City of Miami Beach v. Royal Castle System, Inc.
126 So. 2d 595 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a zoning ordinance uses a common term, such as 'restaurant,' without providing a specific definition, the term must be interpreted and enforced according to its ordinary and generally accepted meaning. An administrative body cannot substitute its own narrow or subjective interpretation to deny a permitted use.
Facts:
- Royal Castle System, Inc. operates a chain of lunch-counter-style eating places.
- Royal Castle owned a lot in Miami Beach that was located in a 'BAA' business district.
- The City of Miami Beach's zoning ordinance permitted 'restaurants' in a BAA district but did not provide a definition for the term.
- Royal Castle applied for a permit to build an establishment on its lot.
- The proposed establishment would be air-conditioned, feature ten counter seats for indoor service, and require customers to park and enter the building to be served.
- The menu would consist of items such as hamburgers, juices, eggs, bacon, coffee, pies, soup, and pastries.
Procedural Posture:
- Royal Castle System, Inc. applied to the City of Miami Beach for a building permit.
- The City of Miami Beach Board of Adjustment denied the permit.
- Royal Castle System, Inc. petitioned the circuit court (trial court of general jurisdiction) for a writ of certiorari to review the Board's decision.
- The circuit court granted the petition, quashed the Board's order, and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings.
- The City of Miami Beach and its Board of Adjustment, as appellants, appealed the circuit court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a zoning board's denial of a building permit for a counter-service eating establishment, based on its subjective conclusion that the establishment is not a 'restaurant' under a zoning ordinance that permits restaurants but does not define the term, violate the essential requirements of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Carroll
Yes. A zoning board's denial of a permit based on its own narrow and subjective interpretation of an undefined term like 'restaurant' violates the essential requirements of law. Because the zoning ordinance does not define 'restaurant,' the board is bound by the term's ordinary and usual meaning. The court referenced dictionary definitions, definitions from other state statutes, and case law from other jurisdictions, all of which define a restaurant broadly as a place where food and refreshments are served to the public, regardless of whether service is at a counter or a table. The City Attorney's attempt to exclude an establishment based on a qualitative judgment about 'the mass production and consumption of the commodity known as the hamburger' was improper. The court concluded that no reasonable person could find that the proposed Royal Castle operation was not a restaurant.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental principle of statutory interpretation known as the plain meaning rule, applying it to administrative zoning decisions. It limits the discretion of zoning boards, preventing them from making arbitrary decisions based on subjective, aesthetic, or class-based preferences not articulated in the ordinance. The case establishes that administrative bodies must adhere to the common understanding of legislative language, ensuring predictability for property owners and developers. This precedent makes it more difficult for municipalities to use vague, undefined terms in zoning codes as a pretext to exclude disfavored but legally permissible businesses.
