Manatee FL Administrative law, Energy and utilities and Publ -- eLawyers

03-000791 PEACE RIVER/MANASOTA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY vs IMC PHOSPHATES COMPANY AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 04, 2003

The issues are whether IMC Phosphates Company is entitled to an environmental resource permit for phosphate mining and reclamation on the Ona-Ft. Green extension tract, approval of its conceptual reclamation plan for the Ona-Ft. Green extension tract, and modification of its existing wetland resource permit for the Ft. Green Mine to reconfigure clay settling areas, relocate mitigation wetlands, and extend the reclamation schedule.The various specific conditions to the environmental resource permit are developed after the remand.

03-000792 CHARLOTTE COUNTY vs IMC PHOSPHATES COMPANY AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 04, 2003

The issues are whether IMC Phosphates Company is entitled to an environmental resource permit for phosphate mining and reclamation on the Ona-Ft. Green extension tract, approval of its conceptual reclamation plan for the Ona-Ft. Green extension tract, and modification of its existing wetland resource permit for the Ft. Green Mine to reconfigure clay settling areas, relocate mitigation wetlands, and extend the reclamation schedule.The various specific conditions to the environmental resource permit are developed after the remand.

03-000804 ALAN R. BEHRENS vs IMC PHOSPHATES COMPANY AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 06, 2003

The issues are whether IMC Phosphates Company is entitled to an environmental resource permit for phosphate mining and reclamation on the Ona-Ft. Green extension tract, approval of its conceptual reclamation plan for the Ona-Ft. Green extension tract, and modification of its existing wetland resource permit for the Ft. Green Mine to reconfigure clay settling areas, relocate mitigation wetlands, and extend the reclamation schedule.The various specific conditions to the environmental resource permit are developed after the remand.

03-000805 DESOTO CITIZENS AGAINST POLLUTION, INC. vs IMC PHOSPHATES COMPANY AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 06, 2003

The issues are whether IMC Phosphates Company is entitled to an environmental resource permit for phosphate mining and reclamation on the Ona-Ft. Green extension tract, approval of its conceptual reclamation plan for the Ona-Ft. Green extension tract, and modification of its existing wetland resource permit for the Ft. Green Mine to reconfigure clay settling areas, relocate mitigation wetlands, and extend the reclamation schedule.The various specific conditions to the environmental resource permit are developed after the remand.

03-001610 DESOTO CITIZENS AGAINST POLLUTION, INC., AND ALAN BEHRENS vs IMC PHOSPHATES, INC., AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 24, 2003

The issues are whether IMC Phosphates Company is entitled to an environmental resource permit for phosphate mining and reclamation on the Ona-Ft. Green extension tract, approval of its conceptual reclamation plan for the Ona-Ft. Green extension tract, and modification of its existing wetland resource permit for the Ft. Green Mine to reconfigure clay settling areas, relocate mitigation wetlands, and extend the reclamation schedule.The various specific conditions to the environmental resource permit are developed after the remand.

98-000449GM ROBERT J. STARR, BETTY L. BRENNEMAN, AND SUZANNE NEYLAND vs CHARLOTTE COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (1998)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 26, 1998

The issue is whether, to the exclusion of fair debate, specific provisions of the Charlotte County comprehensive plan are not in compliance with certain requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.Plan is not in compliance due to a provision regulating a mandated connection to central water on a bridgeless barrier island, which is unsupported by data and analysis, and is internally inconsistent with plan provisions discouraging urban sprawl.

98-000701GM JOHN G. COLUMBIA, DANIEL R. FLETCHER, EUGENE J. HALUSCHAK, AND JOHN L. HARMON vs DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND CHARLOTTE COUNTY (1998)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 09, 1998

The issue is whether, to the exclusion of fair debate, specific provisions of the Charlotte County comprehensive plan are not in compliance with certain requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.Plan is not in compliance due to a provision regulating a mandated connection to central water on a bridgeless barrier island, which is unsupported by data and analysis, and is internally inconsistent with plan provisions discouraging urban sprawl.

98-000702GM RHONDA JORDAN vs CHARLOTTE COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (1998)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 09, 1998

The issue is whether, to the exclusion of fair debate, specific provisions of the Charlotte County comprehensive plan are not in compliance with certain requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.Plan is not in compliance due to a provision regulating a mandated connection to central water on a bridgeless barrier island, which is unsupported by data and analysis, and is internally inconsistent with plan provisions discouraging urban sprawl.

98-001634GM EUGENE PLUMMER vs CHARLOTTE COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (1998)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 08, 1998

The issue is whether, to the exclusion of fair debate, specific provisions of the Charlotte County comprehensive plan are not in compliance with certain requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.Plan is not in compliance due to a provision regulating a mandated connection to central water on a bridgeless barrier island, which is unsupported by data and analysis, and is internally inconsistent with plan provisions discouraging urban sprawl.

Martha Young Burton