Ultimately at issue in this case is whether certain comprehensive plan amendments, adopted by Lee County Ordinance No. 94-30, are "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, many of the subordinate issues raised by parties seeking to have the plan amendments found to be "not in compliance" have been withdrawn, and others have been stricken as not timely raised or for other reasons. The remaining issues are addressed in this Recommended Order.Amendments deleted overlay used to settle case on 89 plan, leaving plans % district's or other objectionable measures in mixed use categories and overall located number.
The issue in this case is whether the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund should approve the execution by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection of a sublease of lands owned and administered by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to Southern Hy-Power Corporation.Petitioner failed to prove lease of land for hydroelectric power generation in Greenway Corridor was contrary to deed restrictions.
The issue in these cases is whether the Santa Rosa County comprehensive plan, as adopted on September 27, 1990, and the remedial amendments adopted on April 22, 1993, are in compliance.Comprehensive plan sustained. Burden of proof under original and new proceedings discussed. See Final Order which modified Recommended Order.
The issue in the case is whether certain Lee County plan amendments are not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the petition of Brenda Sheridan.Future land use map not supported by data and analysis, plan fails to set loss standards for roads or concurrency, and stormwater loss standard inconsistent with state resource management plan.
The issue in the case is whether amendments to the Lee County comprehensive plan are not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the amended petition of Petitioners.Plan amendments redesignating land as groundwater resource supported by data and analysis.
As reflected in the parties' prehearing stipulation filed on August 28, 1991, the issue in this case is whether the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) should approve South Brevard Water Authority's (SBWA) consumptive use permit (CUP) application. The SBWA is seeking permission to withdraw an annual average daily rate of 18.8 million gallons (mgd) and a maximum daily rate of 21.4 mgd. The District proposes to grant the permit with specified conditions. Petitioners challenge the issuance of the permit, alleging that applicable requirements of Chapter 373, F.S. and Chapter 40C-2, F.A.C. and other applicable law are not met. The standing of Petitioners, other than Osceola County, is at issue. Also at issue is whether the relevant criteria include consideration of the adequacy of existing sources of water, and the consideration of costs of utilizing existing sources versus the cost of the proposed new source of water.Cumsumptive Use Permit permit denied to regional water authority when existing sources are adequate and proposed use will adversely affect wetlands.
The issue in this case is whether Ft. Myers' comprehensive plan, as amended, is not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the prehearing stipulation, as amended during the final hearing.Plan based on data and analysis and otherwise consistent even though it omits bridge sought by county and city across the river
Whether the changes to the cardiac catheterization (cardiac cath) rule made between the first publication of amendments on April 22, 1988 and the second publication of changes to the proposed rule published on July 29, 1988, are of such a nature that they reveal a change in the agency's overall intent underlying its promulgation of the rule regarding how it will review certificate of need applications for cardiac cath programs, such that the changes published on July 29, 1988 should have been the subject of a new notice publication and allowance of a point of entry for substantially interested parties, pursuant to section 120.54(1), Florida statutes. Whether the Department complied with the statutorily mandated rule promulgation procedure set forth at Section 120.54(13)(b), Florida Statutes (1987) in making the changes published on July 29, 1988.Where agency notices rulemaking intent and in later negotiate process intent substantively changes, changes in proper rule must be re-published and 2nd point of entry given.
