State Ex Rel. Gardner v. Sailboat Key
295 So. 2d 658 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A land use that is permitted by a municipal zoning ordinance is not thereby immunized from judicial inquiry and may be abated by a court if it is found to constitute a public nuisance.
Facts:
- Sailboat Key, Inc. owned Fair Isle, an undeveloped island in Biscayne Bay located several hundred feet offshore from a residential section of Miami.
- The City of Miami rezoned Fair Isle to a classification permitting the construction of four high-rise residential buildings, two of forty stories and two of thirty-six stories.
- The proposed development was intended to house approximately three thousand people and include social clubs, nightclubs, and a marina.
- A bridge was planned to connect the island to the mainland, with a street providing access through the existing residential neighborhood.
- Frank C. Gardner and other residents of the mainland area anticipated that the development would create a nuisance and harm their community.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank C. Gardner and other citizens (plaintiffs) filed a four-count complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Sailboat Key, Inc. in a Florida trial court.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
- The trial court dismissed the third count of the complaint, which alleged a public nuisance, with prejudice.
- The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the third count 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 municipal zoning ordinance that permits a specific land use automatically prevent that use from being declared and abated as a public nuisance in a lawsuit brought by a citizen in the name of the state?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (On Rehearing)
No. A given activity may constitute a judicially abatable public nuisance notwithstanding its compliance with a municipal zoning ordinance. The court's initial opinion, which held that a use of property in compliance with zoning could not be abated as a nuisance, was incorrect. The court's prior reliance on National Container Corporation was misplaced because the legislative authority in that case was derived from organic law (the state constitution), a higher authority than a municipal ordinance. The court adopted the reasoning of State ex rel. Shevin v. Tampa Electric Company, which held that an activity can be a judicially abatable nuisance even if it complies with legislative or administrative rules. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the count alleging a public nuisance on the grounds that the project was authorized by zoning.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that zoning is not an absolute shield against public nuisance claims. It establishes that the legislative function of zoning and the judicial function of abating nuisances are separate inquiries. This ruling empowers courts to look beyond mere compliance with local ordinances and examine the actual or threatened real-world impact of a development on the community. The case prevents municipalities from effectively 'zoning in' a public nuisance, ensuring that citizens have a judicial remedy to protect their communities from harmful land uses, even if those uses have received local governmental approval.
