Forde v. City of Miami Beach

• Decision Date: 18 April 1941
• Citation: 1 So.2d 642,146 Fla. 676
• Parties: FORDE et al. v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

1 So.2d 642

146 Fla. 676

FORDE et al. v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH et al.

Florida Supreme Court

April 18, 1941

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Alto Adams Judge.

Stapp Ward & Ward, A. Frank Katzentine, W. Sanders Gramling and Alonzo Wilder, all of Miami, for appellants.

C. C Youmans, of Miami, for appellees C. C. Youmans, and Mabel H. Youmans.

J. Harvey Robillard, of Miami Beach, and Loftin, Calkins, Anderson & Scott, of Miami, for appellee City of Miami Beach.

BROWN, Chief Justice.

The complainants Thomas H. Forde and wife, filed their bill of complaint seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the provisions of zoning ordinance No. 289 of the City of Miami Beach in so far as the same applies to restrict the use of their property. The other appellants, Jorge B. Sanchez, Emilio Sanchez, Luis Pena Arche and Manuel Benitez Valdes intervened in the cause, seeking similar relief in so far as the same ordinance affected their property.

The matter was referred to H. H. Eyles, Esq., as special master for the purpose of taking the testimony upon the issues and reporting his findings of fact and law thereon. The record shows that the original bill of complaint involved only lots 40, 41 and 42 of Block 1 of Second Ocean Subdivision, and that the bill of intervention involved only lots 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 38, 39 and the south 25 feet of lot 35 in the said Block 1 and certain other lots situate in Blocks 3 and 7 of the said subdivision, all of which property is restricted to single family estate uses by the zoning ordinance.

After hearing the testimony, the master filed his report wherein he recommended that the bill of intervention be dismissed without prejudice as to the said lots in Blocks 3 and 7, and no error has been assigned to that ruling. However, the master further found that the provisions of the ordinance as applied to those lots in Block 1 were unreasonable and confiscatory, and recommended that the relief prayed for in the respective bills be granted. The appellees filed exceptions to this latter recommendation which were sustained by the chancellor; therefore, the only lands involved herein are those described as being in Block 1.

In dismissing the bill of complaint and the bill of intervention, the learned chancellor ruled that neither the plaintiffs nor the intervenors had proved the allegations therein set forth as required under the rule announced by this court in State ex rel. Helseth v. DuBose, 99 Fla. 812, 128 So. 4, and State ex rel. Taylor v. City of Jacksonville, 101 Fla. 1241, 133 So. 114, in that they had failed to clearly show that the ordinance, as applied to the locus in question, was arbitrary and unreasonable and had no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. The question thus presented is whether or not the chancellor erred in entering the above order.

The ordinance involved herein was adopted by the Miami Beach City Council in the latter part of 1930 under authority of Chapter 9837, Special Laws of Florida, Acts of 1923. Prior to the adoption of the comprehensive zoning plan, the city governing body, with commendable wisdom and foresight, conducted a number of hearings, through a committee, at which the property owners were heard and local conditions studied, and, in addition, an expert in municipal planning of national reputation was employed to assist and consult with the zoning commission in the survey of existing development and plotting the probable future trend. It was only after these thorough preparations that the ordinance was passed.

Considered as a whole, the single family estate use district in Block 1 comprises some twenty lots, each having a front footage of approximately 75 feet, making a total of 1,500 feet lying between the Atlantic Ocean and Collins Avenue, the main artery of north-south travel. The district is bounded on the north by lot 43, owned by the appellant Forde, upon which an apartment house has been constructed, and which lot is immediately south of and adjacent to the McFadden-Deauville Casino, a large hotel and health resort. To the south of this single family use district lies another district zoned for hotels and apartment houses, which has already been utilized by two such structures. The record further shows that there has been no development whatever upon this 1,500-foot strip in Block 1, lying between lot 43 on the north and the hotel and apartment house district to the south. In Block 7, however, which is across the street from Block 1, and fronting on the west line of the street (Collins Avenue), there is another district zoned for single family residences in which some thirteen residences stand at the present.

The appellees, who were defendants below, contend that this ocean front property in Block 1 is suitable and desirable for private estates and is property zoned; that appellants purchased their lots during the past few years, subject to the zoning ordinance; that due to the above-mentioned development in Block 7, the whole section has now assumed a residential character and that to permit multiple family dwellings or hotels in the 1,500 foot tract would destroy that general atmosphere and cause a consequent depreciation in value of the property in Block 7 and vicinity; that to lower the restrictions and permit multiple family structures to be built thereon, would create a serious traffic problem on Collins Avenue, and thereby endanger the public safety. It is further contended by the City that the restrictions, as now existent, are reasonable and necessary to the accomplishment of the city-wide comprehensive zoning plan adopted by ordinance after careful consideration in 1930, whereby some 3,126 lots were zoned for multi-family use of which only 1,000 have been utilized, and some 5,415 lots were zoned for single family use of which 3,200 have been utilized. It is the city's argument that these figures show that with the continuation of the trend of building made in the period since the enactment of the zoning ordinance, the amount of property available for hotels and apartments is greatly in excess of the requirements in comparison with the property available for single family construction, and that the plan should not be disturbed.

In each case where an attack is made upon the validity of a zoning ordinance, in so far as...