PETE DONCH, A SINGLE MAN; GROVE BAY VILLAGE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; ALBERT MARGOLIS AND MILDRED MARGOLIS, HIS WIFE; CONRAD ROBINSON AND HELEN ROBINSON, HIS WIFE; AND HYMAN KIRSCHNER, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, APPELLEE
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.
Property owners challenged the City of Miami's decision to maintain single-family residential zoning on their ten-acre bayfront parcel when they sought reclassification to multiple-family use. The court affirmed the zoning decision, holding that the classification was 'fairly debatable' and that changing it would constitute impermissible spot zoning without broader area-wide changes.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment upholding the City's zoning classification as valid. The court held that the zoning classification was 'fairly debatable' and therefore the court should not interfere with the legislative body's decision to maintain the single-family residential zoning.
“it appears that at the present time the applicability of the zoning to the tract in question is "fairly debatable" and, therefore, the court should not interfere with the wisdom of the legislative body of the City in continuing this zoning on this parcel”
Establishes the standard of review and the court's deference to the City's zoning decision
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants owned a ten-acre rectangular parcel located along Biscayne Bay in southern Miami, bordered by South Bayshore Drive and Biscayne Bay. Th…
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 Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal, the appellants [plaintiffs in the trial court] seek review of an adverse final judgment wherein the trial court held valid a City of Miami zoning classification of appellants’ property. They sought a change from residential to multiple family.
The property involved is located along Biscayne Bay in the southern portion of the City of Miami. It is a rectangular parcel, generally lying in a northwesterly-southeasterly direction between South Bay-shore Drive and Biscayne Bay. It contains approximately ten acres. The property is completely surrounded by residential zoning to the northeast; immediately adjacent to the property are residences. Immediately adjacent to the southwest, part of a private school is located [which is a recognized use within a residential district]. Immediately south of the school property there is another developed residential subdivision of single family residences. To the southwest of this, along the bayfront, the City of Miami is developing a park and recreational and marina facilities, and the City is in the process of acquiring land for this purpose at this time. The general area involved in the use district has been built up with single family residences, although the City has seen fit to relax the zoning in certain areas in the vicinity to the northeast along the bay for multiple use.
It may well be that the area in which the subject property is located should be reexamined by the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Miami and the City Commission to determine whether or not single family residential zoning is still applicable to this entire use district. However, it appears that at the present time the applicability of the zoning to the tract in question is “fairly debatable” and, therefore, the court should not interfere with the wisdom of the legislative body of the City in continuing this zoning on this parcel. Without a change in the entire surrounding area, to permit the zoning to be altered on the parcel involved in this litigation would constitute spot zoning and, therefore, we refuse to interfere with the action of the trial judge in upholding the zoning classification. Harris v. City of Coral Gables, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 146; City of South Miami v. Alvin, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 386; Smith v. City of Miami Beach, Fla. App.1968, 213 So.2d 281, (opinion filed August 6, 1968).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burns v. Consol. Am. Ins. Co., 359 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…overage, his only duty is to inform the party of his inability within a reasonable time. Cat ’N Fiddle, Inc. v. Century Insurance Company, 200 So. 2d 208 (Fla.3d DCA 1967), vacated on other grounds, 213 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1968), modified and conformed, 214 So. 2d 503 (Fla.3d DCA 1968). Failure of an insured to take appropriate action when he.becomes aware that the coverage he thought he had was not obtained by the agent constitutes both a waiver of his right to performance under an alleged oral contract and an e…
-
City OF Coral Gables v. Wood, 305 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…wer without reference to public health, morals, safety or welfare. State ex rel. Helseth v. DuBose, 1930, 99 Fla. 812, 128 So. 4. See also Village of Virginia Gardens v. Johnson, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 692 and Donch v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 503. Aesthetic considerations have been held to be a valid basis for zoning in Florida. See Sunad, Inc. v. City of Sarasota, Fla.1960, 122 So. 2d 611; State ex rel. Boozer v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 449; Rotenberg v. City of Fort Pierce,…
-
Frazier v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 382 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…nderlying purpose of notice of cancellation, which is to enable the insured to obtain other insurance “before he is subjected to risk without protection.” Cat ’N Fiddle, Inc. v. Century Insurance Co., 213 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1968), judgment conformed to 214 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). There being sufficient evidence for the trial court to find actual notice, we affirm. AFFIRMED. LETTS and HURLEY, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. City OF Miami Beach, 213 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Harris v. City OF Coral Gables, 157 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- City OF S. Miami v. Alvin, 189 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)