Case Name: MERRITT v. PETERS et al.
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1953-06-02
Citations: 65 So. 2d 861
Docket Number: 
Parties: MERRITT v. PETERS et al.
Judges: ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, SE-BRING, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 65
Pages: 861–864

Head Matter:
MERRITT v. PETERS et al.
Supreme Court of Florida, en Banc.
June 2, 1953.
Rehearing Denied July 10, 1953.
Robert F. Underwood, Knight, Smith & Underwood, Miami, for appellant.
Hudson & Cason, Miami, for appellees.

Opinion:
THOMAS, Justice.
The appellant's property, situated in Dade County, was placed by the county commissioners in a zone designated as "B U 2,'' where, to quote from the stipulated facts, "limited and special business may be conducted, including motels."
Under the authority grapted by Chapter 17833, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1937, the commissioners adopted certain regulations governing the erection of commercial signs in the territory among which was one that these signs should not be larger than forty square feet. Notwithstanding this specification the appellant erected on his property a sign more than four times that size. A real controversy then arose between the appellant and appellees so this suit was instituted by the former to secure a determination of the constitutionality of the rule which interfered with the use of property by dictating to owners the maximum area of the sign boards they could erect.
The appellant insists that the regulation was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the police power by the county because there was no relationship between the. object of the rule, and the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public. He frankly recognizes the authority of the county to create a zoning commission to promulgate reasonable regulations "with respect to the size and dimensions of sign boards and bill boards " and he does not question the overall zoning plan adopted pursuant to legislative enactment. His argument proceeds plausibly toward the elimination, one by one, of the familiar elements warranting the exercise of the police power in zoning, i. e., public health, morals, safety and welfare.
We have no hesitancy in agreeing with him that the factors of health, safety and morals are not involved in restricting the proportions of a sign board, but we disagree with him in his position that the restriction cannot be sustained on aesthetic grounds alone. In City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480, 3 So.2d 364, we think we decided the point contrary to' the appellant's view. We held in that case that attractiveness of a community like Miami Beach was of prime concern to the whole people and therefore affected the welfare of all. We think the principle applies to the territory across the bay where the appellant's property is situated. All in the area are regulated alike in the use of their property in constructing signs; all will profit if all obey; all will suffer if none is restricted.
We must hold that although safety, morals and health qf the general public in 'the territory do not demand the restriction, the general welfare does and that the chancellor ruled quite correctly when he dismissed the bill of complaint seeking to restrain enforcement of the regulation on the ground that it was a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, SE-BRING, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.
BARNS, J., dissents. .