Case Name: ESTATE OF Mary Elizabeth Whitney TIPPETT, and Cloyce Tippett, Petitioners, v. CITY OF MIAMI, Florida, a Florida municipality, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-11-09
Citations: 645 So. 2d 533
Docket Number: No. 94-126
Parties: ESTATE OF Mary Elizabeth Whitney TIPPETT, and Cloyce Tippett, Petitioners, v. CITY OF MIAMI, Florida, a Florida municipality, Respondent.
Judges: Before BASKIN, JORGENSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 645
Pages: 533–538

Head Matter:
ESTATE OF Mary Elizabeth Whitney TIPPETT, and Cloyce Tippett, Petitioners, v. CITY OF MIAMI, Florida, a Florida municipality, Respondent.
No. 94-126.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 9, 1994.
Rehearing Denied Dee. 14, 1994.
Baker & McKenzie and Anthony J. O’Donnell, Jr., John William Watson, III, Miami, for petitioners.
A. Quinn Jones, III, and Kathryn S. Pecko, Miami, for respondents.
Robert A. Ginsburg, County Atty., and Thomas W. Logue, Asst. County Atty., Holland & Knight and Samuel E. Poole, III, and Christopher N. Bellows, Miami, David A. Do-heny and Elizabeth S. Merritt, Washington, DC, and Alexandra Acosta, Miami, for Nat. Trust for Historic Preservation in U.S. and the Florida Trust for Historic Preservation and Dade Heritage Trust, as amici curiae.
Before BASKIN, JORGENSON and GERSTEN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We deny landowners' petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the opinion of the Circuit Court, Appellate Division, affirming the City of Miami City Commission's Resolution denying the landowners' appeal from the creation of a Bayside Historic District ["District"]; the District encompasses petitioners' property. The Appellate Division correctly concluded that the petitioners' claim was premature.
Petitioners own the Prescott House located on NE 71st Street in northeast Miami. In 1991, the City of Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board voted to des ignate an area of northeast Miami encompassing the House as the Bayside Historic District. Petitioners appealed the designation to the City Commission. The Commission denied the appeal and affirmed the designation. Petitioners then appealed the Resolution to the Circuit Court, Appellate Division, arguing that the designation of the property as historical amounted to an unlawful taking. The court affirmed the Commission's Resolution.
Petitioners present a facial challenge to the declaration of the District and to the ordinance under which it was created. However, petitioners have not sought to obtain any permits under the ordinance and the government entity charged with implementing the ordinance has not reached a final decision regarding the ordinance's application. Hence, landowners' attack on the District, as an unconstitutional taking, is not ripe for consideration. See Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985); Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 101 S.Ct. 2352, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981); Glisson v. Alachua County, 558 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 570 So.2d 1304 (Fla.1990).
Certiorari denied.
BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ., concur.
. The Board was created by the City of Miami Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Ordinance delineates the Board's composition, the procedures for appealing Board determinations, and procedures for obtaining demolition permits for historic structures.
. City of Miami City Commission Resolution No. 92-149, adopted February 18, 1992.