on the land in compliance with existing zoning. Sarasota County v. Walker, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 345; City of Miami Beach v. 8701 Collins Ave., Fla.1954, 77 So.2d 428.
On appellant's second point we hold that he has failed to demonstrate a departure by the circuit court from established principles of law. The record reveals that the resolution under consideration in this case, changing the zoning, was enacted in order to protect the area from strip zoning. Authority to do so is within the legislative capacity of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaughnessy v. Metropolitan Dade County
...fairly debatable and, therefore, the trial court correctly refused to disturb the action of the County authorities. Edelstein v. Dade County, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 611; Smith v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 281; City of St. Petersburg v. Aiken, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 315; Met......
-
City of Miami v. Wysong
...legislative body where the question is fairly debatable. See City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, Fla.1953, 71 So.2d 148; Edelstein v. Dade County, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 611; Village of Virginia Gardens v. Johnson, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 692; Waring v. Peterson, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 268; a......
-
City of Hollywood v. Hollywood Beach Hotel Co.
...zoning law) does the landowner have a vested property right and the permit may not be revoked by a change of zoning. Edelstein v. Dade County, 171 So.2d 611 (Fla.App.1965). In most cases the equitable estoppel doctrine has been applied to limit the municipality's power to revoke a building ......
-
Perkins v. Joint City-Council Planning Commission, CITY-COUNTY
...(1954). Nor is the purchase of the property accompanied by an intent to use it for a specific purpose sufficient. Edelstein v. Dade County, Fla.App., 171 So.2d 611 (1965). An exception to the rule recognized by many jurisdictions is where substantial construction has been made on the proper......