Merritt v. Peters
| Decision Date | 02 June 1953 |
| Citation | 65 So.2d 861 |
| Parties | MERRITT v. PETERS et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert F. Underwood, Knight, Smith & Underwood, Miami, for appellant.
Hudson & Cason, Miami, for appellees.
The appellant's property, situated in Dade County, was placed by the county commissioners in a zone designated as 'B U 2,' where, to quote from the stipulated facts, 'limited and special business may be conducted, including motels.'
Under the authority granted by Chapter 17833, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1937, the commissioners adopted certain regulations governing the erection of commercial signs in the territory among which was one that these signs should not be larger than forty square feet. Notwithstanding this specification the appellant erected on his property a sign more than four times that size. A real controversy then arose between the appellant and appellees so this suit was instituted by the former to secure a determination of the constitutionality of the rule which interfered with the use of property by dictating to owners the maximum area of the sign boards they could erect.
The appellant insists that the regulation was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the police power by the county because there was no relationship between the object of the rule, and the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public. He frankly recognizes the authority of the county to create a zoning commission to promulgate reasonable regulations 'with respect to the * * * size and dimensions of sign boards and bill boards * * *' and he does not question the overall zoning plan adopted pursuant to legislative enactment. His argument proceeds plausibly toward the elimination, one by one, of the familiar elements warranting the exercise of the police power in zoning, i. e., public health, morals, safety and welfare.
We have no hesitancy in agreeing with him that the factors of health, safety and morals are not involved in restricting the proportions of a sign board, but we disagree with him in his position that the restriction cannot be sustained on aesthetic grounds alone. In City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480, 3 So.2d 364, we think we decided the point contrary to the appellant's view. We held in that case that attractiveness of a community like Miami Beach was of prime concern to the whole people and therefore affected the welfare of all. We think the principle applies to the territory across the bay where the appellant's property is situated. All in the area are regulated alike in the use of their property in constructing signs; all will profit if all obey; all will suffer if none is restricted.
We must hold that although safety, morals and health of the general public in the territory do not demand the restriction, the general welfare does and that the chancellor ruled quite correctly when he dismissed the bill of complaint seeking to restrain enforcement of the regulation on the ground that it was a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.
Affirmed.
Appellant-plaintiff sued in equity the appellees-defendants as County Commissioners and the Zoning Director seeking an injunction against the enforcement of zoning regulations promulgated pursuant to Chapter 17833, Laws of 1937.
Appellant operates a motel and has erected a sign upon his property having an area of 168 square feet. The zoning regulations prohibit signs in excess of 40 square feet in area. Appellant contends that the regulation is arbitrary and capricious and not within the bounds of the police power. The Chancellor upheld the zoning regulation, hence this appeal.
The regulations require a sign to be constructed to meet the requirements of the Miami Building Code and from the pleadings and stipulation between the parties, it will be inferred that quality of the structure complies with the Building Code specifications.
The motel is situated on a straightaway thoroughfare that functions as a principal traffic artery leading to the North. It is set back 18 feet from the highway. Other like property is used for filling stations, coffee shops, real estate office, other motels and commercial advertising. The commercial advertising signs have been zoned out, but continue as a non-conforming use.
The point in question is whether the zoning of appellant's property, in the manner stated, is well founded for the purpose of promoting or protecting the public health, safety, morals or welfare and does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego
...that a state or city pursuant to the police power may ban billboards on the basis of aesthetic considerations alone are: Meritt v. Peters (Fla.1953) 65 So.2d 861; John Donnelly & Sons v. Mallar (D.Me.1978) 453 F.Supp. 1272; Donnelly Advertising Corp. v. City of Baltimore (1977) 279 Md. 660,......
-
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego
...that a state or city pursuant to the police power may ban billboards on the basis of aesthetic considerations alone are: Meritt v. Peters (Fla.1953) 65 So.2d 861; John Donnelly & Sons v. Mallar (D.Me.1978) 453 F.Supp. 1272; Donnelly Advertising Corp. v. City of Baltimore (1977) 279 Md. 660,......
-
EB Elliott Adv. Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County
...though not required for the safety, morals or health of the general public. Dade County v. Gould, Fla.1957, 99 So.2d 236; Merritt v. Peters, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 861. III. The first issue of federal constitutional dimensions confronted by this Court is whether the prohibition of commercial ad......
-
Kuvin v. City of Coral Gables
...attractiveness of a community ... [is] of prime concern to the whole people and therefore affect[s] the welfare of all. Merritt v. Peters, 65 So.2d 861, 862 (Fla.1953); see also United Adver. Corp. v. Borough of Metuchen, 42 N.J. 1, 198 A.2d 447, 449 (1964) (There are areas in which aesthet......