Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
85-003674  DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs. STELLA NEVILLE, INC., AND MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS  (1985)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Sep. 05, 1986
This is an appeal, pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Adjudicatory Commission) from a development order of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (Monroe County) granting the application of Stella Neville, Inc. (Neville) for a permit to conduct excavation and mining activities on north Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The Adjudicatory Commission forwarded the Department of Community Affair's (Department's) appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and requested the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.Developer's proposal to mine and excavate on certain lands was non-permitted use under Monroe County land development regulations and not permittable.
84-002868VR  DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs. MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS  (1984)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Feb. 26, 1986
Do Driscoll Properties and/or Harbor Course Club, Inc., Respondents, have vested rights to complete the project at issue, a golf driving range? (Case Nos. 84-2868VR and 84-3805VR) If Respondents do not have vested rights, did the application to clear land for the golf driving range comply with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and in particular with the comprehensive plan and land development regulations for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern? (Case No. 84-2868VR). Is the Department of Community Affairs estopped, or otherwise equitably barred, from preventing the completion of this project? (Case Nos. 84-2868VR and 84-3805VR) Did Driscoll Properties or Harbor Course Club, Inc., violate the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes? (Case No. 84-3805VR) Did Monroe County violate Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, by issuing a land clearing permit prior to transmitting the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Resolution 091-1984 to the Department of Community Affairs, the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the Developer? (Case No. 84-3805VR) If there is a violation of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, what is the proper remedy? (Case No. 84-3805VR)Land clearing permit in area of state concern denied. No vested right shown. Driving range not included in original filed master plan.
84-003604  JERRALD D. SCHATZ; FRIENDS OF THE BARRIER ISLAND OF THE HAMMOCK, INC.; AND FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC. vs. ADMIRAL CORPORATION, AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION  (1984)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Dec. 23, 1985
Existing connection of swales and ditches to Florida's East Coast Canal or Intracoastal Water Way makes them within Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) jurisdiction.
84-002020  PEARL J. BOOK, GROVER S. BOOK, ET AL. vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AND LINDA J. AND SHIRLEY ANN BROOKS  (1984)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Feb. 28, 1985
Whether the application of Respondents Linda J. and Shirley Ann Brooks for a dredge and fill permit at property located in Levy County, Florida, should be approved, pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and PL 92-500. At the hearing, the applicants presented the testimony of two witnesses and submitted four exhibits in evidence. Petitioners presented the testimony of four witnesses and submitted five exhibits in evidence. Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation called two witnesses and submitted ten exhibits in evidence. Petitioners and Respondents (applicants) have submitted posthearing final argument which include proposed findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary.Applicants should be granted requested permits for dock construction. Dock will not destroy aquatic vegetation.

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