PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
TERRELL, Acting C.J., CHAPMAN, ADAMS and ROBERTS, JJ., and LUCKIE, Associate Justice, concur.
THOMAS, Justice (concurring specially).
I have written many opinions upholding zoning restrictions, but I have ever been conscious of the fact that there is a point beyond which such regulations may not reach without bringing into play the constitutional protection of the property owner. As I understand the circumstances peculiar to this case the application of the Zoning Act, F.S.A. § 176.01 et seq., reduces to nothing any legitimate construction by the appellee on his 50-foot lot. It is to me obvious that when the zero mark is thus reached, it follows that the owner's constitutional guarantees are being invaded, and that the answer to all appropriate questions growing out of this controversy must therefore be favorable to him.