Petition for Writ of
Certiorari to Review Quasi-Judicial Action: Agencies, Boards, and Commissions
of Local Government: JURISDICTION- Because
the Board of County Commissioners remanded the Project to the County
Development Review Committee DRC the
Board has retained administrative jurisdiction over the matter- Where a lower
body has not had an opportunity to rule on an issue and has retained
jurisdiction, the matter is not ripe for review by certiorari, and dismissal
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate. Since the Board has not completely . Petition
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
vs. CASE NO; 51-2006-CA-22WS
Through its BOARD OF
MID PENINSULAR INVESTMENTS, LLC.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
THIS MATTER comes before the Court
upon Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Mid Peninsular’s Motion to
Dismiss Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and
attended a public hearing regarding Respondent Mid Peninsular’s proposed
development of a project known as Bayonet Point (“Project”). Petitioner objected on various grounds. The Pasco County Development Review Committee
(“DRC”) rendered a final approval of Respondent Mid Peninsular’s development proposal and Petitioner timely
filed an appeal with the Pasco County
Petitioner argues that the Board failed to conduct a hearing on his appeal in accordance with Section 317.1.B. of the Pasco County Land Development Code. Respondent(s) seek dismissal or denial of the petition for several reasons, the first of which is that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Without addressing the merits of petitioner's argument, this Court agrees that it is without jurisdiction.
of the Pasco County Land Development Code states “[t]he Board of County Commissioners
may also remand the matter being appealed to the Planning Commission or
Development Review Committee, as applicable, to receive additional evidence or
make additional factual findings. . . . “
. Because the Board remanded the Project
to the DRC in accordance with Section 317.3.B., the Board has retained administrative
jurisdiction over the matter and has not yet ruled on the merits of the Project
or the issues raised in Petitioner’s appeal.
Where a lower body has not had an opportunity to rule on an issue and
has retained jurisdiction, the matter is not ripe for review by certiorari, and
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DISMISSED.
AND ORDERED in Chambers, at New Port Richey,
Copies furnished to:
Richard C. Millian, Esq.,
David A. Goldstein, Esq.