Leon FL Lawyers | Shaw Philip Stiller -- eLawyers

15-002495 IMH HEALTHCARE, LLC vs OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 04, 2015

Whether Petitioner, IMH Healthcare, LLC, was required to submit an application for acquisition of Westport Holdings Tampa, L.P., d/b/a University Village, a specialty insurer licensed to operate a facility that undertakes to provide continuing care, pursuant to section 628.4615, Florida Statutes, and, if so, whether Petitioner has proven its entitlement to approval of the acquisition application.Petitioner was not required to file an acquisition application upon acquisition of a one-percent general partner ownership interest in a CCRC, but if an application is required, it should be denied.

12-003219 FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION vs CRP/HLV HIGHLANDS RANCH, LLC AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (2012)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 26, 2012

Whether the Florida Department of Environmental Protection‘s (Department) notice of intent to issue an environmental resource/mitigation bank permit, and notice of intent to grant a variance waiving the financial responsibility requirements for the construction and implementation activities of the mitigation bank to Respondent, CRP/HLV Highlands Ranch, LLC (Highlands Ranch) should be approved, and under what conditions.The applicant is entitled to issuance of a mitigation bank permit, subject to reasonable time lag and risk factor scores. The applicant is not entitled to issuance of a variance from financial responsibility requirements.

08-003614GM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 22, 2008

The issue in this case is whether the amendments to Miami- Dade County’s Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), adopted through Ordinance Nos. 08-44 and 08-45, are “in compliance” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2008).1The County`s adoption of Ordinance 08-44 (Lowe`s Amendment) is not in compliance. The County`s adoption of Ordinance No. 08-45 is in compliance.

09-003488RP FLORIDA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC., FLORIDA LAND COUNCIL, INC., AND FLORIDA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS vs DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 24, 2009

The issue is whether proposed rules 9J-5.026(3)(d), (7)(b), (7)(c)4. and 6., (8)(a), (9)(a)3., 6., 18., and 19., and 9J- 11.023(2), (4), and (5), and existing Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(80) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged in the Petition for Administrative Hearing to Challenge Proposed Amendments to Chapters 9J-5 and 9J-11, F.A.C. and to Challenge Existing Rule 9J-5.003(80) (Petition).1Proposed rules 9J-5.026 and 9J-11.023 and existing Rule 9J-5.003(80) are not invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.

05-002361GM DON AND PAMELA ASHLEY vs DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND FRANKLIN COUNTY (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 01, 2005

Whether the amendments to the Franklin County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance No. 2005-20 (Amendments) on April 5, 2005, are “in compliance” as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1Petitioners proved beyond fair debate that the Franklin Plan revision with no capital improvement element, the incorrect Coastal High Hazard Area, and the incorrect affordable housing information was not "in compliance."

05-002730GM SIERRA CLUB, INC., AND PANHANDLE CITIZENS COALITION, INC. vs FRANKLIN COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 26, 2005

Whether the amendments to the Franklin County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance No. 2005-20 (Amendments) on April 5, 2005, are “in compliance” as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1Petitioner failed to prove inconsistency with minimum criteria beyond fair debate on two issues remanded by the District Court of Appeal.

04-004492GM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, 1000 FRIENDS OF FLORIDA, INC., FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, JUPITER FARMS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, INC., D/B/A LOXAHATCHEE RIVER COALITION, AUDUBON SOCIETY OF THE EVERGLADES AND MARIA WISE-MILLER vs PALM BEACH COUNTY (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 17, 2004

The issue in this case is whether amendments to the Palm Beach County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2004-34 through 2004-39, 2004-63 and 2004-64 (Amendments) to accommodate the County's development of a biotechnology research park on 1,900 acres known as the Mecca site are "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1It was at least fairly debatable that the Plan Amendments to accommodate the County`s Scripps project were "in compliance."

06-000049GM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs LEE COUNTY (2006)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 05, 2006

The issue in this case is whether the amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 05-20 is "in compliance," as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005),1 for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and Statement of Intent filed by the Department of Community Affairs ("the Department").Respondent`s amendment to the Future Land Use Map of its comprehensive plan was "in compliance" despite the fact that the amendment increased the residential density in a coastal high hazard area.

05-004402GM FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC.; FRIENDS OF MATANZAS, INC.; PATRICK HAMILTON; WILLIAM HAMILTON; AND PHIL CUBBEDGE vs TOWN OF MARINELAND AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 05, 2005

The main issue in this case is whether the Town of Marineland's Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted by Ordinance 2005-1 on August 18, 2005,1 are "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3194(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005).2 Another issue is whether Petitioners have standing.3It was not proven beyond fair debate that the revision of plan of Town now all in CHHA is not "in compliance."

03-004758GM CHARLES OSBORNE; BERNARD KNIGHT; AND MARY JO KNIGHT vs TOWN OF BEVERLY BEACH AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 18, 2003

The issue in the case is whether the Town of Beverly Beach's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03-1, initially adopted by Ordinance 2003-ORD-6 and amended by Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, is "in compliance," as required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2004).The Town`s comprehensive plan amendment to re-designate spoil areas from conservation to residential use is "in compliance." A challenger who alleges data and analysis insufficient must do more than identify the data errors; they must undermine the case.

Shaw Philip Stiller