Lee FL Administrative law, Appeals and Arbitration Lawyers

14-005135 FLORIDA INSTITUTE FOR SALTWATER HERITAGE, INC. vs LAND TRUST NO. 97-12 AND SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (2014)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 30, 2014

The issue to be determined is whether Respondent Land Trust #97-12 (“Land Trust”) is entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) for its proposed project on Perico Island in Bradenton, Florida.It is recommended that the agency deny the environmental resource permit because practicable modifications were not made to avoid wetland impacts and cummulative adverse effects of the project would cause significant environmental harm.

15-003825GM ROGER THORNBERRY, GEORGETTE LUNDQUIST, STEVEN BRODKIN, RUBY DANIELS, ROSALIE PRESTARRI, AND JAMES GIEDMAN vs LEE COUNTY (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 01, 2015

Whether an amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 15-10 on June 3, 2015, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).1/Plan Amendment was not "in compliance" where County's interpretation of comprehensive plan policy was contrary to the plain language.

16-001018 DIANA GOLDBERG vs THE CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 19, 2016

The issue to be determined is whether Application No. 090107-1 for Environmental Resource Permit No. 56-03461-P and the Sovereignty Submerged Lands Public Easement for the Crosstown Parkway Extension should be issued as proposed in the notice issued by the South Florida Water Management District.The City of Port St. Lucie was entitled to issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereignty Lands Easement for the Crosstown Parkway Extension over the North Fork of the St. Lucie River Aquatic Preserve.

16-001345GM GREG DANIELS AND MICHAEL BELLOWS vs MONROE COUNTY (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 10, 2016

Whether Amendment 15-1ACSC to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinances 003-2016 and 004-2016 on February 10, 2016, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2015).1/Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the plan amendment was either internally inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, or inconsistent with the principles for guiding development.

16-001349GM MICHAEL BELLOWS vs MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 09, 2016

Whether Amendment 15-1ACSC to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinances 003-2016 and 004-2016 on February 10, 2016, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2015).1/Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the plan amendment was either internally inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, or inconsistent with the principles for guiding development.

05-002034 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS vs FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 03, 2005

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the City of Naples's (City) Waterway Marker Permit Application should be granted, given the requirements of Section 327.40, Florida Statutes (2005) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 68-23.105(1)(b)(3) through (6).Respondent City of Naples failed to show that delineating new slow boat speed zones with a waterway marking permit was needed for vessel traffic congestion, significant risk of collision or threat to public safety. Recommend that the permit be denied.

05-002035 MARINE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. vs FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND CITY OF NAPLES (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 03, 2005

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the City of Naples's (City) Waterway Marker Permit Application should be granted, given the requirements of Section 327.40, Florida Statutes (2005) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 68-23.105(1)(b)(3) through (6).Respondent City of Naples failed to show that delineating new slow boat speed zones with a waterway marking permit was needed for vessel traffic congestion, significant risk of collision or threat to public safety. Recommend that the permit be denied.

05-002036 DOUGLAS FINLAY vs FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 03, 2005

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the City of Naples's (City) Waterway Marker Permit Application should be granted, given the requirements of Section 327.40, Florida Statutes (2005) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 68-23.105(1)(b)(3) through (6).Respondent City of Naples failed to show that delineating new slow boat speed zones with a waterway marking permit was needed for vessel traffic congestion, significant risk of collision or threat to public safety. Recommend that the permit be denied.

05-002037 ERIC ALEXANDER, JACK HAIL, DAVE SIRKOS, JAMES PERGOLA AND ALLEN WALBURN vs FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND CITY OF NAPLES (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 03, 2005

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the City of Naples's (City) Waterway Marker Permit Application should be granted, given the requirements of Section 327.40, Florida Statutes (2005) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 68-23.105(1)(b)(3) through (6).Respondent City of Naples failed to show that delineating new slow boat speed zones with a waterway marking permit was needed for vessel traffic congestion, significant risk of collision or threat to public safety. Recommend that the permit be denied.

15-001651GM EDWARD RUBEN ANDERSON vs CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 23, 2015

The issue to be determined in this case is whether the City of St. Augustine’s proposed amendment to its Comprehensive Plan, adopted via Ordinance 2015-03, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).Petitioner failed to prove the City of St. Augustine's proposed small-scale comprehensive plan amendment was not in compliance.

Ralf Gunars Brookes

14-005135 FLORIDA INSTITUTE FOR SALTWATER HERITAGE, INC. vs LAND TRUST NO. 97-12 AND SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (2014)

15-003825GM ROGER THORNBERRY, GEORGETTE LUNDQUIST, STEVEN BRODKIN, RUBY DANIELS, ROSALIE PRESTARRI, AND JAMES GIEDMAN vs LEE COUNTY (2015)

16-001018 DIANA GOLDBERG vs THE CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (2016)

16-001345GM GREG DANIELS AND MICHAEL BELLOWS vs MONROE COUNTY (2016)

16-001349GM MICHAEL BELLOWS vs MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (2016)

05-002034 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS vs FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (2005)

05-002035 MARINE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. vs FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND CITY OF NAPLES (2005)

05-002036 DOUGLAS FINLAY vs FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (2005)

05-002037 ERIC ALEXANDER, JACK HAIL, DAVE SIRKOS, JAMES PERGOLA AND ALLEN WALBURN vs FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND CITY OF NAPLES (2005)

15-001651GM EDWARD RUBEN ANDERSON vs CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE (2015)

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Search for lawyers by practice areas.