1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (reinstating administrative agency’s denial of a special exception to develop land with an industrial-looking mini self-storage facility, finding that aesthetics may be properly considered by the agency); Campbell v. Monroe County, 426 So.2d 1158, 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“We agree that a Florida county may enforce zoning requirements which primarily regulate aesthetic appearances.”) (emphasis added); Lamar-Orlando Outdoor Adver. v. City of Ormond Beach, 415 So.2d 1312, 1316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (upholding an ordinance banning billboards and off-site advertising in Ormond Beach, a primarily residential community, as a valid exercise of the police power); Moviematic Indus. Corp. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Metro. Dade County, 349 So.2d 667, 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (<HOLDING>); Wood, 305 So.2d at 263 (recognizing that
holding that ordinance conferred unbridled discretion where issuance of permit was subject to broad findings that proposed use will not have a harmful effect upon the health or welfare of the general public and will not be detrimental to the welfare of the general public and will not be detrimental to the aesthetic quality of the community or the surrounding land uses holding that while general objections are discouraged they are valid to preserve error when the ground of the objection is apparent holding that an ordinance passed for the health and comfort of the community that prohibited brickmaking in a designated area was a valid exercise of police power holding that the burden of overcoming a zoning ordinances presumption of validity is satisfied when it is shown that the ordinance does not bear a substantial relation to the public health safety morals or general welfare holding that zoning regulations which tend to preserve the residential or historical character of a neighborhood andto enhance the aesthetic appeal of a community are considered valid exercises of the public power as relating to the general welfare of the community