Elawyers Elawyers
Harold A. Arteaga
Harold A. Arteaga
Visitors: 88
0
Bar #171964(FL)     License for 26 years
Palm Coast FL

Are you Harold A. Arteaga? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

91-004177  BREVARD GROVES, INC., AND H AND S GROVES, INC. vs FLORIDA CITIES WATER COMPANY, INC., AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION  (1991)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 08, 1991
On June 7, 1991 the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) released its intent to issue Permit No. DC05-194008, authorizing Florida Cities Water Company (FCWC) to construct a 300-acre restricted public access spray irrigation system for the land application of treated domestic wastewater (Sprayfield Permit). And, on August 6, 1991 DER released its intent to issue Permit No. MS05-194894, relating to stormwater management and management and storage of surface waters (MSSW Permit) for the sprayfield site. Petitioners Brevard Groves, Inc. and H & S Groves, Inc. (Groves), Parrish Properties, Inc., Parrish Management, Inc. (Parrishes), Atico Financial Corp. (Atico) and David and Eleanor Shreve (Shreve), each requested a formal administrative hearing challenging the issuance of the sprayfield permit. Groves requested a hearing challenging the issuance of the MSSW Permit. The ultimate issue is whether FCWC is entitled to these permits.Sprayfield disposal of partially trated wastewater not harmful to adjoining citrus or bee hives or to groundwater quality.
90-003586GM  HENRY A. WENZ vs VOLUSIA COUNTY  (1990)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 08, 1990
The issue in this case is whether the Volusia County comprehensive plan is not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the petitions of Henry A. Wenz and Hart Land & Cattle Co., Inc., R. L. Hart, and Clyde E. Hart (Petitioners Hart).Plan consisitent with all requirements including financial feasibility.
90-003447  DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs ROBERT L. SEAMANS, D/B/A LUCKY LADY  (1990)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 05, 1990
The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Emergency Order of Suspension; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Flagrant, repeated illegal drug transactions created presumption the activity was negligently overlooked. Resp. also guilty of allowing gambling

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