Pinellas FL Administrative law, Environmental Law and Land u -- eLawyers

17-001449 THE SIESTA KEY ASSOCIATION OF SARASOTA, INC., AND MICHAEL S. HOLDERNESS vs CITY OF SARASOTA; U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 09, 2017

The issue to be determined in these consolidated cases is whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the City of Sarasota (“City”) (sometimes referred to as “the Applicants”) are entitled to the proposed joint coastal permit, public easement, and sovereign submerged lands use authorization (referred to collectively as “the Permit”) from the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to dredge sand from Big Sarasota Pass and its ebb shoal and place the sand on the shoreline of Lido Key.It is recommended that the joint coastal permit be approved, but only if it is modified to restrict dredging during the spawning season for the spotted seatrout; otherwise it is recommended that the permit be denied.

17-001456 SAVE OUR SIESTA SANDS 2, INC.; PETER VAN ROEKENS; AND DIANE ERNE vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 09, 2017

The issue to be determined in these consolidated cases is whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the City of Sarasota (“City”) (sometimes referred to as “the Applicants”) are entitled to the proposed joint coastal permit, public easement, and sovereign submerged lands use authorization (referred to collectively as “the Permit”) from the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to dredge sand from Big Sarasota Pass and its ebb shoal and place the sand on the shoreline of Lido Key.It is recommended that the joint coastal permit be approved, but only if it is modified to restrict dredging during the spawning season for the spotted seafront; otherwise it is recommended that the permit be denied.

17-002201 TOWN OF HILLSBORO BEACH vs CITY OF BOCA RATON AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 11, 2017

The issue to be decided in this case is whether the City of Boca Raton (“City”) is entitled to the requested modification of its Joint Coastal Permit.The City proved its entitlement to the proposed modification of its joint coastal permit. The Department did not adopt the Strategic Beach Management Plan as a rule and, therefore, cannot require the modification to be consistent with the plan.

15-000572 ALICO WEST FUND, LLC vs MIROMAR LAKES, LLC, AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 03, 2015

The issue is whether to approve an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) modification for the construction of a surface water management system, to be issued to Respondent, Miromar Lakes, LLC (Miromar), which will serve a 29.08-acre single- family residential development known as The Peninsula Phase IV (Phase IV) located in Lee County, Florida.Applicant provided reasonable assurances that permit satisified all relevant rules and other criteria. Application deemed a minor modification of a conceptual permit subject to rules in effect in 1999.

10-007524 CHARLOTTE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT vs DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 15, 2011

The issues in this case are: Whether computer software purchases by the Charlotte County School District (District or Petitioner) in fiscal year 2008-09, paid for with capital outlay millage funds or interest earned on capital outlay millage funds, were authorized equipment purchases under the version of section 1011.71(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), existing at the time of the purchases;1 Whether interest earnings on capital outlay millage proceeds are subject to the same expenditure restrictions as the millage proceeds; and Whether the Department of Education's (Department or Respondent) position that the District violated the expenditure restrictions in section 1011.71(2) is impermissibly based on an unadopted rule. See § 120.57(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2010).Respondent did not meet its burden of proving Petitioner's 2008 computer software purchases violated expenditure restrictions in section 1011.71(2), but did prove such a violation as to a 2009 purchase made after the law changed.

07-000105TL IN RE: FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY BOBWHITE-MANATEE 230KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT TRANSMISSION LINE SITING APPLICATION NO. TA07-14 vs * (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 09, 2007

It is recommended that a corridor be certified which combines segments of two of the proposed corridors.

07-001135 IN RE: PETITION TO ESTABLISH THE MYAKKA RANCH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT vs * (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 09, 2007

The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether the Petition to Establish the Myakka Ranch Community Development District (Petition) meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code. The local public hearing was for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.The Proceeding was properly noticed. Petitioner has met the requirements for the Community Development District and should be approved.

05-000458 STEVE LARDAS vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 08, 2005

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Steve Lardas, is entitled to a mosquito ditch exemption, under Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-4.051(10)1, from the wetlands jurisdiction and environmental resource permitting requirements of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for Lots 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 18, and a vacated alley of Block 44, Ilexhurst Subdivision, Holmes Beach, Manatee County.Petitioner`s application for a mosquito control ditch exemption from wetland permitting was not proven. Recommend that the request for exemption be denied.

00-000995 WEBBS CLEANERS vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (2000)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 02, 2000

The issue presented is whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in the Department's Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.Petitioner eligible to participate in Department`s clean-up program since the placement of empty solvent containers outside of secondary containment does not constitute gross negligence.

98-002678 DAVID KIM AND NU-LOOK ONE HOUR DRY CLEANING vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (1998)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 10, 1998

Whether Petitioner's drycleaning facility (Nu-Look One Hour Dry Cleaning) is eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.Drycleaning facility not eligible to participate in Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program where secondary containment not installed by deadline prescribed by statute.

Kevin Shawn Hennessy