Leon FL Administrative law and Litigation Lawyers | Karen An -- eLawyers

04-000018BID LYNNFIELD DRUGS, INC., D/B/A HEMOPHILIA OF THE SUNSHINE STATE vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 05, 2004

The issue in these cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's (AHCA) proposed award of a contract to Caremark, Inc., based on evaluations of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP), is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Respondent`s failure to evaluate cost proposals according to the Request for Proposals method is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious.

03-002471 BUTLER CHAIN CONCERNED CITIZENS, INC. vs WINDERMERE BOTANICAL GARDEN, L.P. AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 08, 2003

The issues are whether Petitioner has standing to contest the consent agreement into which Respondents entered and, if so, whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection abused its discretion in entering into the agreement.Pet. failed to prove standing to challenge consent agreement entered into by DEP & developer that dredged & filled sovereign submerged bottom & waters of the state when developer`s removal of tussock/muck in cove improved water quality of Lake Butler.

99-003915GM CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH vs BROWARD COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (1999)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 16, 1999

The issue for determination in this case is whether Broward County Ordinance 1999-26, amending the Broward County Comprehensive Plan (Plan), is "in compliance," as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and more specifically whether that portion of PCT 99-2, adopted through Ordinance 1999-26, which limits the use of flexibility units and reserve units east of the Intracoastal Waterway is not "in compliance" under Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged by the City of Hallandale Beach.Broward County Ordinance restricting use of flexibility units was in compliance under Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes.

02-000173GM PALM BEACH POLO HOLDINGS, INC. vs THE VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2002)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 14, 2002

Whether the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Village of Wellington Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-11, is "in compliance" as defined in and required by the "Local Government Planning and Land Development Regulation Act," Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and whether the Plan Amendment is supported by adequate data and analysis as required by Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.Petitioner did not prove that Village`s decision to approve amendment, changing transportation and capital investment elements of Comprehensive Plan, was not in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.

01-002865GM GLENTEX, INC., D/B/A WOODY`S vs DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND ISLAMORADA, VILLAGE OF ISLANDS (2001)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 20, 2001

The issue is whether Village Ordinance No. 01-08, which regulates sexually oriented businesses, is inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, pursuant to Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes.Department proved that Islamorada ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses was not inconsistent with any Principles for Regulating Development in the Florida Keys.

97-004582GM MARTIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS vs CITY OF STUART (1997)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 08, 1997

The issue in these cases is whether amendments to the City of Stuart's comprehensive plan, designated amendments 97-S1, 97-1, 98-R1, and 98-ER1 by the Department of Community Affairs, are "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.Petitioners failed to prove that large and small-scale annexation amendments and evaluation and appraisal amendments to the City of Stuart comprehensive plan were not in compliance.

99-002598GM MICKY BISS vs CITY OF HALLANDALE; OCEAN MARINE YACHT CLUB, INC., AND SECURITY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (1999)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 30, 1999

The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the City of Hallandale's comprehensive plan adopted in Ordinance No. 1999-12 is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.Petitioner failed to prove that the plan amendment was not a small-scale amendment or that the amendment is not in compliance.

97-005003GM LAURA JOHNSON vs CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (1997)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 29, 1997

The issue is whether the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 96-28 is in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.Petitioners failed to prove to exclusion of fair debate that plan amendment was not in compliance. Plan amendment created an exception for accessory structures, like swimming pools, to thirty foot aquatic lands setback.

96-001405DRI DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES, INC. (1996)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 19, 1996

Whether the subject activities of Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (CRL) constitute development within the meaning of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Whether the challenged after-the-fact building permit is contrary to the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan), and the Monroe County Land Development Regulations (LDRs). Whether the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is barred by the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel from challenging the after-the-fact permit issued by Monroe County. Whether the DCA and Curtis Kruer are barred by the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel from challenging the after-the-fact permit. Whether the action by the DCA is consistent with prior agency practice.Structures not consistent with Land Development Regulations. Should be allowed to remain pending application for variance.

94-005182GM RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION (COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL) vs CITY OF SOUTH DAYTONA (1994)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 19, 1994

The issue in this case is whether the City of South Daytona Beach plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 94-05 on May 24, 1994, is in compliance.Amendment found to be not in compliance with a policy, and thus not in compliance with the plan.

Karen Ann Brodeen