JAMES M. HANNA, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's inverse condemnation claim was not ripe for judicial resolution because the letter from the Environmental Protection Commission was not a development order and administrative remedies had not been exhausted.
Plaintiff purchased property and received a letter from the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) regarding wetlands delineation. Plaintiff consid…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Development Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order dismissing James M. Hanna’s complaint alleging inverse condemnation against the Environmental Pro tection Commission (EPC) on the ground that the matter is not ripe for judicial resolution. The complaint contains few allegations, and Mr. Hanna did not request an opportunity to amend this pleading.
In 1994, Mr. Hanna purchased a parcel of unimproved property in Tampa on Ehrlich Road. He obtained a building permit, apparently to fill a culvert in order to construct a driveway. When he began clearing his land, EPC advised him that his actions might be in violation of regulations applicable to wetlands. He theorizes that a letter mailed to him on October 6, 1997, constitutes a “development order,” as that term is defined in section 70.51, Florida Statutes (1997). This letter is a field report concerning wetlands’ delineation and was prepared by an environmental scientist employed by EPC. Mr. Hanna argues that this letter, construed to be a “development order,” entitles him to invoke the dispute resolution mechanism contained in section 70.51. Because EPC did not respond to his request to appoint a special master within 165 days to resolve this dispute, he claims that EPC has taken his property and he is entitled to compensation for inverse condemnation.
Although the definition of “development order” in section 70.51(2)(a) is broad, we are unconvinced that the letter containing the scientist’s field report is such an order or that Mr. Hanna has exhausted administrative appeals as re-' quired by section 70.51(10)(a). Section 70.51(24) explains that this new dispute resolution mechanism does not create a judicial cause of action, and we are unconvinced that this pleading alleges a taking that would entitle Mr. Hanna to damages for inverse condemnation at this time.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and GREEN, J, and DANAHY, PAUL W., (SENIOR) JUDGE, Concur.