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 dismissed. Byle v. Pasco County, 51-2006-CA-22WS, (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. May 12, 2006).

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA

APPELLATE DIVISION

STEVE BYLE,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO; 51-2006-CA-22WS

PASCO COUNTY, by and

Through its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, and

MID PENINSULAR INVESTMENTS, LLC.

Respondents.

________________________________/

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 Pasco County’s Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari as well as Petitioner’s Reply in Support of His Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Petitioner 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 Board of County Commissioners (“Board”). A hearing was scheduled for December 6, 2005. At said hearing, the (“Board”) decided to remand the Project back to the (“DRC”) for additional fact finding.

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.

Section 317.3.B. 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. See State v. Del Rey,   643 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Since the Board has not completely passed on the issues raised by the Petition, the Petitioner has failed to allege how the Board’s decision to remand the Project to DRC for additional fact finding will “cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate,” which is an essential requirement for certiorari review. Del Rey, at 1148, citing Brooks v. Owens, 97 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla.1957). It is therefore,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DISMISSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at New Port Richey, Pasco County, Florida, this _____ day of May, 2006. ______________________

W. Lowell Bray, Jr.

Circuit Judge

Appellate Division

Copies furnished to:

Steve Byle

Richard C. Millian, Esq.,

David A. Goldstein, Esq.