Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/1995

Home

Page 2 -- August 15, 1995 Z.B. Ordinance -- Was Restriction on Bingo Games a Zoning Ordinance? M & A Management Corp. u City of Melbour~e, 653 So.2d ]050 (Florida) ]995 M&A Management Corp. rented space in a building in the city of Melbourne, Fla. The company subleased the building to a variety of chaiities that used it for bingo games. The property was being used four days a week. The property was in a general commercial district. Under the zoning ordi- nance, permitted uses in that zone included "[c]ommercial recreation struc- tures such as indoor theaters, bowling alleys and similar indoor recreational facilities." The certificate of occupancy for M&A's building stated the intended use for the property was a "bingo hall." The city enacted an ordinance that prohibited using any structure for bingo games more than two days a week. The city did not give M&A notice of the proposed ordinance, as the state required when a city enacted ordinances that "rezone[d] specific parcels.of private real property or... substantially change[d] permitted use categories in zoning districts." M&A claimed it could not stay in business if the use of the building was limited to two days a week. It said it had invested more than $200,000 on its bingo hall business venture. M&A sued, claiming the ordinance was invalid because the city failed to comply with the state law notice requirement. The city said the notice require- ment did not apply because the ordinance did not rezone property or substan- tially change permitted use categories. M&A asked the court for an order stopping the city from enforcing the ordinance while the lawsuit was pending. The court denied the request. M&A appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. M&A did not show it was likely to prove the ordinance was invalid because of the lack of notice. Therefore, the trial court properly denied its requested order. However, this limited holding did not necessarily mean the ordinance was valid. The city's enactment of the ordinance was not subject to the notice require- ment because it did not rezone property or substantially change permitted use categories. The ordinance's impact on M&A's use of the land did not make it a land use or zoning ordinance it was a regulatory ordinance. Its intent was to regulate the conduct of bingo games and bingo halls, not to regulate the use of land. The restriction applied throughout the city, not to specific zones or prop- erties, and the permitted use categories did not change. T.J.R. Holdi~g Co. Inc. ~:'Alqcht[a Cou~ty, 6]7 So.2d 798 (1993). Ordinance -- Landowner Challenges Limitations on Multifamily Zoning , ..d,~,rei~tal Buildi~g Co. b~c. v. Tow~ of North Salem, 625 N.Y.S. 2d 700 (Near York) 1995 The town of North Salem, N.Y., consisted of about 14,000 acres in