welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Andrew Joseph Baumann
Andrew Joseph Baumann
Andrew Joseph Baumann
Visitors: 64
0
Bar #70610(FL)     License for 30 years; Member in Good Standing
West Palm Beach FL

Are you Andrew Joseph Baumann? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

13-001853  MICHAEL AND CATHY LAROSA vs PERRY FUNK AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 17, 2013
The issue to be determined is whether Petitioners timely filed their petition for hearing to challenge the determination made by the Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”) that Respondent Perry Funk’s proposed dock project is exempt from the requirement to obtain an environmental resource permit.Petitioners failed to prove statements were made to them by a Department employee that justify application of the doctrine of equitable tolling to excuse their late-filed petition for hearing.
11-001206GM  BARBARA GRAVES vs CITY OF POMPANO BEACH  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 09, 2011
The issue is whether the plan amendments adopted by the City of Pompano Beach (City) by Ordinance Nos. 2011-24 and 2011- 25 on February 8, 2011, are in compliance.Text and map amendments adopted by City were supported by data and analysis, and were internally consistent with other Plan provisions and statutory requirements.
10-001711EF  BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION vs JEFFREY M. ADEEB  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 31, 2010
09-004996BID  CLOSE CONSTRUCTION, INC. vs SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT  (2009)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 14, 2009
The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Close Construction, Inc. (Petitioner), (Close) was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the Request For Bid (RFB) Number 6000000262, whether the subject contract should be awarded to the Petitioner, and, concomitantly, whether the Respondent agency's decision to award the contract to the Intervener, Worth Contracting, Inc. (Worth) was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.Petitioner showed that failure to itemize optional cost allowance, by using outdated bid forms, was a "non-judgmental" mistake, did not affect price or give it competitive advantage re: other bidders. Its lowest bid was responsive, and should be accepted.
10-001142GM  GROVES HOLDINGS, LLC, GROVES 12, LLC, AND GROVES 14, LLC vs MARTIN COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 08, 2010
It is recommended that all but two of the plan amendments adopted by Martin County be determined "in compliance."
10-000913GM  MARTIN COUNTY CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORP.; DONNA MELZER AND ELIZA ACKERLY, INDIVIDUALS AND GROVE HOLDINGS, LLC; GROVES 12, LLC; AND GROVES 14 LLC, vs |MARTIN COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 22, 2010
The issues to be determined in this case are whether the amendments to the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP) adopted by Ordinance Nos. 843, 845 (as amended by Ordinance No. 847), 846, 847, 851, 853, and 854 are “in compliance” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1/It is recommended that all but two of the plan amendments adopted by Martin County be determined "in compliance."
99-005303RP  DAY CRUISE ASSOCIATION, INC. vs BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND  (1999)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 16, 1999
The Board of Tustees exceeded its statutory authority by proposing a rule which prohibited cruises to nowhere, contrary to the plain language of the statute sought to be implemented.
98-001901  COASTAL PETROLEUM COMPANY AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (1998)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 22, 1998
The issues in these cases include the following: Did Petitioner file completed applications to entitle it to an oil and gas drilling permit? Is the Department's policy of requiring information in support of an offshore oil and gas well drilling permit not specifically set out in existing rules constitute an unadopted rule? If the Department applied an unadopted rule to Petitioner in these cases, does the unadopted rule meet the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes? Is Petitioner entitled to the oil and gas drilling permits it sought by default?Department`s unpromulgated rule requiring additional information to support oil drilling permits was valid. Petitioner failed to provide information and, therefore, application was denied for incompleteness.
20-002967  FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY vs FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 29, 2020
Whether Respondent, Florida Power & Light Company, is entitled to the renewal of Permit No. FL0001562-012-IW1N, the combined Industrial Wastewater/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for the continued operation of the Turkey Point Cooling Canal System.Applicant for renewal of industrial wastewater permit provided reasonable assurance the project would meet all applicable statutory and rule requirements. Challengers to issuance of permit failed to meet their burden of proof under section 120.569(2)(p).
20-002968  FLORIDA KEYS FISHING GUIDES ASSOCIATION, INC. vs FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 29, 2020
Whether Respondent, Florida Power & Light Company, is entitled to the renewal of Permit No. FL0001562-012-IW1N, the combined Industrial Wastewater/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for the continued operation of the Turkey Point Cooling Canal System.Applicant for renewal of industrial wastewater permit provided reasonable assurance the project would meet all applicable statutory and rule requirements. Challengers to issuance of permit failed to meet their burden of proof under section 120.569(2)(p).

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer