Moviematic Industries Corp. v. Board of County Commissioners
1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16536, 349 So. 2d 667, 8 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20035 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning regulation enacted to preserve the ecological balance of an area and protect the public water supply is a valid exercise of the state's police power. Such a regulation does not constitute a compensable taking unless it deprives the landowner of all beneficial use of the property.
Facts:
- Moviematic Industries Corporation purchased 1,200 acres of undeveloped property zoned for heavy industrial use (IU-2) with a special exception for a business airport.
- The property is located in a remote area of west Dade County and overlies the Biscayne Aquifer, a primary source of drinking water for the county.
- The land contains a natural blue-green algae mat, or periphyton, which acts as a biological filter for pollutants in the groundwater.
- Dade County imposed a building moratorium on the area to conduct a comprehensive study on protecting the fresh water supply and local ecosystems.
- Following the study, county departments recommended rezoning Moviematic's property to GU, an interim classification permitting single-family residential use on minimum five-acre lots.
- At a public hearing, the county commission heard expert testimony about the unique geology of the aquifer, its susceptibility to contamination, and the importance of the periphyton mat.
- The commission adopted resolution Z-115-75, which rezoned the property from IU-2 to GU and terminated the special permit for airport uses.
- For over ten years of ownership, Moviematic had not taken any concrete steps to develop the property for industrial purposes.
Procedural Posture:
- Moviematic Industries Corporation petitioned the circuit court for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of Dade County's zoning resolution Z-115-75.
- The circuit court, acting as the court of first instance, denied the petition and upheld the validity of the resolution.
- Moviematic Industries Corporation, as appellant, sought review of the circuit court's order in the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a county zoning resolution that substantially downzones a property from heavy industrial use to low-density residential use to protect the public water supply and preserve the area's ecological balance constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation?
Opinions:
Majority - Haverfield, J.
No. A zoning resolution that rezones property based on ecological concerns and the protection of the public water supply is a valid exercise of the state's police power and does not constitute an unconstitutional taking. Zoning regulations are legitimate exercises of police power when reasonably related to public health, safety, and welfare. The court explicitly holds that preserving an adequate water supply and the ecological balance of an area are valid objectives under the general welfare prong. The court adopts the view that it should take 'ecological notice' in zoning matters, recognizing that long-term public interests in environmental protection can subordinate an owner's immediate interest in maximizing property value. To be a confiscatory taking, a regulation must preclude all reasonable uses of the property. Here, the GU classification still permits residential development, and Moviematic failed to demonstrate that the property could not be put to any reasonable use under the new zoning. A mere reduction in market value or the preclusion of the property's highest and best use is insufficient to establish a taking.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally recognizing ecological preservation as a legitimate basis for zoning regulations under a state's police power. It broadens the traditional concept of 'general welfare' to include environmental protection, giving municipalities greater authority to enact restrictive land-use ordinances to protect sensitive natural resources. The decision reinforces the high threshold for regulatory takings claims, clarifying that a landowner must prove a complete deprivation of all reasonable economic use, not merely a diminution in value. This precedent strengthens the hand of local governments in balancing private property rights with the public interest in environmental conservation.
