Watson v. Mayflower Property, Inc., 1980
| Decision Date | 22 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1980,1980 |
| Citation | 223 So.2d 368 |
| Parties | Welcom H. WATSON and City of Fort Lauderdale, Appellants, v. MAYFLOWER PROPERTY, INC., a New Jersey corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Donald H. Norman, of Ross, Norman & Cory, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant Watson.
Ronald B. Sladon, Dean Andrews and Elwood Obrig, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant city.
Martin F. Avery, Jr., of Berryhill Avery & Law, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
This litigation began in 1960 when the plaintiff, Mayflower Property, Inc., filed a suit in equity in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida, against the City of Fort Lauderdale to test the validity of a zoning ordinance of the city which imposed the classification of R--1--A (single family residential) on the plaintiff's property. Owners of property in the vicinity of the plaintiff's land were permitted to intervene. The intervenors and the city will be referred to herein as 'defendants'. The plaintiff's complaint in essence demanded that the trial court declare the R--1--A zoning classification invalid as it applied to the plaintiff's property and enjoin enforcement of the R--1--A zoning ordinance against such property.
The defendants filed answers and the cause came on for trial in April 1964. 1 On 30 April 1964 the trial court entered a final decree in the cause which held:
'ORDERED, ADJUDGED And DECREED that the zoning which classifies the tract as R--1--A, restricting its use to single family dwellings, is arbitrary and unreasonable, has no substantial relation to the public health, safety, or general welfare, and is unconstitutional and void insofar as it applies to plaintiff's land.'
The final decree was appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal and affirmed. Watson v. Mayflower Property, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 355. Certiorari was denied by the Florida Supreme Court, Watson v. Mayflower Property, Inc., Fla.1965, 183 So.2d 215.
After the petition for the writ of certiorari was denied, the plaintiff applied to the City of Fort Lauderdale to have its property rezoned to the classification 'R--4.' The City of Fort Lauderdale rezoned the property not to R--4 but to 'R--3--A'. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the R--3--A zoning classification given his property, filed in the same circuit court proceeding a 'Motion for Summary Post-Decretal Relief'. This motion recited that the R--3--A zoning violation the final decree of 30 April 1964 and requested an order compelling, 'the Defendant City of Fort Lauderdale, to re-zone Plaintiff's property R--4, which zoning classification was clearly demonstrated at the Final Hearing herein as being compatible with the findings of fact and conclusions of law, as enunciated in the Final Decree.'
The defendants filed answers asserting that the R--3--A zoning classification was valid and not in violation of the final decree of 30 April 1964 or in violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.
The issues made by the motion for summary post-decretal relief and the answers were heard by the same trial judge. Evidence was presented. Based thereon the trial judge entered an order on 9 November 1967 pertinent parts of which are as follows:
'ORDER
'* * *
'In the final decree (that of 30 April 1964) it was found among other things that the highest and best use for the property was for hotels and apartments.
'* * *
'The evidence offered by the defendants failed to show that the R--3--A zoning had a substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals and general welfare, and supplemental relief Therefore will be granted.
'Defendants' strongest showing was that traffic conditions would be increased however this is a matter that should be resolved by the City. The city planning director testified that, as to the area involved, the City's present plan was 'totally inadequate'; that except for the existing plan for state road A1A there were no additional plans, other than the present street system.
'* * *
'It is, therefore
'ADJUDGED that the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale rezone plaintiff's property in such a manner as will permit its use for hotels and apartments, height unlimited, such as R--4.' (Emphasis added.)
It is from this order that the present appeal has been taken by the defendants.
The following statement of facts is taken from the evidence which was presented to the trial court at the time of the hearing on the plaintiff's motion for summary post-decretal relief. The real property which is the subject matter of this action is located in the City of Fort Lauderdale. It has a thousand foot frontage on the Atlantic Ocean and is approximately 450 feet in width. On the west side of the property is Mayan Lake. Along the west boundary of Mayan Lake is a residential area containing single family dwellings in a subdivision known as Harbor Beach. Mayan Lake is about 200 feet wide and separates the plaintiff's property from the Harbor Beach Subdivision.
The surrounding zoning was described in the minutes of the planning and zoning board of the City of Fort Lauderdale which met to consider the plaintiff's application for R--4 zoning. The following is a quote from those minutes:
'Surrounding Area
Zoning: From the Port Everglades Inlet to this property there is approximately 2,000 feet of R--4 zoning, then this property unzoned and formerly R--1--A is 1,000 feet long, to the north is about 1,200 feet more of R--1--A, then 700 feet of R--4, and then about 2,800 feet of BahiaMar or South Beach Park, unzoned. No more private land abuts the beach until just south of Sunrise Blvd., which is zoned S--1. The next R--4 begins a mile north of Sunrise Blvd. West of Mayan Lake the area is zoned R--1--A.'
There are four multiple family zoning classifications in the City of Fort Lauderdale: R--4; R--3; R--3--A; and R--3--C. The characteristics of the classifications are as follows:
1. R--4. This permits hotels, motels, rooming houses, schools, private clubs, hospitals and many accessory uses such as bars and night clubs. There is essentially no limit on the height of buildings or on the dwelling unit density, that is, the number of dwelling units that may be built per net acre.
2. R--3. This classification permits apartments and multiple family dwellings. The height of buildings is limited to one hundred feet and the dwelling unit density is limited to 72 units per net acre for two bedroom apartments, 79 units for one bedroom apartments and 97 units for efficiency apartments.
3. R--3--A. This permits multiple family buildings and apartment houses, but imposes a height limit of 35 feet and a density limit of 36 dwellings per net acre.
4. R--3--C. This permits multiple family dwelling units with a height limit of 100 feet. Under this classification, plans for the development must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Lauderdale.
Section 326(a) of the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale (Special Acts of 1957, Chapter 57--1322) provides that applications for rezoning must be submitted to the planning and zoning board of the City of Fort Lauderdale. The planning and zoning board is charged with the duty of investigating the application for rezoning and providing the city commission with a recommendation on the application.
The minutes of the City Planning and Zoning Board meeting which considered the plaintiff's application for R--4 zoning contain a report that was made to the city by William C. Roop, the city planning director. Mr. Roop had been the city planning director since 1960. Before becoming the planning director for the City of Fort Lauderdale, he was the senior planning and civil engineer for the city planning department. He is a graduate of the University of Michigan and is registered as a civil engineer in the State of Florida. His report which is incorporated in the minutes of the City Planning and Zoning Board sets forth in detail considerations pertinent to the zoning of the plaintiff's property. It formed the basis of the recommendation by the City Planning and Zoning Board to the city commission.
Mr. Roop's report indicates that if the plaintiff's land were zoned and developed in a manner consistent with R--4, the traffic which the development would generate would exceed the capacity of the arterial streets in the immediate area of the land and would also create congestion along the access route leading to the arterial roads from the plaintiff's property. This could create a problem with respect to the use of the access route by emergency vehicles and private vehicles being used in emergencies.
The report indicates that various recognized authorities on housing and housing developments recommend a maximum density of dwelling units per net acre ranging from 60 to 100. The report points out that one study of the Honolulu Metropolitan area revealed a close relationship between overcrowding and the mental and physical health of persons subject thereto.
The city planner states that if the plaintiff's property is zoned R--4, its use could exceed the maximum dwelling unit density recommended by the various authorities in the field. The use of the property, however, in a classification of R--3--A, because of its limit on density, would create no problem with respect to density of population or traffic.
The City Planning and Zoning Board recommended to the city commission that the property in question be rezoned from R--1--A to R--3--A. The City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale met on 5 April 1966 to consider the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Board. Based on the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Board the city commission enacted an ordinance zoning the property R--3--A.
At the hearing on the motion for post-decretal relief, Mr. Roop testified on behalf of the city. His testimony closely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moviematic Industries Corp. v. Board of County Com'rs of Metropolitan Dade County, 76-983
...Inc., 216 So.2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); County of Brevard v. Woodham, 223 So.2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Watson v. Mayflower Property, Inc., 223 So.2d 368 (Fla 4th DCA 1969); City of Coral Gables v. Wood, 305 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) and E. B. Elliot Advertising Co. v. Metropolitan Dad......
-
City of Clearwater v. College Properties, Inc.
...So.2d 624; Smith v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 281; City of St. Petersburg v. Aikin, supra; Watson v. Mayflower Property, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 223 So.2d 368; City of Jacksonville v. Imler, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d Affirmed. LILES, A.C.J., concurs. MANN, J., dissents with opi......
-
Classy Cycles, Inc. v. Pan. City Beach
...of a local government to regulate uses that will cause traffic congestion through its land use code. See Watson v. Mayflower Prop. Inc. , 223 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).As previously stated, the Uniform Traffic Code itself recognizes an exemption for local government to reasonably exerc......
-
Orange County v. Butler Estates Corp., 75--553
...315 (Fla.1968); City of Miami Beach v. Wiesen, supra; City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, 71 So.2d 148 (Fla.1953); Watson v. Mayflower Property, Inc., 223 So.2d 368 (4th DCA Fla.1969); McCormick v. City of Pensacola, 216 So.2d 785 (1st DCA Fla.1968). Though a judicial forum might disagree with ......