welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Marcia Parker Tjoflat
Marcia Parker Tjoflat
Marcia Parker Tjoflat
Visitors: 61
0
Bar #700150(FL)    
Jacksonville FL

Are you Marcia Parker Tjoflat? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

Florida Laws: 1.01, 120.52, 120.569, 120.57, 120.68, 163.3167, 163.3175, 163.3177, 163.3178, 163.3180, 163.3184, 163.3187, 163.3191, 163.3202, 163.3215, 163.3245, 187.201, 267.061, 373.086, 380.06, 403.412, 403.814, 90.803

Florida Administrative Code: 9J-5.005, 9J-5.006

10-000912GM  ADJUTANT GENERAL AND DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS vs CLAY COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 22, 2010
The Camp Blanding Joint Training Center ("Camp Blanding" or the "Camp") is in Clay County (the "County"). As the local government with land use authority over lands adjacent to and in close proximity to Camp Blanding, the County is required to amend or update the future land use element of its adopted comprehensive plan "to include criteria to be used to achieve the compatibility of lands adjacent or closely proximate to" the Camp. See § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009).1/ The County adopted Clay County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 09-1MIL in Ordinance No. 2009-65 in order to fulfill the statutory requirement.2/ The issue in this case is whether the Amendment is "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. To be in compliance the Amendment must be consistent with section 163.3177. Petitioners' specific contentions are that the Amendment is not consistent with subsections (6)(a) and (8)3/ of section 163.3177.4/It is "fairly debatable" that Clay County, over Camp Blandings objections, re-acted appropriately to data and analysis in adopting its military installation Amendment to Clay County Comp. Plan. Amendment is in compliance.
07-005755GM  LESEMAN FAMILY LAND PARTNERSHIP; WALTER E. MURPHREE, JR.; AND DEBRA C. TREECE, vs CLAY COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 20, 2007
The issue in this case is whether the amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Clay County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-53, is “in compliance” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2007).1Petitioners failed to prove that the designation of 47 acres as Rural Fringe was not "in incompliance."
08-002719  CRAIG W. PATTERSON AND TIMOTHY BUFFKIN vs BRADFORD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 09, 2008
The issue in this case is whether the Bradford County Board of County Commissioners should approve or deny an application to rezone a 12.76-acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Highway 301 and County Road 18 in unincorporated Bradford County (“the Property”) from Residential, (Mixed) Single Family/Mobile Home (RSF/MH-1) to Commercial Intensive (CI).Applicants for re-zoning demonstrated that the Commerical- Intensive zoning was consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development regulations.
06-002312  DONNA BROOKS vs PAUL CRUM AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 28, 2006
The issue in this case is whether Respondents Paul Crum, Sr., and Paul Crum, Jr. (the "Crums"), are entitled to the Noticed General Permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") for the construction of a single- family residential dock and associated structures.Petitioners Brooks and Cole presented no evidence at the hearing and thus failed to prove their standing. Petitioner Jones failed to prove that the proposed dock would significantly impede access to a nearby tidal creek.
06-002313  CHARLIE JONES vs PAUL CRUM AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 28, 2006
The issue in this case is whether Respondents Paul Crum, Sr., and Paul Crum, Jr. (the "Crums"), are entitled to the Noticed General Permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") for the construction of a single- family residential dock and associated structures.Petitioners Brooks and Cole presented no evidence at the hearing and thus failed to prove their standing. Petitioner Jones failed to prove that the proposed dock would significantly impede access to a nearby tidal creek.
06-002314  DAVID AND PATTY COLE vs PAUL CRUM AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 28, 2006
The issue in this case is whether Respondents Paul Crum, Sr., and Paul Crum, Jr. (the "Crums"), are entitled to the Noticed General Permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") for the construction of a single- family residential dock and associated structures.Petitioners Brooks and Cole presented no evidence at the hearing and thus failed to prove their standing. Petitioner Jones failed to prove that the proposed dock would significantly impede access to a nearby tidal creek.
01-001851GM  THE SIERRA CLUB vs ST JOHNS COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 11, 2001
Whether the Plan Amendments to the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance Number 2001-18, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, or are not "in compliance" as alleged in the petitions of The Sierra Club (Sierra) and Ellen A. Whitmer (Whitmer).Plan Amendments adopted by St. Johns County in Ordinance No. 2001-18 are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated there under.
01-001852GM  ELLEN A. WHITMER vs ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 11, 2001
Whether the Plan Amendments to the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance Number 2001-18, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, or are not "in compliance" as alleged in the petitions of The Sierra Club (Sierra) and Ellen A. Whitmer (Whitmer).Plan Amendments adopted by St. Johns County in Ordinance No. 2001-18 are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated there under.
03-002164GM  FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC., AND FRIENDS OF MATANZAS, INC. vs ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 11, 2003
The issue is whether St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan Policies E.2.2.5, E.2.2.10, E.2.2.13, E.2.2.17, and D.2.3.4 adopted by Ordinance No. 2003-31 on March 25, 2003, are in compliance.Plan amendments establishing new wetland buffer requirements are found to be in compliance.
00-002230  BOBBY C. BILLIE AND SHANNON LARSEN vs ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND HINES INTERESTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP  (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 26, 2000
The issues to be resolved in this proceedings concern whether Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 4-109-0216-ERP, should be modified to allow construction and operation of a surface water management system (project) related to the construction and operation of single-family homes on "Marshall Creek" (Parcel D) in a manner consistent with the standards for issuance of an ERP in accordance with Rules 40C-4.301 and 40C-4.302, Florida Administrative Code.Applicant Respondent showed reasonable assurance that all stormwater and water quality parameters would be met, especially in view of wetland mitigation and preservation plan.

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