SUNSET ISLANDS NO. 3 AND 4 PROPERTIES OWNERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI BEACH YACHT CLUB AND CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, APPELLEES
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.
A property owners' association challenged Miami Beach's 1971 comprehensive zoning ordinance, arguing the city failed to provide required mail notice. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that mail notice requirements apply only to site-specific zoning changes, not to the repeal and replacement of a comprehensive zoning ordinance.
The court held that mail notice is not required for the repeal and replacement of a comprehensive zoning ordinance. Mail notice provisions apply only to site-specific zoning changes affecting a limited area of property. Publication notice is all that is required for enacting a comprehensive zoning ordinance.
[1] A municipality complies with notice requirements for enacting a comprehensive zoning ordinance when it provides publication notice, even if a prior ordinance contained a…
[2] Publication notice is sufficient for the enactment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance, as distinct from amendments affecting only limited areas.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The plain and obvious meaning of the repealed zoning ordinance, see Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of North Miami, 286 So.2d 552 (Fla.1973), as the trial court found, is that publication notice is all that is required in enacting a comprehensive zoning ordinance.”
Establishes the court's interpretation that publication notice, not mail notice, is required for comprehensive 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 intelligenceIn 1971, the City of Miami Beach enacted a new comprehensive zoning ordinance to replace its existing comprehensive zoning ordinance. The plaintiff pr…
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 Declaratory Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the dismissal of the plaintiff property owners’ association’s amended complaint for declaratory relief, upon a holding that the defendant City of Miami Beach complied with the notice requirements imposed by its city charter and ordinances when it enacted a comprehensive zoning ordinance in 1971 to replace the then-existing comprehensive zoning ordinance. See Gulf & Eastern Development Corp. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 354 So. 2d 57 (Fla.1978). The appellant’s contention that repeal and replacement of the ordinance in question required mail notice is erroneous.
The plain and obvious meaning of the repealed zoning ordinance, see Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of North Miami, 286 So. 2d 552 (Fla.1973), as the trial court found, is that publication notice is all that is required in enacting a comprehensive zoning ordinance. The mailed notice provision of the repealed ordinance applies only to “site-specific” changes affecting only a limited area of property.1 Cf. Claremont Taxpayers Association v. City of Claremont, 223 Cal.App.2d 589, 35 Cal.Rptr. 907 (1963) (mailed notice requirements for changes to a limited area of property do not apply to the repeal and replacement of comprehensive zoning ordinance); Wanamaker v. City Council of El Monte, 200 Cal.App.2d 453, 19 Cal.Rptr. 554 (1962) (mailed notice requirement for amendment to zoning ordinance did not apply to enactment of new, complete and comprehensive plan which would affect all property within the city).
The order of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.
. Section 21 of the repealed City of Miami Beach Ordinance 289 provides:
Upon its own initiative, or upon the petition of the owners of a majority of frontage in any area, the City Council may after having held a public hearing following at least fifteen (15) days notice of the time, place and object of such hearing published in an official paper, or a place of general circulation in said City of Miami Beach, amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the regulations and boundaries herein established, provided, however, that no amendment shall become effective except by the favorable vote of five-sevenths (½) of all the members of the City Council. And, provided further, that if the hearing is to be on a question of a change in the boundaries herein established, then such fifteen (15) days notice shall be given by mail to the owners of record of land lying within 375 feet of the land, the boundaries of which propose to be changed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rinker Materials Corp. v. City OF N. Miami, 286 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1973)
- Gulf & E. Dev. Corp. v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 354 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1978)