CITY OF MARY ESTHER, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
TRINGAS THEATRES, INC. AND T. G. SOLOMAN, 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.
The City of Mary Esther appealed a trial court judgment invalidating a residential zoning classification applied to Tringas Theatres' property. The trial court found the zoning unreasonably restricted the property's use with no bearing on public health, safety, or welfare, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no error.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment that the residential zoning classification was unreasonable as applied to the appellees' property, unreasonably restricted its use, had no bearing on public health, safety, comfort, morals, or public welfare, and was void as applied to the property.
[1] A zoning ordinance is an unreasonable exercise of power and void as applied to a specific property when it unreasonably restricts the property's use without bearing on pu…
[2] A zoning classification is arbitrary and discriminatory when there is no reasonable use of the land except for a different classification, and the existing classification…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 evidence adduced establishes that there is no reasonable use of Plaintiffs' land except for commercial purposes; that residential zoning as applied to said property unreasonably restricts the use of that property without any bearing on the public health, safety, comfort, morals or public welfare”
The trial court's factual finding that formed the basis for invalidating the zoning ordinance
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe subject property was zoned residential under the city's zoning code, which provides only for "R" (residential) or "C" (commercial) classifications…
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
PER CURIAM.
By this appeal we review a final judgment entered in the Circuit Court in a zoning contest. Appellant’s zoning code makes no provision for degrees of commercial classification nor residential classification. Property is zoned “R” for residential or “C” for commercial. The subject property was zoned residential. Appellees sought to have it rezoned to a commercial classification. The evidence revealed that the subject property is bordered by a school on the east, a heavily traveled highway on the south and vacant land on the west and north. The vacant land to the west of the subject property is zoned “R” but is bordered by commercial property. The vacant land to the north of the subject property is a 400 foot strip anticipated to be used for a road right-of-way, to the north of which is 60 acres of land recently zoned by appellant for commercial usage. Across the highway from the subject property is a cemetery.
The trial judge heard the evidence and specifically found in his final judgment:
“The evidence adduced establishes that there is no reasonable use of Plaintiffs’ land except for commercial purposes; that residential zoning as applied to said property unreasonably restricts the use of that property without any bearing on the public health, safety, comfort, morals or public welfare; and that to deny such zoning change would be arbitrary and discriminatory to Plaintiffs.”
Based upon that finding the final judgment adjudged the ordinance imposing the residential zoning classification “to be an unreasonable exercise of power of Defendant as applied to Plaintiffs’ land, and unreasonably restricts the use of said property without any bearing on the public health, safety, comfort, morals or public welfare, and is void as applied to Plaintiffs’ land.”
We find no error. Affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and BOYER and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Mary Esther v. Tringas Theatres, Inc., 312 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1975)…Certiorari denied. 301 So. 2d 500. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, OVERTON, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.…