Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Barrie Sawyer Buenaventura
Barrie Sawyer Buenaventura
Visitors: 41
0
Bar #949957(FL)     License for 33 years; Member in Good Standing
Tampa FL

Are you Barrie Sawyer Buenaventura? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

93-003842RU  ST. JOHNS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS vs BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND  (1993)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 08, 1993
The issues in these cases are: in Case No. 93-3875RX, whether F.A.C. Rule 16D-2.002(4)-(5) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; and, in Case No. 93-4533RP, whether the proposed amendment to F.A.C. Rule 18-20.004, incorporating by reference the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve Management Plan (the Management Plan), is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Both F.A.C. Rule 16D-2.002(4)-(5) and the proposed amendment to F.A.C. Rule 18-20.004 have been cited by the Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), as authority for prohibiting driving motor vehicles on the Atlantic Ocean beaches in St. Johns County that are within the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve (the Preserve). (On August 24, 1993, the Petitioner voluntarily dismissed its petition in Case No. 93-3842RU, which attacked the Management Plan under Section 120.535, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1992), as being an invalid unpromulgated rule. The dismissal was based on the Respondent's assurance that it was proceeding with the rule amendment challenged in Case No. 93-4533RP and that it would not enforce the provisions of the proposed amendment to F.A.C. Rule 18-20.004 to prohibit driving on the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve until the resolution of Case No. 93-4533RP. See the Preliminary Statement.)Rule prohibits motor vehicles in state park except in designated areas. Proposed rule prohibits it on beaches in the Guana Park and Preserve. Valid.
01-000947BID  UNIVERSAL PRECISION INDUSTRIES, INC. vs TAMPA BAY WATER, A REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY  (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 07, 2001
The issue is whether Tampa Bay Water's award of a contract to Commerce Controls, Inc. to furnish control panel fabrications for a regional water treatment plant under Contract No. 2001-22 was contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious, as alleged by Petitioner.Failure to supply certain documents with bid proposed wad minor irregularity that could be waived by agency.
93-006544RP  GERALD M. WARD vs BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND  (1993)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 30, 1995
This is a rule challenge petition pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, in which the Petitioner's standing has been placed at issue by motion to dismiss. The Hearing Officer assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings is Michael M. Parrish. Appearances for the parties are as follows:Amended rule challenge petition failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the person challenging the proposed rule would be substantially affected by it.
92-004912RU  NASSAU COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS vs DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES  (1992)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 12, 1992
Whether Petitioners' exhibit 2 (Respondent's exhibit 1), the "Amelia Island State Recreation Area Beach Access Information Sheet", with map, (hereinafter referred to as the "Information Sheet"), which was issued by the Department of Natural Resources' Division of Recreation and Parks, and certain signs erected by Division of Recreation and Parks constitute a "rule"; If the Information Sheet and signs constitute a "rule", has the Respondent adopted the information evidenced on the Information Sheet and the signs pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes; and If the information evidenced on the Information Sheet and the signs constitutes a "rule", was the Respondent required by Section 120.535, Florida Statutes, to adopt the Information Sheet and the signs as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes?Restriction of beach driving and parking in Amelia Island state recreation area authorized by existing DNR rules. DNR action not an unpromulagted rule.
92-005604  NASSAU COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS vs DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES  (1992)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 15, 1992
Whether the Respondent's, the Department of Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), "restriction" on beach driving within the Amelia Island State Recreation Area as evidenced in Petitioners' exhibit 2 (Respondent's exhibit 1), the "Amelia Island State Recreation Area Beach Access Information Sheet", with map (hereinafter referred to as the "Information Sheet"), constitutes agency action within the Department's exercise of its delegated legislative authority; Whether the Department's beach driving restrictions expressed in the Information Sheet are arbitrary or capricious; Whether the Department's beach driving restrictions expressed in the Information Sheet are contrary to Chapter 89-455, Laws of Florida; and Whether the Department's beach driving restrictions expressed in the Information Sheet are contrary to Nassau County Ordinance 89-23 and Section 161.58, Florida Statutes?Restriction of beach driving and parking in Amelia Island state recreation area was consistent with existing DNR rules.
93-003970  ST. JOHNS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (1993)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 21, 1993
The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DEP), should prohibit the driving of motor vehicles on the beaches on the Atlantic Ocean beaches in St. Johns County that are within the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve (the Preserve).Per rules, DEP prohibited driving motor vehicles on beaches of Guana River Park and Preservd. County does not have jurisdiction; prohibition valid.
93-000331  PATRICK RUSH vs DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES  (1993)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 19, 1993
At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioners' application for a permit for construction activities seaward of the coastal construction control line should be approved by default and, if not, whether it should be approved on its merits.Applicants for permit to construct seaward of Coastal Construction Control Line not entitled to permit by default or on the merits.

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