Palm Beach FL and Privacy Lawyers | Douglas Harold MacLaugh -- eLawyers

Douglas Harold MacLaughlin

Visitors: 86

561-982-7114

Bar #251054(FL) License for 47 years; Member in Good Standing

Boca Raton FL

Are you Douglas Harold MacLaughlin? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

CFR: 40 CFR 131.44

Florida Laws: 120.52, 120.54, 120.56, 120.569, 120.57, 120.60, 120.68, 163.3164, 171.211, 258.36, 258.39, 26.012, 267.061, 335.065, 373.042, 373.0421, 373.079, 373.083, 373.114, 373.175, 373.223, 373.246, 373.406, 373.413, 373.4131, 373.414, 373.416, 373.421, 373.4592, 403.031, 403.412, 403.52, 403.521, 403.526, 403.527, 403.5271, 403.529, 403.5365, 403.537, 403.813, 403.9328, 6.02, 63.132, 7.43, 7.52, 7.58, 8.031, 90.702

Florida Administrative Code: 40E-4.091, 40E-4.301, 40E-4.302, 40E-41.263, 40E-63.011, 40E-63.091, 40E-63.101, 40E-63.130, 40E-63.143, 40E-63.145, 62-302.300, 62-330.051, 62-340.750, 62-345.100, 62-4.242, 62-814.450

96-001723 SAVE THE MANATEE CLUB, INC., AND FRIENDS OF THE GREENWAY vs CITRUS RECREATIONAL MARINA, INC., AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (1996)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 09, 1996

The issue in this case is whether a management and storage of surface waters permit and a wetland resource permit/water quality certification to construct a marina facility within an existing dolomite mine pit adjacent to the Cross Florida Barge Canal applied for by Citrus Recreational Marina, Inc., should be granted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.Applicant failed to provide assurances proposed marina will not adversly impact manatee (unless only sailboats allowed) and groundwater.

91-007958 SUNSET ACRES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (1991)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 11, 1991

Whether Petitioner should be granted the dredge and fill permit it has requested from the Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") and, if so, under what conditions, if any?Reasonable assurances not given that proposed project with not degrade Florida Bay and that project not contrary to public interest; project thus not permittable

95-000494 EDMUND BRENNEN vs JUPITER HILLS LIGHTHOUSE MARINA AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (1995)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 02, 1995

The issue for determination is whether Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina is entitled to be issued a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection for its project application submitted July 29, 1992, and revised November 15, 1993, to enlarge an existing marina and add new slips.Reasonable assurance that proposed project will not cause water quality violations and is clearly within the public interest. Grant and issue permit.

95-003621 ROBERT VANWAGONER vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (1995)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 17, 1995

The issue in these cases is whether Department of Transportation is entitled to a dredge-and-fill permit from Department of Environmental Protection for the purpose of demolishing the Manatee Avenue drawbridge to Anna Maria Island and constructing a fixed-span, high-level bridge 20 feet south of the existing bridge.DOT failed to provide reasonable assurance that bridge would not degrade Outstanding Florida Water or that project was clearly in public interest.

93-000051 LAWRENCE F. KAINE vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (1993)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 11, 1993

Whether Petitioner should be granted the permit he has requested from the Department of Environmental Protection authorizing him to construct a dock on his property on Saddlebunch Key in Monroe County, Florida, and if so, under what conditions, if any?Applicant who didn't give reasonable assurance that project wouldn't degrade water quality and was in public interest not entitled to permit for project.

92-001604 PASCO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (1992)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 10, 1992

The issues in this case are: Case No. 92-1604: Whether the Department should grant the County's amended application for a permit (application no. DC51-189086) to construct a sprayfield reuse disposal system at .215 MGD and a rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at .185 MGD at Moon Lake Road. Case No. 92-1653: Whether the Department should grant the County's amended application for a permit (application no. DO51-194674) to operate its Wesley Chapel Wastewater Treatment Plant at .600 MGD and to operate its Oakley Grove rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at 0.600 MGD. Case No. 92-1654: Whether the Department should grant the County's application for a permit (application no. DO51-199516) to reactivate the operation of its Ryals Road rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at .1075 MGD.Seepage from percolation ponds to perimeter ditches required surface water permit and WQBELS. Prior noncompliance relevant even without Notice Of Violation. No estoppel. No default.

94-000001RX PASCO COUNTY (RYALS ROAD) vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (1994)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 03, 1994

The issues in raised in the three-count rule challenge in this case are: Count I, whether various Department statements concerning discharges from perimeter ditches on rapid rate land application wastewater disposal systems constitute an unpromulgated rule that violates Section 120.535, Fla. Stat. (1993); Count II, if so, whether the unpromulgated rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority under Section 120.56, Fla. Stat. (1993); and, Count III, whether F.A.C. Rules 17-610.517(2) and 17-610.522 are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority under Section 120.56, Fla. Stat. (1993).Alleged unpromulgated rule essentially same as adopted rules. Adopted rules had rational basis. Minimum set back rules dont authorize surface discharges

93-001499 HELEN C. SUTTON vs TANA HUBBARD AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (1993)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 15, 1993

The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (the "Department"), should issue a permit for an existing retaining wall and dock located at the residence of Respondent, Tana Hubbard ("Hubbard"), in waters of the state; and whether the Department should issue an after-the-fact consent of use for the dock.Single family dock in waters of the State and sovereign submerged lands is entitled to dredge and fill permit and consent of use.

93-006982 ALDEN PONDS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (1993)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 10, 1993

Whether Petitioner is entitled to a wetland resource permit to construct an artificial waterway to be connected to the Indian River and, if so, the conditions that should be attached to the permit. Whether Respondent is estopped to deny the issuance of the wetland resource permit to Petitioner for the subject project. Whether Respondent should grant to Petitioner a variance to dredge and fill in Class II waters that have been conditionally approved for shellfish harvesting. Whether Petitioner is entitled to a default variance pursuant to Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, to dredge and fill in Class II waters that have been conditionally approved for shellfish harvesting.Dredge and fill project in Outstanding Florida Waters not clearly in public interest even when mitigation plan and recommended conditions are considered.

93-002950RU SIP PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (1993)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 28, 1993

The issue in this proceeding is whether four agency memoranda describing policy on mitigation for dredge and fill projects are unpromulgated rules and were relied on by the agency in violation of Section 120.535(1), F.S. During the hearing, and afterwards in writing, Petitioner sought leave to amend its pleadings to incorporate other policies allegedly relied on by the agency in the process of the dredge and fill application review. That request was denied in an order entered on August 23, 1993. Those policies are addressed in the recommended order in DOAH #93-3367.FO: Agy did not rely on pol. memos-but on rules gvrng mitigation in D&F-Dism RO: DEP properly asserted juris; >1:1 mitigation is appropr, permits recom.