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.

The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Robert J. Simmons, Jr. (Simmons), should be issued: an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) under Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Titles 62 and 40E, Florida Administrative Code; and a Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-21, Florida Administrative Code. (All citations to Florida Statutes refer to the 2000 codification; all Florida Administrative Code citations are to the current version.)Proposed dock exceeded size and other limits of consent to use on unbridged, coastal islands. Shortening of dock (to be used as construction platform) placed it in shallower water over grass beds, contrary to public interest.

The issue in this case is whether the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Amendment, LUPA1-2000/04, adopted by the Village of Wellington (Village) on December 12, 2000, by ordinance numbers 2000-27, 2000-30, 2000-31, is "in compliance" as defined in and required by the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act," Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (the Act).Associations failed to prove Future Land Use Map change was not supported by data and analysis, was internally inconsistent, failed to protect wetlands and natural resources, or was inconsistent with regional and state policy plans.

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.

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.

The issue in this case is whether a development order (Resolution No. 233- 1991) issued by Monroe County on June 26, 1991, to Key Largo Associates, Ltd., is inconsistent with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulations, and/or whether it violates a Joint Stipulation of Settlement previously executed by the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"), Monroe County (the "County"), and Key Largo Associates, Ltd.'s predecessor in title.Development was not consistent with Monroe Cty. Comp Plan and settlement ag- rmt with prior owners; shld be rescinded no appearance at hearing by owner.

The issue in this case is whether the development order issued by Polk County for Robert Crowder's development known as Paradise Country Estates complies with Chapter 380, Fla. Stat. (1991). The Department of Community Affairs' Petition for Appeal of Development Order (the DCA Petition) alleges that the development order is contrary to Polk County's 1985 comprehensive plan for the following reasons: Paragraph 11 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the provisions of Policy 9, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the Land Use Element (LUE) of the 1985 Plan. Policy 9 states: "Structures should be placed in a manner which will not adversely affect the natural flow regime and which will not reduce the recharge capabilities." Paragraph 12 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the provisions of Policy 10, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE. Policy 10 states: "Placement of structures shall be consistent with sound flood plain management practices such as compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973." Paragraph 13 of the DCA Petition alleges that the development order is contrary to the provisions of Policy 11, Objective III, "Natural Resources," of the LUE and Policies 9 and 10 of the "Water Resource Objective" of the Conservation Element of the Plan. Respectively, these policies state: 11. Groundwater withdrawal should not exceed the safe yield per acre as determined by Water Management Districts or successor agencies.DO for 356 unit subdivision on 1280 acres in Green Swamp ACSC; OSDS (septic systems) didn't consider density and intensity; Vs compensation plan and Land Development Regions.

The issue in this case is whether the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by the City of St. Augustine Beach on April 3, 1995, through enactment of Ordinance Number 95-5 is in compliance pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.Propsed plan amendment is reasonable and in compliance.

The issue in this case is whether the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by Suwannee County ordinance number 94-02, on June 9, 1994, (the Amendment) is "in compliance" pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994). (It must be found to be "in compliance" if the County's determination that it is "in compliance" is at least "fairly debatable.")Plan amendment to Future Land Use Map to allow public land use in rural area for prison. In compliance. Impermissible beyond fair debate,urban sprawl not proven.

Have the Intervenors timely challenged the Hamilton County adoption of its comprehensive plan under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes? If allowed to pursue their challenge, what is their burden of proof? Is it pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, (1991), the "fairly debatable" standard? Is it pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes, (1991) the "preponderance" standard? Did Hamilton County (the County) fail to adopt its comprehensive plan within sixty (60) days from the receipt of written comments from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as required by Section 163.3184(7), Florida Statutes (1991)? If it did, was that failure jurisdictional thereby voiding the adoption process? Within the adopted plan, is Policy V.2.13 requiring special permits for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities and for their placement in areas designated agricultural and located with the rural area of Hamilton County, consistent with plan adoption requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, (1991), Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the State Comprehensive Plan set forth in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (1991) and the North Central Florida Regional Policy Plan? Within the adopted plan is Policy 1.15.1 prohibiting the disposal of medical, bio-hazardous, hazardous or solid waste by incineration or by other methods which produce air pollution, other than by facilities permitted, legally sited and operated as of July 23, 1991, consistent with plan adoption requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (1991), Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the State Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the North Central Regional Policy Plan? More particularly must these policies meet and do they meet the requirements for surveys, studies and data set forth in Section 163.3177(6)(a),(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes (1991) and Rule 9J-5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code?Policy allowing special permits for hazardous waste disposal is not in compliance.