Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Charles G Stephens
Charles G Stephens
Visitors: 12
0
Bar #235598(FL)    
Jacksonville FL

Are you Charles G Stephens? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

81-003242  GEORGE H. DECARION AND JAMES E. ROBERTS vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION  (1981)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Aug. 18, 1982
Petitioners should not get permit, because they did not affirmatively prove their project would not harm the waters of the state.
81-002307  AUDUBON SOCIETY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA vs. LEE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION  (1981)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Jul. 07, 1982
Intevenors didn't establish standing and Petitioners didn't establish jurisdiction. Recommend granting county permit to put road through swamp.
81-003198  WILLIAM A. MAKELA vs. HOWARD TREVEY AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION  (1981)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: May 13, 1982
Recommend granting permit to construct non-impediment part of pier, denying the rest because Petitioner proved project as whole impeded navigation.
80-002253  JACK CRUICKSHANK vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION  (1980)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Mar. 12, 1981
Deny fill permit which would endanger water quality and pollute stream.
80-000961  WOOD, CAMPBELL, MILLER, ET AL. vs. THE DELTONA CORPORATION AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION  (1980)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Jan. 07, 1981
This case presents two questions for consideration. The first question concerns the Petitioners' contention that the grant of the permit at issue must be considered contemporaneously with the matters of file in the application made by the Respondent, The Deltona Corporation, with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, File No. 64-24208, pending before the Department. From the point of view of the Petitioners, should this contemporaneous review process be afforded, then the current permit would not be granted due to the alleged deficiencies associated with the application, File No. 64-24208. The second question to be answered in this case concerns the dispute between the Respondents on the issue of water quality monitoring as a condition to granting the permit sought herein. The Respondent Department would have the applicant monitor in six lakes in the area of the project and the applicant would restrict its monitoring activity to three lakes in the project area. The Petitioners support the Department in its position on the monitoring question. 1/Respondent would not allow more than acceptable levels of pollution in project area. Allow permittee to go ahead with project.
80-000810  DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION vs. GUNARD C. BRAUTCHECK  (1980)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Nov. 13, 1980
The issue presented here concern a the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective action filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent for alleged violations of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code, related to the purported operation by the Respondent of a water pumping system without the benefit and authority of a permit issued by the Petitioner.Respondent ordered to cease/desist from operating unlicensed pumping system and should pay $515.72 in costs.
79-002239  DAVID M. ANTONIAK vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION  (1979)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Oct. 09, 1980
Petitioner didn't provide reasonable assurances that the project would not violate water quality standards. Recommend permit be denied.

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