William Murray Builders, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, O--356
| Decision Date | 09 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. O--356,O--356 |
| Parties | WILLIAM MURRAY BUILDERS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Boyer, Sulik & Nichols and Harold B. Haimowitz, Jacksonville, for appellant.
James C. Rinaman, Jr., David U. Tumin and Thomas D. Oakley, Jacksonville, for appellee.
William Murray Builders, Inc. appeals from a final judgment of the Circuit Court of Duval County holding the comprehensive zoning code of appellee to be valid and adjudging the appellee to be free from error in refusing to rezone appellant's property.
Appellant raises numerous contentions for our consideration which can be summarized as follows:
(1) The trial court erred procedurally with regard to the admission of certain evidence and its manner of final disposition of the cause;
(2) The trial court erred in holding appellee's comprehensive zoning code to be valid; and
(3) The trial court erred in holding the appellee to be free from error in its refusal to rezone appellant's property.
The first point above is substantially without merit and can be disposed of summarily.
It is next contended that appellee's entire comprehensive zoning code is invalid because appellee failed to comply with certain notice requirements as to the several ordinances which comprise said code. An examination of the record on appeal reveals that the final ordinance, Ordinance No. 69--794--517, reenacted several previous ordinances and, together with such prior ordinances, became the comprehensive zoning code of the City of Jacksonville, and that a seventeen day notice was published of a hearing for the purpose of consideration of the adoption of a new comprehensive zoning code. Said notice of hearing and the subsequent enactment of Ordinance No. 69--794--517 cured any defects in the previous zoning ordinances.
This brings us to appellant's final contention that the trial court erred in upholding appellee's refusal to act affirmatively on appellant's application for a rezoning of his property. In essence, appellant argues that appellee's comprehensive zoning code is invalid as applied to appellant's property, and that appellee's refusal to grant a rezoning of the area for apartment use was arbitrary, unreasonable and confiscatory. With this contention, we must agree.
Appellant is the owner of a thirty-five acre tract. Prior to July 1, 1968, said property was zoned 'agricultural' and residential apartments were a permissible use. On said date, the zoning regulations were amended by deleting apartments as a permissible use of property zoned 'agricultural.' Appellant filed an application to have its property rezoned for apartment use. During the pendency of this application, appellee adopted its comprehensive zoning code which restricted the use of appellant's property to single family dwellings. Appellant's application for rezoning was subsequently denied.
The character of the areas surrounding appellant's thirty-five acre tract is somewhat in dispute. Appellant claims that it is largely commercial as it contains the yards and railroad tracks of the Florida East Coast Railway, a gas station, a 7--11 Store, a large apartment complex and a septic tank outlet for a large sewage disposal plant. Appellee points out that the adjoining property, with the exception of 70 acres lying to the Northwest which is zoned and used for apartment use, is zoned either 'single family dwelling' or 'open rural'; that the railroad tracks lie some 500 feet from appellant's property; and that the sewage plant does not directly adjoin appellant's property.
Appellant's witnesses testified that the most logical, reasonable and feasible use of appellant's land would be for development of an apartment complex and that the area was not economically suitable for single family dwellings due to the structures on the surrounding areas. It was stated that houses in the area sold for less than the land development costs, that there was severe buyer resistance to homes previously constructed in that area and that, while financing would be readily available for apartment construction, it would not be available for single family development. And,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Indialantic v. McNulty
...(Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Rural New Town, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 315 So.2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); William Murray Builders, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 254 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Union Trust Co. v. Lucas, 125 So.2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960).22 Skaggs-Albertson's v. ABC Liquors, Inc., ......
-
Business Ventures, Inc. v. Iowa City
...be entitled to relief * * *'); People, Dept. of Pub. Wks. v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., supra; William Murray Bldrs., Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 254 So.2d 364 (Fla.Ct.App.1971); Bassey v. City of Huntington Woods, 344 Mich. 701, 74 N.W.2d 897 (1956); Reibel v. City of Birmingham, 23 M......
-
Davis v. Sails
...(Citing numerous cases; 239 So.2d at pages 517 and 518) Judge Johnson, speaking for this Court in William Murray Builders, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.App.1st 1971, 254 So.2d 364, succinctly summed up the law incident to zoning cases when he '* * * One's right to devote his real estat......
-
Moviematic Industries Corp. v. Board of County Com'rs of Metropolitan Dade County, 76-983
...Merritt v. Peters, 65 So.2d 861 (Fla.1953); Sunad, Inc. v. City of Sarasota, 122 So.2d 611 (Fla.1960); William Murray, Inc. v. Jacksonville, 254 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); City of Boca Raton v. Tradewind Hills, Inc., 216 So.2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); County of Brevard v. Woodham, 223 S......
-
A REIGN OF ERROR: PROPERTY RIGHTS AND STARE DECISIS.
...(quoting Watson v. Mayflower Prop., Inc., 177 So. 2d 355, 359 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)); William Murray Builders, Inc. v. Jacksonville, 254 So. 2d 364, 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971) (citing Henry, 158 So. 82); Mayflower Prop., Inc., 177 So. 2d at 359 (quoting 35 FLA. JUR., Zoning Laws [s......