MARINE ATTRACTIONS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG BEACH, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL., 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.
Marine Attractions sought to operate a large-scale amusement park with rides on property zoned for recreational activities, claiming the expansion was permissible as a nonconforming use or an extension of its existing Aquatarium. The court affirmed the trial court's dissolution of a temporary injunction, holding that the amusement park was not a lawful extension of the existing use and that the city was not estopped from enforcing zoning restrictions.
The court held that operating a separate amusement park does not constitute a permissible extension of a nonconforming aquarium use, and the city was not estopped from enforcing the zoning ordinance because city officials, based on less than candid disclosure of appellant's actual plans, reasonably believed the appellant was installing only typical small-scale kiddie rides.
“But this doesn't mean that a corporation operating an aquarium attraction can build a separate amusement park and describe it as a use accessory to the nonconforming aquarium.”
Establishes that an amusement park cannot be justified as an extension of an existing aquarium use
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarine Attractions erected an Aquatarium in 1962 on property zoned for sports or recreational activities. The zoning ordinance was later amended to cl…
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 Accessory Use cases and more on FLexlaw
In 1962 appellant erected the Aquatarium on a site zoned for “sports or recreational activities.” Later the zoning ordinance was amended to include appellant’s land within a “tourist commercial district” and to provide that within such a zoning classi*338fication commercial amusements were to be permitted only as conditional uses after review by the Planning Board and approval by the City Council.
In December of 1968 Marine Attractions obtained an occupational license to operate “kiddie rides,” the fee therefor covering the operator, Marine Attractions, and ten devices. Early in January, the city took action to stop the erection of what seems a large-scale amusement park, with a ferris wheel and other rides patronized, according to one witness, by kids “from four to eighty-three.” Marine obtained a temporary injunction restraining the city from forbidding operation of its “kiddie rides and devices.” After hearing testimony the trial judge dissolved the injunction and this appeal ensued.
Marine argues that the amusement park is a permissible extension of its original use of the property, which had become nonconforming. Our courts have allowed, sensibly, a previously existing business to change its mode of operating the same business as circumstances require. Milling v. Berg, Fla.App. 1958, 104 So.2d 658. But this doesn’t mean that a corporation operating an aquarium attraction can build a separate amusement park and describe it as a use accessory to the nonconforming aquarium.
Appellant also argues that the city is estopped to forbid operation of the amusement park. Part of the estoppel argument rests on allowance of construction after the zoning ordinance amendment of tanks used in the aquarium operation and the construction of a “Museum of Life” which, like the amusement park, can be operated independently of the Aquatarium. The tanks might well be classified as accessory structures. The purpose of the building now housing the “Museum of Life” was not disclosed in the application for building permit, and the legality of its operation is not involved iji this litigation. The trial judge correctly held that the city is not estopped by this construction. Then the appellant argues that the city manager, mayor and a city councilman, as well as the occupational license clerk, had indicated, after a less than candid disclosure of appellant’s plans, that there would be “no problem.” This aspect of the estoppel argument rests on conflicting testimony, after hearing which the trial judge ruled that the city officials acquainted by the appellant’s agents with its plans were led to believe that the appellant contemplated installing the sort of kiddie rides usually found on supermarket sidewalks, put there to absorb a father’s dimes and a child’s attention while the mother shops. That finding is supported and we cannot disturb it. See Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning, cc. 23, 59.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.