Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Charles Laurence Keesey
Charles Laurence Keesey
Visitors: 25
0
Bar #174225(FL)    
Fort Myers FL

Are you Charles Laurence Keesey? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

82-002835  IN RE: FLORIDA CRUSHED STONE COMPANY (PA 82-17) vs. *  (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Nov. 01, 1991
Authorize Petitioner's application as consistent with area zoning and land use plans.
81-000357  IN RE: JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC AUTHORITY vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION  (1981)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Nov. 01, 1991
Grant authority to construct power plant with surfact water variance. Water quality standards problems remain as does coal delivery system problem.
86-003249  AMCOR INVESTMENT CORPORATION vs. SEMINOLE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS  (1986)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Oct. 22, 1987
Development of Regional Impact denied. Density of development in proposed rural area inconsitent with policies, objectives and use set forth in county comprehensive plan.
84-002868VR  DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs. MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS  (1984)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Feb. 26, 1986
Do Driscoll Properties and/or Harbor Course Club, Inc., Respondents, have vested rights to complete the project at issue, a golf driving range? (Case Nos. 84-2868VR and 84-3805VR) If Respondents do not have vested rights, did the application to clear land for the golf driving range comply with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and in particular with the comprehensive plan and land development regulations for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern? (Case No. 84-2868VR). Is the Department of Community Affairs estopped, or otherwise equitably barred, from preventing the completion of this project? (Case Nos. 84-2868VR and 84-3805VR) Did Driscoll Properties or Harbor Course Club, Inc., violate the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes? (Case No. 84-3805VR) Did Monroe County violate Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, by issuing a land clearing permit prior to transmitting the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Resolution 091-1984 to the Department of Community Affairs, the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the Developer? (Case No. 84-3805VR) If there is a violation of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, what is the proper remedy? (Case No. 84-3805VR)Land clearing permit in area of state concern denied. No vested right shown. Driving range not included in original filed master plan.
85-001411TL  IN RE: FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR CERTIFICATE vs. -  (1985)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Jan. 29, 1986
Applicant's certification to construct and maintain transmission of a transmission line and primary corridor is approved because they meet statutory criteria
83-003704  DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs. CHARLES G. MCDONALD, CHARLES G. ALLEN, ET AL.  (1983)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Apr. 08, 1985
Denial of applications for special use approval to construct filled access driveways in shoreline protection zone of Monroe County.
83-000217  CITY OF COCOA BEACH AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (1983)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Jun. 01, 1983
Whether Petitioner's proposed Cocoa Beach Marina is a Development of Regional Impact, pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. This proceeding arose as the result of the issuance by Respondent Department of Community Affairs of a binding letter of interpretation that the proposed development of the Cocoa Beach Marina at Cocoa Beach, Florida, by Petitioner City of Cocoa Beach, would be a Development of Regional Impact under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The determination was based upon the conclusion of Respondent that the proposed marina was presumed to be a Development of Regional Impact because it would provide over 100 mooring slips for boats, (Rule 27F-2.09, F.A.C.), (A that water quality degradation could be expected, and that the proposed project would have a significant regional impact on manatees in the area. Petitioner presented the testimony of 4 witnesses at the hearing and submitted one composite exhibit. Respondent presented the testimony of 3 witnesses and submitted 3 exhibits in evidence.Petitioner's proposed marina with 170 boat slips is 70 over Development of Regional Impact status, therefore, the binding letter finding it so is upheld.
79-001430RX  ALACHUA GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (1979)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Sep. 12, 1979
Challenge to BLID as rule and not order failed because BLID did not have the attributes/range of effect of a rule.
78-002041  PINELLAS COUNTY (PA 78-11) vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION  (1978)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Mar. 26, 1979
Certification for construction and operation of resource recovery facility granted to Petitioner subject to conditions.

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