Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, 31842
| Decision Date | 20 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 31842,31842 |
| Citation | 151 So.2d 433 |
| Parties | A. H. SAKOLSKY, Petitioner, v. The CITY OF CORAL GABLES, Florida, a municipal corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
A. H. Sakolsky, in pro. per.
Edward L. Semple, Coral Gables, and William M. Burton, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.
Writ of certiorari has issued in this cause on the ground that the decision of the district court, 1 denying injunctive relief against rescission of a building permit, is in direct conflict 2 with decision of this Court that municipal action in such situations is governed by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 3
The facts of the care are basically undisputed. In August, 1960, the petitioner Sakolsky testified he became interested in erecting a 12-story luxury apartment building in Coral Gables. He went to see the mayor of the City to discuss with him the best location for such a project. The mayor suggested that a portion of Biltmore Way in the City of Coral Gables, west of the business district, was the most logical place and arranged a conference with a landowner in the area. The suggested site fronted on a one hundred foot boulevard in an area zoned for apartments where other multistory buildings already existed. After negotiations with the landowner, Sakolsky entered into options to purchase the land, on the basis that if he could erect a 12-story apartment building thereon, he would purchase the land. 4
At the suggestion of the mayor, Sakolsky had preliminary plans prepared for the apartment house, which were submitted to the City of Coral Gables Planning and Zoning Department and Board of Architects for approval, and tentative approval was granted.
Under the zoning code of the City of Coral Gables, the permission of the City Commission was required 5 for the erection of an apartment house in excess of three stories. There was no requirement under the zoning code that public notice be given on application for permission to erect such a structure. A preliminary conference with all of the Commissioners was held in November 1960, at one of the Commission meetings, at which time it was suggested that a courtesy notice be given to the apartment house owners in the area and that the matter be put on the agenda of the City's Commission meeting on December 6, 1960.
Upon notice and public hearing on that date, Mr. Sakolsky and some 100 objectors, represented by counsel, were fully heard and the Commission by a majority vote enacted an ordinance granting the permission requested. On December 22 the Commission approved traffic flow and fire hazard conditions and the public works department issued a foundation permit authorizing commencement of construction. 6
It is uncontroverted that petitioner changed his position materially and incurred very substantial expense in reliance upon the permission granted and permit issued by the respondent City. At a meeting on January 10 the City Commission, upon motion by a member whose opposing vote had at the December meeting been overridden, passed an ordinance rescinding petitioner's permit. This proceeding for injunctive relief ensued, based upon the theory of equitable estoppel. The record fails to reflect the course of ultimate disposition of an independent action instituted on December 21, 1961, against the respondent City by an association of apartment owners, but it is clear that petitioner was not joined by service until after enactment of the rescinding ordinance contested in this proceeding.
The import of the final decree entered against petitioner, and the decision affirming same, is that estoppel does not prevent rescission by the respondent City because at the time petitioner obtained his permit and thereafter he 'had good reason to believe' the official mind might change because 'strenuous objection was present and made known, suit was threatened and the political issue made apparent.' Although petitioner denied personal knowledge, the court referred to widespread public notice that City Commission membership was to be altered by an election for a post coming vacant early in January, the campaign being conducted at this time on the issue of high rise zoning controversy.
Aside from petitioner's contention that the record evidence refutes such notice or knowledge on his part, we believe the decision collides with earlier cases on the basic point of law in question. The law is clearly established that the doctrine of equitable estoppel may prevent arbitrary rescission of a permit by a municipality in such a situation 'as it would be invoked were [the municipality] an individual.' 7 To deny application of the doctrine to the facts of this case on the ground of circumstantial notice that the 'official mind' might change amounts, in our opinion, to a rejection of the quoted ruling and creates an irreconcilable conflict of principle. The basic concepts of equitable estoppel, held by the prior cited case to be applicable to municipalities as to individuals, preclude the notion of such instability in municipal action merely because its business is conducted through a body whose membership is subject to change.
The opinion in the case of Miami Shores Village v. Wm. N. Brockway Post, 156 Fla. 673, 24 So.2d 33, which respondent regards as controlling in its favor, does state that one acts at his peril in relying upon a building permit when he is warned by the 'red flags' of a political contest in which the success of certain candidates may alter the voting pattern of the governing municipal body. While that case might be distinguished from the one at bar and its conclusion justified on the basis of a number of factual differences, 8 we believe that the rule there pronounced, that an impending change of municipal officers can prevent reliance on an act of the current governing body, is in error and inconsistent with precedent condemning arbitrary action by these public bodies. 9
Such a permit as that here involved, intentionally and lawfully issued by the proper municipal officers, can have no other purpose than to authorize action by the permittee in reliance on its terms. Notice or knowledge of mere equivocation independent of actual infirmities or pending official action, 10 cannot in this situation operate to negative or prevent reliance on the official act.
The effect of pending litigation directly attacking the validity of a permit or zoning ordinance, or the effect of an eventual determination that such permit was invalid, may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coral Springs Street Systems v. City of Sunrise, No. 03-11497.
...he acquired." City of Hollywood v. Hollywood Beach Hotel Co., 283 So.2d 867, 869 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1973) (citing Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, 151 So.2d 433 (Fla.1963)), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 329 So.2d 10 (Fla.1976). More broadly, the Second District Court of ......
-
Godfrey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Union County
...Pace Industrial Corporation.' "Id. at 532, 226 A.2d at 107.Finally, in an often-cited Florida Supreme Court case, Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, 151 So.2d 433 (Fla.1963), that court held that knowledge by a developer that a political contest in which the success of certain candidates mig......
-
Warner v. City of Boca Raton
...v. Brockway Post No. 124 of American Legion, 156 Fla. 673, 24 So.2d 33, 35 (1945), overruled on other grounds by Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, 151 So.2d 433 (Fla.1963) ("Generally speaking, a permit issued ... in violation of law confers no right or privilege on the grantee."). Cf. Bret......
-
Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County
...unjust to destroy the right he acquired. Hollywood Beach Hotel Co. v. City of Hollywood, 329 So.2d at 15-16, citing Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, 151 So.2d 433 (1963). Equitable estoppel is said to apply against a governmental entity "only in rare instances and under exceptional circums......
-
Case List
...4th 1206 (1994) Saah v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment , 433 A.2d 1114 (D.C. Cir. 1981) Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables , 151 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1963) Salt Lake County v. Board of Educ. of Granite Sch. Dist. , 808 P.2d 1056 (Utah 1991) San Remo Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. City &......
-
Vested Rights
...particularly if the new classification was recently 881. Id. at 84, 510 P.2d at 1155. 882. Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, 151 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1963). 883. Siemon et al. , supra note 753, at 21-22. 884. 89 F.3d 1481 (11th Cir. 1996). 885. See , e.g. , Gilliland v. County of Los Angeles, 1......
-
Most unlikely to succeed: substantive due process claims against local governments applying land use restrictions.
...acquired. Hollywood Beach Hotel Company v. City of Hollywood, 329 So. 2d 10, 15-16 (Fla. 1976) (citing Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, 151 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1963)). Furthermore, estoppel cannot be applied against a local government to accomplish an illegal result. Branca v. City of Miramar......