CITY OF HOLLYWOOD
v.
RIX
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 Supreme Court of Florida held that a city zoning ordinance was invalid because it was enacted without the required public notice and hearing. The court found that the state legislature had not granted the city the authority to bypass these procedural requirements.
No, the City of Hollywood did not have the authority to enact a zoning ordinance without complying with the notice and public hearing requirements of the general state law. The specific legislative act authorizing the creation of a planning board did not grant the city power to bypass these procedural safeguards.
“no such regulation, restriction, or boundary shall become effective until after a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard”
This quote establishes the mandatory requirement for public hearings under the general state zoning law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Hollywood enacted zoning Ordinance No. 872 without providing public notice or holding a public hearing. The city argued that a prior ordin…
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 Ordinances cases and more on FLexlaw
Leonard Robbins, Hollywood, for Byron H.
Rix and others.
Mather & Sauls, Hollywood, for William F. King and others.
ROBERTS, Justice.
The sole question here presented is the validity vel non of Ordinance No. 872 of the City of Hollywood, which was a zoning ordinance passed and adopted by the City Commission without notice and public hearing.
In 1939, by Chapter 19539, Chapter 176, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A., the Legislature conferred on all the cities and towns of this state the power to enact zoning ordinances.
It was expressly provided in the Act, Section 176.05, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A., that "no such regulation, restriction, or boundary shall become effective until after a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard", and that "At least fifteen days' notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be published * * *."
Two years later, in 1941, by Chapter 21301, the City Commission of the City of Hollywood was expressly authorized and required by the Legislature to appoint a City Planning and Zoning Board.
This Act, in addition to prescribing the membership and terms of office of the Board, further provided that the Board "shall be invested with such power and authority concerning, related to, or connected with, City planning and zoning, as shall be defined and prescribed by City Ordinance".
The City thereupon, by Ordinance No. 508, created a City Planning and Zoning Board, defined its powers and duties, and prescribed certain rules and regulations for the performance thereof.
By an amendatory ordinance, No. 585, it was provided that, in making zoning recommendations "which may be initiated by a member or members of the City Planning and Zoning Board, it shall not be necessary for the City Planning and Zoning Board to publish any notice of such recommendation or of such amendment or change in any manner whatsoever."
It is the contention of the City that the provisions of Ordinance No. 585 and Chapter 21301, Acts of 1941, supra, authorize the City Commission to enact zoning ordinances without notice and public hearing in those cases where the ordinance is based on a recommendation initiated by a member or members of the City Planning and Zoning Board.
We are unable to sustain this contention.
Nowhere in Chapter 21301, Acts of 1941, is the City of Hollywood expressly granted the power to enact zoning ordinances, either with or without notice and public hearing.
This Act dealt solely with the creation and organization of a City Planning and Zoning Board by the City of Hollywood.
Since the City already had the power, under the provisions of general law, Chapter 19539, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1939, now appearing as Chapter 176, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A., to enact zoning ordinances, as well as to appoint a Zoning Commission, we conceive that the Legislature intended, in the enactment of Chapter 21301, Acts of 1941, merely to authorize the City to deviate from the provisions of general law respecting Zoning Commissions.
Even if the Legislature could validly authorize the City to enact zoning ordinances without notice and public hearing which we do not here decide it has not been made to appear that it has done so.
We hold, therefore, that the City of Hollywood was not authorized to enact a *137 zoning ordinance without complying with the applicable provisions of the general law, Section 176.05, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A., and that the final decree declaring invalid Ordinance No. 872 of the City of Hollywood should be and it is hereby Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bregar v. Britton, 75 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1954)…the words “drive-in theater” cannot prevail because it was clearly stated in the notice that the. petition upon which the hearing was to be held was an application “to re-zone from A to C-3” as in fact it was. Compare City of Hollywood v. Rix, Fla., 52 So. 2d 135, in which the statutory notice and hearing requirements were not observed. The intervenors cannot be heard to complain of' this result, for the statutory notice requirements promulgated for their benefit were followed, and they made out no case bel…
-
Gulf & E. Dev. Corp. v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 354 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1978)…uctions to remand to the trial court for reinstatement of its judgment. It is so ordered. OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and KARL, JJ., concur. . See Town of Hillsboro Beach v. Weaver, 77 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1955); City of Hollywood v. Rix, et ux., 52 So. 2d 135 (Fla.1951); Bal Harbour Village v. State ex rel. Giblin, 299 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Rhodes v. City of Homestead, 248 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Florida Tallow Corporation v. Bryan, 237 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); City of Miami Beach…
-
City OF Miami Beach v. State of Fla. ex rel. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., 108 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…ublic from a hasty or ill advised use of the authority. We therefore hold that ordinance No. 1312 passed as an emergency measure without notice or public hearing, as required for all zoning ordinances, is invalid. City of Hollywood v. Rix, Fla.1951, 52 So. 2d 135; Town of Hillsboro Beach v. Weaver, Fla. 1955, 77 So. 2d 463. Therefore this ordinance could not operate to deprive the appellee of the right to a building permit if appellee otherwise complied with the provisions of the applicable statutes and ordi…
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
- City of Hollywood v. Rix, 52 So.2d 135 (Fla. 1951)