Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Robert Colin Apgar
Robert Colin Apgar
Visitors: 157
0
Bar #254126(FL)     License for 47 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Robert Colin Apgar? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

19-002515GM  AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY, INC. vs CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 14, 2019
Whether the City of Fernandina Beach (“City” or “Respondent”) Future Land Use Map Amendment, adopted by Ordinance 2019-08 (“FLUM Amendment”), qualifies as a small scale development amendment to the City Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”); and, if so, whether the FLUM Amendment is “in compliance” as that term is used in section 163.3187(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2018).1/Petitioners failed to prove that the Future Land Use Map Amendment for the Amelia Bluff Subdivision was not in compliance with the Fernandina Beach Comprehensive Plan.
19-002544GM  SIERRA CLUB vs CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 16, 2019
Whether the City of Fernandina Beach (“City” or “Respondent”) Future Land Use Map Amendment, adopted by Ordinance 2019-08 (“FLUM Amendment”), qualifies as a small scale development amendment to the City Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”); and, if so, whether the FLUM Amendment is “in compliance” as that term is used in section 163.3187(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2018).1/Petitioners failed to prove that the Future Land Use Map Amendment for the Amelia Bluff Subdivision was not in compliance with the Fernandina Beach Comprehensive Plan.
01-004890  BAY POINT CLUB, INC. vs BAY COUNTY  (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 20, 2001
The issues are whether Petitioner's application for a Notice of Proposed Change to its Development of Regional Impact constitutes a substantial deviation from the criteria in Section 380.06(19)(b)1.-15., Florida Statutes, and whether the proposed change is consistent with Bay County's Comprehensive Plan.Because Notice of Proposed Changed to development order to allow construction of 12-story condo project was not consistent with Bay County comprehensive plan, application denied.
00-003041GM  1000 FRIENDS OF FLORIDA, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND THE CITY OF STUART  (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 26, 2000
The issues in this case are whether certain amendments to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Stuart (City), adopted by Ordinance No. 1702-99, are "in compliance," as defined in and required by the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act," Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.Agency intent to determine City`s plan policies in compliance. Recommended one policy deferred planning in joint planning area to inter-local agreements; other policy incorporated the deferred planning; both not in compliance for that reason.
91-001932GM  DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs MONROE COUNTY  (1991)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 26, 1991
Monroe County growth plan reviewed under chapter 163 and 350. Parts of plan found out of compliance with both chapters.
97-004582GM  MARTIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS vs CITY OF STUART  (1997)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 08, 1997
The issue in these cases is whether amendments to the City of Stuart's comprehensive plan, designated amendments 97-S1, 97-1, 98-R1, and 98-ER1 by the Department of Community Affairs, are "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.Petitioners failed to prove that large and small-scale annexation amendments and evaluation and appraisal amendments to the City of Stuart comprehensive plan were not in compliance.
99-002638  KIM MOORE, ET AL. vs ANN AND GARY VIOLET AND COUNTY OF MONROE  (1999)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 14, 1999
This is an appeal from a resolution of the Monroe County Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") approving the Minor Conditional Use application of Ann and Gary Violet and Violet Communications for a radio tower and a transmitter equipment building to be constructed on Ramrod Key. The instant appeal was transferred from the Planning Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article XIV, Monroe County Code, the Hearing Officer Appellate Article. The issue presented in this appeal is whether Resolution No. P13-99 of the Planning Commission should be affirmed, reversed, or modified.Planning Commission erred in treating a communication tower as a communication system. They should have reviewed the application for a permit under stricter standards applied to communication towers. The Planning Commission resolution was reversed.
95-005525  FLORIDA KEYS CITIZENS COALITION vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (940606-10 (MSSW) AND 940606-2-D (WRM))  (1995)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 17, 1995
Whether FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that the activities it proposes to conduct pursuant to proposed District SWM Permit Application No. 940606-10, WRM Permit Application No. 940606-2-D and modification to ROW Permit No. 2584 will comply with the relevant permit criteria set forth in Chapters 373 and 403, F.S., and applicable rules and criteria promulgated thereunder. FDOT's application to SFWMD for SWM, WRM, and row permits to widen US 1 between south Dade and northern Monroe Counties should be granted.
92-006325RP  FLORIDA EAST COAST INDUSTRIES, INC., AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, AND GRAN CENTRAL CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (1992)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 30, 1996
At issue in these proceedings is the validity of respondent's proposed rules 9J-5.003(140) and 9J-5.006(6).DCA's rule defining urban sprawl and methodology for evaluating plans to determine whether they discourage urban sprawl found valid.
90-004545GM  THE CITIZEN`S POLITICAL COMMITTEE, INC., AND JAMES K. KESSLER vs COLLIER COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (1990)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 23, 1990
The issue in this case is whether Capital Improvement Element Policy and F of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as amended, is in compliance with provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.Plan provisions imposing concurrency on public facilities (except roads) for which concurrency required are inconsistent with statutes and rules

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