TOWN OF PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ANNE BATES LEACH, 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.
The Town of Palm Beach appealed a decree requiring it to rezone plaintiff Anne Bates Leach's oceanfront property from Residence A to Residence C zoning. The court affirmed the rezoning, finding that the town's refusal to rezone was arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory given the significant changes in the surrounding area's character and use.
The court held that requiring plaintiff's property to remain zoned Residence A was arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory, and that the town failed to show a reasonable relationship between maintaining the Residence A restriction and the public health, morals, safety, or welfare sufficient to justify police power interference with the owner's right to Residence C zoning.
“To require that her property remain Residence A under the circumstances is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.”
The court's statement of the fundamental legal error in the town's zoning decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff owned a single-family residence at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Royal Palm Way in Palm Beach. When she purchased the property, the adja…
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 Arbitrary And Unreasonable Zoning cases and more on FLexlaw
The Town of Palm Beach, Florida, a municipal corporation, appeals a final decree requiring it to change the zoning classification on the property of the plaintiff, Anne Bates Leach, from “Residence A” to "Residence C”.
Plaintiff’s property is a single family residence located at the southwest comer of Ocean Boulevard and Royal Palm Way. Ocean Boulevard is an oceanfront street, and the home faces the ocean. Residence A is restricted to single family residence and certain other uses not important to this appeal. Residence C permits multiple family dwellings and other uses not important to this appeal.
At the time plaintiff purchased her property the property immediately to the south was vacant and zoned Residence C. At that time such classification permitted the construction of multiple family dwellings not exceeding three stories or forty feet in height. As a result of changes in the zoning ordinance and by variances being granted a four-story apartment house with a penthouse having a total height of 57 feet was constructed on said property.
A motel is located within one-half block west on Royal Palm Way. On the north side of Royal Palm Way within one-half block of plaintiff’s property a large brokerage firm operates a parking lot. On Ocean Boulevard in the block north of Royal Palm Way and within 200 feet thereof the city permitted the use of a part of certain lots for access to drive-in teller facilities of a large bank. In addition considerable frontage on Ocean Boulevard is zoned Residence C and thereby permits multiple family residential units.
As a result of the growth of the community, the cumulative effect of the changes in the zoning ordinances and the variances granted in the city’s zoning regulations, the character and use value as residential property of the plaintiff has been materially changed. To require that her property remain Residence A under the circumstances is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.
The city has shown no reasonable relationship between the needs of zoning restrictions and the public health, morals, safety or welfare sufficient to justify interference by exercise of the police power with the owner’s right to Residence C zoning classification. Although the case of Tollius v. City of Miami, Fla.1957, 96 So. 2d 122, presents a more flagrantly arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory exercise of municipal authority, the reasoning therein applies equally to the Leach property.
All other issues raised by this appeal have been considered. The holding herein makes discussion of such issues unnecessary.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manilow v. City OF Miami Beach, 213 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…96 So. 2d 122; Forde v. City of Miami Beach, 146 Fla. 676, 1 So. 2d 642 (1941); Town of Surfside v. Andrews, Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 207; Shearer v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 501; Town of Palm Beach v. Leach, Fla.App.1966, 185 So. 2d 743; Watson v. Mayflower Property, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 355; and Lawley v. Town of Golf view, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 767. The rationale applied in Kugel, supra, appears to be appropriate here. To deny the relief sought herein, as in Kugel,…
-
Martin Bros., Inc. v. City of S. Miami, 31 Fla. Supp. 187 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1968)…k ‘bear substantially on the public health, morals, safety or welfare of the community’ if the ordinance is to be sustained.” This rule was again affirmed in Fogg v. City of South Miami, 183 So. 2d 219 (Fla. App. 1966), Town of Palm Beach v. Leach, 185 So. 2d 743 (Fla. App. 1966), and in City of St. Petersburg v. Aikin, 208 So. 2d 268 (Fla. App. 1968). In the instant case it is not necessary for this court to decide whether the defendant city has sustained its burden, for the plaintiffs have clearly shown t…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. EL Paso Corp. & Arvida Corp., 232 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Tollius v. City of Miami, Fla.1957, 96 So. 2d 122; Town of Palm Beach v. Leach, Fla.App.1966, 185 So. 2d 743; Manilow v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App. 1968, 213 So. 2d 589.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gusto Tollius v. City OF Miami, 96 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1957)