Case Name: WEBSTER OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1972-01-13
Citations: 256 So. 2d 556
Docket Number: No. 71-1105
Parties: WEBSTER OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation, Appellee.
Judges: Before SWANN, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 256
Pages: 556–559

Head Matter:
WEBSTER OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation, Appellee.
No. 71-1105.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 13, 1972.
Shutts & Bowen, and Thomas Britton, Miami, for appellant.
Alan H. Rothstein, City Atty., and Larry J. Hirsch, Asst. City Atty., for appellee.
Before SWANN, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellant owns and operates certain advertising display billboards in the City of Miami. The six signs involved here were declared to be nonconforming uses, some in 1961 and some in 1962, by ordinances which amended the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the city. Those amendatory ordinances did not provide any period after which the nonconforming signs would be required to be removed. On July 20, 1965, the city commission enacted an ordinance further amending its comprehensive zoning ordinance in a number of respects. Included therein was the following:
"Section 5. Article XXVIII — Non-Conforming Buildings and Uses, Section 3, is hereby amended by adding a new sub-paragraph (3), (b) as follows:
"(b) Any sign, except a roof sign, which may become non-conforming as a result of any amendments to this Ordinance shall be completely removed from the premises, or altered to conform, not later than five (5) years from the date on which such use becomes non-conforming. Roof signs, and their supporting members, shall be completely removed from the premises not later than twelve (12) years from the date on which they become non-conforming."
Thereafter that provision of the amend-atory ordinance of 1965 was codified in the comprehensive zoning ordinance to read as follows:
"(3) Continuation of Signs — Billboards
"(b) Any sign, except a roof sign, which may become non-conforming as a result of any amendments to this Ordinance shall be completely removed from the premises, or altered to conform, not later than five (5) years from the date on which such use becomes non-conforming. Roof signs, and their supporting members, shall be completely removed from the premises not later than twelve (12) years from the date on which they become nonconforming."
When five years had elapsed after the above amendatory ordinance of July 20, 1965, the city, by written communications on December 15, 1970, and January 8, 1971, called upon the appellant for the removal of the signs. The appellee did not comply with the city's demand for removal of the signs, but filed this action on January 13, 1971, seeking to have the 1965 removal ordinance declared to be unconstitutional, and to enjoin its enforcement. A preliminary injunction was issued. After final hearing a judgment was entered October 15, 1971, which dissolved the preliminary injunction and held the city was entitled to compel removal of the billboards.
On this appeal by the plaintiff below the argument is presented that the amendatory ordinance of July 20, 1965, cannot be the basis for removal of the previously declared nonconforming use signs for the reason, it is urged, that the 1965 amendment could only relate to such signs as should become or be declared nonconforming uses after the date of its passage on July 20, 1965.
A material factor here is that the July 20, 1965, amendatory ordinance, which fixed the five year limit for continuance of such nonconforming use signs, did not itself create or declare any signs to be nonconforming uses. Therefore, the reference in that amendment to signs "which may become non-conforming as a result of any amendments to this Ordinance" did not have reference to the said amendatory ordinance of 1965, but necessarily had reference to signs which were nonconforming under the comprehensive zoning ordinance as amended. Inasmuch as the signs involved in this case became nonconforming uses by amendments to the comprehensive zoning ordinance, the trial court was eminently correct in construing the ordinances, as read together, to entitle the city to compel the removal of such signs at a date which was more than five years after the passage of the amendatory ordinance which provided for their removal after such a five year period.
We approve the trial court's disposition of the questions presented, as disclosed in the extensive opinion judgment entered there.
Affirmed.