The Supreme Court handed down a big win for property owners a few weeks ago in a case involving a disagreement between a Florida land owner and the St. John’s Water management district could bring major changes into how land use permits are issued.
Coy Koontz bought about 15 acres of land near Orlando in the 70s. The land, which is now owned by his son, sits on top of protected wetlands.
That’s why a while ago Koontz told the St. Johns Water Management District he was looking to develop a little less than four acres of that land, which included dredging and filing parts of it to construct a building.
But the District told him he could only develop one acre, and would require Koontz to pay for conservation of another part of that same wetland, which wasn’t part of his property.
Koontz turned down the deal and filed a lawsuit instead.
And a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court took his side and ruled that the district’s demands were tantamount to an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation.
Wayne Daltry, a former planning official in Southwest Florida, said the ruling means public administrators probably won’t have the same latitude anymore to get concessions from landowner’s during permitting processes.
“You just had a check on government discretion,” he said. “I mean, you have your legislative act, which is: ‘wetlands shall not be developed.’ You don’t have your administrative discretions, which is saying: ‘well except for here.’”
Jan Goldman-Carter, a Wetlands and Water Resources attorney with the National Wildlife Federation, said this means water management districts will probably just say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to development applications from now on, which could have a negative effect on wetlands.
“I think that’s the concern and I think that’s actually unfortunate, because I think a lot of times-- and I have actually been involved in these situations in Southwest Florida-- sometimes you can to a place where there are actually win-win solutions that can come out of these negotiated agreements,” she explained.
The Supreme Court Ruling was 5-4, with the court’s conservative judges writing the majority opinion.
