Hough v. Amato, I--495
| Decision Date | 11 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. I--495,I--495 |
| Citation | 212 So.2d 662 |
| Parties | L. H. (Buddy) HOUGH, Appellant, v. Vincent J. AMATO et al., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Albert S. C. Millar, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellant.
Robert A. Andreu, St. Augustine, for appellee.
The plaintiff in an action for declaratory and injunctive relief has appealed from a final decree entered by the Circuit Court for St. Johns County, dismissing the action.
The sole question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether that court, in the circumstances shown in the record, should have granted the relief sought by the plaintiff and enjoined the enforcement against him of a certain zoning ordinance adopted by the defendant city.
The record in this cause establishes the following facts pertinent to the present consideration:
At all times material to these proceedings the plaintiff has owned property on Williams Street in the City of St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida. Almost all of that street consists of business or public attractions. St. Augustine, we judicially know, is one of the great tourist cities in the United States.
At the time when the plaintiff purchased the said property and, until May 28, 1965, his property was zoned by the city as 'local business,' which zoning permitted as one of its authorized uses the operation of a 'museum.'
On January 5, 1965, an associate of the plaintiff appeared before the St. Augustine City Planning Commission and advised that the plaintiff planned to open a 'Museum of Tragedies in U.S. History' at his property on Williams Street and requested the commission's permission therefor. Within a few days the chairman of that commission advised the City Commission of St. Augustine of the said associate's appearance and the plaintiff's plans for a museum on his said property. In addition, there was no doubt about the plaintiff's said plans for the museum, because for five months prior to May 28, 1965 (when a new zoning ordinance was passed, as discussed below) he described his plans on television.
During the first four months of 1965 the plaintiff obtained four building permits and began remodeling his said property on Williams Street. He made numerous repairs on the property for a total cost of mearly $2,000, which property he had purchased for $17,000. In addition, the plaintiff expended several thousand dollars, so that his total investment, including the land acquisition, amounted to more than $30,000.
Then, as the appellant puts it in his brief, 'came the crowning blow.' On April 4, 1965, he was ready to open his museum and filed an application for a use permit to open the museum, but a ruling on his application was deferred several times until May 28, 1965, when the City Commission of St. Augustine at a special session, held without notice and without a hearing, adopted an ordinance designated as 'Emergency Ordinance 210--A,' the chief effect of which was to delete 'museums' as one of the uses theretofore permitted on the property zoned 'local business' in Zone 3, the zone in which the plaintiff's said property was located.
There is testimony to the effect that the City Commissioners who passed the said emergency ordinance on May 28, 1965, admitted that the only emergency facing them on that date was the possibility that the plaintiff would open his museum.
On June 6, 1965, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dade County v. Jason, 73--45
...44 So.2d 808; Bregar v. Britton, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 753; City of Hollywood v. Pettersen, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 919; Hough v. Amato, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 662; City of Miami Beach v. Jonathon Corporation, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 516; Munns v. Stenman, 152 Cal.App.2d 543, 314 P.2d 67; Dub......
-
Equity Resources, Inc. v. County of Leon
...county's issuance in 1989 of permits authorizing Equity Resources to proceed with construction of Phase II. See, e.g., Hough v. Amato, 212 So.2d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968) (government estopped from changing the zoning in existence at the time plaintiff bought the property and still in existenc......
-
Willumsen v. Horton, 74--1003
...of Naples v. Crans, Fla.App.2d 1974, 292 So.2d 58; City of North Miami v. Margulies, Fla.App.3d 1974, 289 So.2d 424; Hough v. Amato, Fla.App.1st 1968, 212 So.2d 662; City of Gainesville v. Bishop, Fla.App.1st 1965, 174 So.2d 100, cert. discharged, 181 So.2d Count II of the amended complaint......
-
City of Hollywood v. Hollywood Beach Hotel Co.
...on the property in reliance of the zoning law. See Texas Co. v. Town of Miami Springs, 44 So.2d 808 (Fla.1960); Hough v. Amato, 212 So.2d 662 (Fla.App.1968). However, other substantial changes in position or extensive obligations such as exercising an option to purchase land or expending su......
-
Case List
...Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Ass’n v. Valley Racing Ass’n , 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 698, 4 Cal. App. 4th 1538 (1992) Hough v. Amato , 212 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1968) Housing Auth. v. City of Los Angeles , 38 Cal. 2d 853, 243 P.2d 515 (1952) Housing Redevelopment Auth. v. Jorgensen , 328 N.W.2d 740......
-
Vested Rights
...763. Rhodes & Sellers, supra note 753, 482. 764. See Texas Co. v. Town of Miami Springs, 44 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1950); Hough v. Amato, 212 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1968). 765. Mandelker , supra note 5, §6.20; Rhodes & Sellers, supra note 753, at 486-88; Siemon et al. , supra note 753, at 32. 131 BARGA......