A. W. HARZ, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
G. P. PAXTON, ET AL., DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a mandamus petition challenging the City of Sanford's denial of a building permit for a filling station under ordinance 152. The court held that the city had proper authority to regulate building permits through zoning and ordinances, and that denial of the permit was not arbitrary or unreasonable given the hazardous nature of filling stations.
The city of Sanford had duly authorized the officials to regulate building permits through zoning ordinances, and the denial of the permit was not arbitrary or unreasonable. When regulating the issuance of permits for filling stations and public garages—which involve storage and handling of highly flammable and explosive substances and pose recognized public safety and health hazards—the city officials acted within their authority and did not abuse their discretion.
“the City of Sanford is fully authorized to zone the city and to regulate by ordinance the issuance of building permits such as are here involved”
Establishes the city's foundational authority to regulate permits through zoning ordinances
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff in Error (Harz) sought a building permit from the City of Sanford to construct a filling station. The city officials denied the permit under…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Zoning Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
Terrell, C. J.
In this cause writ of error was taken from an order of the Circuit Court of Seminole County, granting the motion of Defendants in Error to quash the alternative writ of mandamus and dismissing the petition of Plaintiff in Error. It is contended here that ordinance 152 of the City of Sanford, Florida, regulating the issuance of building permits prescribes no rule for the issuance of such permits but attempts to substitute a government by Boards and Commissions in lieu of a government by law, leaving the issuance of such permits subject to the arbitrary will of said Boards and Commissions, to be granted or refused subject to their whim and caprice.
The answer to this question is determined by deciding whether or not the City of Sanford had. duly authorized the Defendants in Error to issue building permits and whether or not' they had arbitrarily and unreasonably denied the Plaintiff in Error a permit in the instant case.
We have examined the record and it appears that the City of Sanford is fully authorized to zone the city and to regulate by ordinance the issuance of building permits such as are here involved. When the ordinance in question and the action of the city officials pursuant thereto are considered with reference to the rules applicable to the exercise of the police power in the regulation of the erection of filling stations and public garages, the operation of which involve acts which are generally recognized as potential menaces to the public safety and health because of the storage and handling therein of highly inflammable and explosive substances, it does not appear that in denying the permit here sought the respondent city officials have acted arbitrarily or unreasonably. See State ex rel. Lane v. Fleming, 225 Pac. Rep. 647, 34 A.
L. R. 500; A.
G. Construction Co. v. Scott, 136 Atl. Rep. 207; Cayce v. Hopkinsville, 289 S.
W. Rep. 223; State ex rel. Lieberman v. Van DeCarr, 199 U. S. 552, 50 L. Ed. 305; State v. Harrison, 114 So. R.
159. A different rule, however, might apply when buildings or businesses of innoxious character are involved. See State ex rel. Scotch Title Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U. S. -, 73 L. Ed. 39, Dillon Munic. Corp. (5th Ed.) See. 598.
The order quashing the alternative writ and dismissing the petition is affirmed.
Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Wi-iitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
N. BAY Vill. v. Blackwell, 88 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1956)…ld be inclined to affirm the decree of the Chancellor on the basis of our opinion in Drexel v. City of Miami Beach, Fla. 1953, 64 So. 2d 317. However, it does appear that the position of the appellant is supported by our opinions in Harz v. Pax-ton, 97 Fla. 154, 120 So. 3, and City of Miami Beach v. State, ex rel. Ross, 141 Fla. 407, 193 So. 543. In order to settle the law on this subject in the interest of consistency and for the future guidance of the Bar as well as mu [*526] nicipalities, we deem it ad…1 / 2
-
State ex rel. Dallas Inv. Co. v. Peace, 139 Fla. 394 (Fla. 1939)…ower is foreclosed by Section 5, Chapter 14234, Special Acts of 1929, and Section 3, Chapter 10847, Special Acts o£ 1925. A similar ordinance was upheld in City of Miami v. Direct Distributors, Inc., 134 Fla. 430, 183 So. 841 Harz v. Paxton, et al., 97 Fla. 154, 120 So. 3. The question of the City’s power to enact the ordinance being disposed of in the affirmative, the question of whether or not that power was exercised in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner becomes very narrow, besides being a delicate…
-
City OF Coral Gables v. Deschamps, 242 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…tandards, whether it is vested in an administrative [*214] body or retained by the legislature. North Bay Village v. Blackwell, Fla., 88 So. 2d 524, 526, following Drexel v. City of Miami Beach, Fla., 64 So. 2d 317, and receding from Harz v. Paxton, 97 Fla. 154, 120 So. 3, and City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Ross, 141 Fla. 407, 193 So. 543; see: Rathkopf, the Law of Zoning and Planning, Ch. 54, “Conditional Uses or Special Exception Permits,” esp. 54-34 et seq.; Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Ch. 1…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The People of the State of N.Y. Ex rel. Lieberman v. Van de Carr, 199 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1905)