Mailman Development Corp. v. City of Hollywood, 72--1159
| Decision Date | 23 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--1159,72--1159 |
| Citation | 286 So.2d 614 |
| Parties | MAILMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and GAC Corporation, Appellants, v. CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John R. Lawson, Jr., Hume F. Coleman, W. Daniel Stephens, of Holland & Knight, Tampa, and Abrams, Robbins, Resnick & Schneider, Hollywood, for appellants.
Myron H. Burnstein, Sp. Atty., and B. L. David, City Atty., Hollywood, for appellee.
By its seven-count amended complaint, appellant sought declaratory judgment, injunction and other relief. This interlocutory appeal was taken from an order dismissing three of the counts without leave to amend.
In 1969, appellant purchased approximately 900 acres of land, 200 acres of which were within the corporate limits of the appellee-City of Hollywood. Appellant planned a development consisting of multiple dwelling units, a shopping center, a hotel, and certain recreational facilities. At that time and by ordinance subsequently adopted in 1970, the property within the corporate limits of the City of Hollywood was zoned so as to permit 60 dwelling units per acre on a portion thereof and 80 dwelling units per acre on other portions. On March 1, 1972, appellee adopted a new zoning ordinance limiting density to 25 dwelling units per acre. This suit was to secure relief from the new ordinance.
Amended Count II alleged that the new ordinance was illegal and void because there had been no changes in the circumstances relating to the zoning needs of the appellee-City between the time of the passage of the earlier ordinances and the passage of the new ordinance. A change of circumstances is not a prerequisite to the validity of an amendment to a zoning ordinance. Oka v. Cole, Fla.1962, 145 So.2d 233; Chadwick v. Layton, Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 485. Appellant's reliance upon Wager v. City of Green Cove Springs, Fla.1972, 261 So.2d 827, is misplaced.
Amended Count V alleged that as a result of the adoption of the new ordinance, appellee-City had in effect taken appellant's property without just compensation thereby entitling appellant to a jury trial to determine its compensation. Under our present constitution, Article X, Section 6, F.S.A., no private property shall be taken except for public purposes and with full compensation to the owner. But there is a clear distinction between the appropriation of private property for public use in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, and the regulation of the use of property under the police power exercised to promote the health, morals and safety of the community. State Plant Board v. Smith, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 401. See also, 1 Nichols on Eminent Domain (3rd Ed.) pp. 69--70, Section 14.2(2). We hold that enactment of a zoning ordinance under the exercise of police power does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Indialantic v. McNulty
...of Miami v. Romer, 58 So.2d 849 (Fla.1952); City of Miami v. Rosen, 151 Fla. 677, 10 So.2d 307 (1942); Mailman Development Corp. v. City of Hollywood, 286 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).20 Moviematic Indus. Corp. v. Board of County Comm'rs., 349 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).21 City of St. Pe......
-
Treister v. City of Miami
..... relief may be obtained by instituting a suit to declare the ordinance invalid and to enjoin its enforcement."). In Mailman Development Corp. v. City of Hollywood, which was relied upon by the Florida Supreme Court in National Bulk Carriers, 450 So.2d at 216, the Fourth District Court of ......
-
Eck v. City of Bismarck
...L.Ed.2d 312 (1979); Gold Run, Ltd. v. Board of County Commissioners, 38 Colo.App. 44, 554 P.2d 317 (1976); Mailman Development Corp. v. City of Hollywood, 286 So.2d 614 (Fla.App.1974).7 E. g., Sneed v. County of Riverside, 218 Cal.App.2d 205, 32 Cal.Rptr. 318 (1963) plaintiff brought an inv......
-
Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes
...Beach v. Lachman, 71 So.2d 148 (Fla.1953), appeal dismissed, 348 U.S. 906, 75 S.Ct. 292, 99 L.Ed. 711 (1955), and Mailman Development Corp. v. City of Hollywood, 286 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 844, 95 S.Ct. 77, 42 L.Ed.2d 72 (1974). See also Kasser v. Dade County, ......