Facts
- Moviematic Industries Corporation owned about 1,200 acres of undeveloped land in unincorporated west Dade County, Florida.
- The property was zoned IU-2 (heavy industrial) and had a special exception allowing business-airport uses.
- The land sat over the Biscayne Aquifer, a major source of county drinking water.
- In 1974, the County imposed a temporary building moratorium over a large area, including the property, to complete a comprehensive study aimed at protecting the freshwater supply and related ecosystems.
- After the study, county departments recommended rezoning the property from IU-2 to GU (an interim general-use classification allowing single-family residences on minimum five-acre lots) and terminating the airport-related special exception.
- Following a public hearing with expert testimony supporting the change and opposition evidence from Moviematic, the County adopted Resolution Z-115-75 implementing the rezoning and terminating the special exception.
- Moviematic contended the new classification and water-protection constraints left it without an economically viable use.
Issues
- Whether the rezoning and termination of the special exception bore a reasonable relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, or instead constituted arbitrary and unreasonable action.
- Whether the rezoning imposed such an extreme restriction on the property’s beneficial use that it amounted to an uncompensated taking under the United States and Florida Constitutions.
Decision
- The District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s denial of certiorari and left Resolution Z-115-75 in effect.
- The court held the downzoning and termination of the special exception were reasonably related to protecting the county’s freshwater supply and environmental conditions and thus were a valid exercise of the police power.
- The court rejected the takings claim because the GU classification still permitted reasonable use (including low-density residential development), and the regulation did not approach confiscation.
Legal Principles
- Local zoning enactments are presumed valid; the challenger bears the burden to show the regulation is arbitrary, unreasonable, or confiscatory.
- A zoning change satisfies substantive due process if it is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, including protection of public drinking-water sources and environmental resources.
- A regulation does not constitute a taking merely because it reduces property value or eliminates the most profitable use; a taking typically requires near-total deprivation of reasonable economic use.
Conclusion
The court upheld the County’s environmentally motivated downzoning of land over a critical aquifer and found no unconstitutional taking where the property retained permissible residential uses under the new zoning classification.