Whether a pick-up truck could be parked in a residential neighborhood was the subject of Florida's Third District Court of Appeals' recent opinion in Metropolitan Dade County v. Goldberg, ____ So.2d ____, 21 Fla.L.Weekly D2413 (November 21, 1996). A trial judgement was entered for the County. However, the trial court permitted Mr. Goldberg to keep three business type vehicles at his residence if they were draped and covered.

A crucial issue at the appellate level was what type of vehicles were prohibited. The applicable zoning ordinance prohibited any "truck, heavy equipment, or similar vehicle" on the property. Significantly, both the Court and the County agreed that this prohibition did not apply to "light vehicles like Goldberg's pick-up, van or Ford Bronco." The court explained:

Many homeowners commute to and from work in such light vehicles. In would be anomalous to allow homeowners to use a light pick-up or van to commute to or from work, but prohibit a homeowner from having such a vehicle if the homeowner also has a business telephone. We agree with the County that this particular proscription in subsection 33-199(4) is intended to preserve the aesthetics of single family neighborhoods and is intended to prohibit heavy trucks and equipment which would be out of place there.

Of significance is the decision's apparent contradiction concluding that the ordinance was intended to preserve residential aesthetics, but only allowing the ordinance to apply to heavy trucks and equipment.

Notably the Goldberg appellate court cited no decisional law in support of its determination. Distinguishing the decision from most homeowner community situations, it would appear that the ordinance was designed to allow business telephone usage in residential areas, but to prohibit parking of business related vehicles.

The Goldberg decision appears to follow, though it does not expressly rely upon a similar decision of Proctor v. Coral Springs, 396 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 4 DCA 1981). In the Proctor decision a Coral Springs zoning ordinance which prohibited the parking of commercial vehicles was reviewed. The ordinance was held to be unconstitutional when applied to a pick-up truck not used for commercial purposes and which did not have commercial markings.

It is important for associations and property owners to realize that neither the Goldberg nor Proctor decisions automatically prohibit associations from enforcing truck restrictions. For example, in Henley v. City of Cape Coral, 292 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2 DCA 1974), a community-wide deed restriction prohibiting trucks was upheld. The Henley decision noted that even a broader ordinance prohibiting commercial vehicles would also be enforceable; however, the later ordinance could not be applied to, for example, station wagons which do not provide an outward appearance of being used in a business.

Following Henley which involved a vehicle located on Florida's east coast, a Coral Gables zoning ordinance prohibiting campers was found to be enforceable as "preventing unsightly appearances and diminution of property values which obtain when camper-type vehicles are parked or stored out of doors and in a residential area of the community. City of Coral Gables v. Wood, 305 So. 2d 261, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1974). The Wood court proceeded to note:

The reasonableness of the prohibitory enactment is evidenced by the fact that the storage of such vehicles is permitted within a garage or other structure. The defendant was not deprived of a right to own the Apache vehicle or to store it on his premises; he was only restricted from indulging in a use that would impinge upon the rights of other property owners.

Id. at 263-264.