Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Campbell v. Monroe County
Citation: 426 So. 2d 1158Docket: 82-724
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 7, 1983; Florida; State Appellate Court
The case involves Ruth Campbell and Structural Homes, Inc. appealing an order that denied them injunctive relief after their application to construct a modular home in an RU-1M zoned area was rejected by Monroe County's Building Department. The appellants argued that the ordinance governing the zoning district was enacted solely for aesthetic uniformity and did not intend to restrict specific building materials or techniques. Monroe County defended its actions by citing Florida Statutes, asserting its authority to enforce local zoning and aesthetic standards. The court acknowledged that counties can enforce zoning laws primarily focused on aesthetic appearances, provided they do not violate due process. However, the court emphasized that Florida Statute Section 553.38(2) mandates local authorities to enforce building regulations without discrimination based on construction type. The statute also empowers the State Department of Community Affairs to regulate the structural integrity of factory-built housing. The court noted that local governments can impose stricter building requirements only under specific conditions, ensuring that such regulations do not discriminate against any construction methods. Testimony revealed that the county's Building Official found the modular homes to be structurally sound and compliant with local building codes, indicating that the enforcement of the zoning ordinance could conflict with state regulations concerning manufactured housing. A witness confirmed that masonry and structural construction can appear identical from a distance, indicating that the distinction between the two is not primarily aesthetic. The core issue revolves around the zoning ordinance’s requirement for masonry construction, which the trial court deemed valid despite the construction being deemed "strong" but not strictly masonry. The court asserted that such zoning requirements are not arbitrary and do not violate Florida statutes. However, it was emphasized that ordinances must not contradict state laws and any ambiguities should favor the statute over the ordinance. The court noted that while the ordinance could serve to maintain neighborhood character, its enforcement in this case unjustly excluded certain factory-built housing techniques. No local conditions justified the exclusive requirement for masonry, as alternative approved construction methods were available. Ultimately, Section 19-195 of the Monroe County Code was deemed void as applied, since the requirement for masonry construction lacked justification in terms of aesthetics or safety, effectively discriminating against factory-built housing. The decision was reversed and remanded, highlighting that the challenged ordinance aimed to restrict residential development purely to masonry-built homes for aesthetic reasons, without adequate local justification. Consent from at least 50% of property owners is required for the RU-1M classification, which aims to maintain property values by ensuring new structures align with the existing architectural and functional standards of the neighborhood. The RU-1 zoning designation allows for single-family residential housing, while RU-1M mandates that all homes be built of masonry up to the roof line. According to Florida Statutes (553.38), the Department of Community Affairs is responsible for establishing rules to ensure the safety and structural integrity of manufactured buildings, while local authorities retain control over land use, zoning, and architectural standards, ensuring these regulations are uniformly enforced without bias towards building types. Additionally, Florida Statutes (553.73) allow local governments to implement stricter building codes than the State Minimum Building Codes if justified by local conditions, provided these requirements are not discriminatory against specific construction methods or materials.