Court Opinion

ID: 9703427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:55:41.590756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:48.807088
License: Public Domain

KELLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I believe that the record and exhibits indicate clearly that the Mock property was rendered economically valueless by the denial of the permit by the Department of Environmental Resources.
*400The site of the property is in a commercial district fronting on a main traffic artery in Bucks County. The exhibits and testimony indicate that there was no feasible way that the property could be developed without encroaching on the wetlands. The Department of Environmental Resources determined preservation of the wetlands as justification for the denial of the permit for construction of commercial utilization of the property.
I believe therefore, that the facts of the instant case do fall within the parameters as determined by Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992).
I additionally find it most troubling that the Department of Environmental Resources relies upon an evaluation by the Fish Commission for its determinations. The Fish Commission language “would seem likely” as being sufficient justification to justify a negative determination is incomprehensible to me. (See Department of Environmental Resources Exhibit No. 27.) Such equivocal language would not support any rightful claims in law in order to sufficiently justify impeding the substantive rights of property.
I would, therefore, find sufficiency in the record that there was a taking by this determination and would accordingly so reverse.