Leon FL and Administrative law Lawyers | Terrell Kelly Arli -- eLawyers

06-001220GM WEST BEACHES NEIGHBORHOOD DEFENSE FUND, INC., CORNELIA F. HAMMOND; AND ESTELLE M. HICKS vs BAY COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2006)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 11, 2006

At issue in this case is whether Sections 403, 404, 410, 503, 506, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 1805, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1909, 1911, and 2710 of the Bay County Land Development Regulations (the "LDRs"), as adopted by Bay County Ordinance No. 04-30 on September 21, 2004, are inconsistent with the Bay County Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan").Petitioners failed to demonstrate beyond fair debate that the challenged land development regulations are inconsistent with the County`s comprehensive plan.

06-000182GM WEST BEACHES NEIGHBORHOOD DEFENSE, INC.; LESLIE PENNEL; CORNELLIA F. HAMMOND; AND ESTELLE M. HICKS vs BAY COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2006)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 17, 2006

This case was initiated on January 17, 2006, when Petitioners filed their "Petition Challenging Bay County Land Development Regulation and Request for Administrative Hearing" with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The petition was filed pursuant to Section 163.3213(5), Florida Statutes,1/ which provides that a substantially affected person may request a hearing from DOAH to contest a determination by the Department of Community Affairs that a local government land development regulation is consistent with the local comprehensive plan. The order of the Administrative Law Judge in such a proceeding is a final order.The petition was dismissed because it was untimely filed and factors that would justify equitable tolling were not proven.

02-001014GM DONNA MELZER AND MARTIN COUNTY CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, INC. vs MARTIN COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2002)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 11, 2002

Whether Martin County Comprehensive Plan Amendments Nos. 01-11 and 01-12, pertaining to school siting and public facilities, adopted by Martin County in Ordinance No. 606, on December 11, 2001, are "in compliance," as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (All citations to Florida Statutes are to the 2001 version unless otherwise stated.)School siting and public facility plan amendments adopted by Martin County were subject to fair debate and therefore "in" compliance with applicable provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.

02-001015GM LLOYD BRUMFIELD AND 1000 FRIENDS OF FLORIDA, INC. vs MARTIN COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2002)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 11, 2002

Whether Martin County Comprehensive Plan Amendments Nos. 01-11 and 01-12, pertaining to school siting and public facilities, adopted by Martin County in Ordinance No. 606, on December 11, 2001, are "in compliance," as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (All citations to Florida Statutes are to the 2001 version unless otherwise stated.)School siting and public facility plan amendments adopted by Martin County were subject to fair debate and therefore "in" compliance with applicable provisions of Chapter 16, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.

98-004163RX ROYAL PALM BEACH COLONY, L.P. vs SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (1998)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 23, 1998

Whether Rules 40E-400.315(f) and 40E-4.301(f), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7(a)-(d), Basis of Review Handbook for Environmental Resource Permit Application, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Rules on secondary impacts and no notice general permits are valid. South Florida Water Management District not limited to considering direct impacts.

98-002375 ROYAL PALM BEACH COLONY, L.P. vs SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (1998)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 21, 1998

Whether Petitioner should be granted No Notice General Environmental Resource Permits for Lots 61, 245, and 247 within Unit of Development 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, pursuant to permitting criteria of Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, Chapters 40E-40 and 40E-400, Florida Administrative Code, and the South Florida Water Management District's "Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District--November 1996."Applicant not entitled to a no notice general permit. Three lots in application were part of a larger common plan of development sale.

03-000052GM ROBERT ALESSI, RONALD CAPRON, CHAD HANSON, VICTOR LAMBOU, AND DAVID WESTMARK vs WAKULLA COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 08, 2003

Whether the amendment to the Wakulla County Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Board of Commissioners of Wakulla County in Ordinance No. 2002-28 is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes?Amendment to Wakulla County`s Comprehensive Plan Ordinance is not in compliance because it was based on incorrect data related to the size contiguous to the wetland.

03-000593GM JIM DURHAM AND CITIZENS FOR PROPER PLANNING, INC. vs POLK COUNTY (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 21, 2003

The issue is whether Polk County's small scale development amendment (CPA2003S-02) adopted by Ordinance No. 03-03 on January 22, 2003, as later amended by Ordinance No. 03-19 on March 15, 2003, is in compliance.Small scale amendment which changed use on land from residential to commercial conflicts with two other policies in the Plan and is inconsistent with the Plan and not in compliance.

03-000933GM CITIZENS FOR PROPER PLANNING, INC., AND JIM DURHAM vs POLK COUNTY (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 19, 2003

The issue is whether Polk County's small scale development amendment (CPA2003S-02) adopted by Ordinance No. 03-03 on January 22, 2003, as later amended by Ordinance No. 03-19 on March 15, 2003, is in compliance.Small scale amendment which changed use on land from residential to commercial conflicts with two other policies in the Plan and is inconsistent with the Plan and not in compliance.

03-002449GM T & P ENTERPRISES OF BAY COUNTY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND EDGAR GARBUTT, INDIVIDUALLY vs BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 03, 2003

The issue for determination in this case is whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. SSA 03-07 (Plan Amendment) adopted by Bay County (County) through the enactment of Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.Small scale comprehensive plan amendment which changed 12 lots from a seasonal resort to a residential zone was "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.

Terrell Kelly Arline