Leon FL Lawyers | Thomas G Pelham -- eLawyers

Thomas G Pelham

Visitors: 121

850-386-9481

Bar #138570(FL)

Tallahassee FL

Are you Thomas G Pelham? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

Florida Laws: 120.569, 120.57, 120.595, 163.3177, 163.3180, 163.3184, 163.3245, 187.201, 373.4592, 70.001

Florida Administrative Code: 9J-5.005, 9J-5.006, 9J-5.013

02-000173GM PALM BEACH POLO HOLDINGS, INC. vs THE VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2002)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 14, 2002

Whether the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Village of Wellington Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-11, is "in compliance" as defined in and required by the "Local Government Planning and Land Development Regulation Act," Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and whether the Plan Amendment is supported by adequate data and analysis as required by Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.Petitioner did not prove that Village`s decision to approve amendment, changing transportation and capital investment elements of Comprehensive Plan, was not in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.

01-000781GM 1000 FRIENDS OF FLORIDA, INC., AND AUDUBON SOCIETY OF THE EVERGLADES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND THE VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON (2001)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 26, 2001

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.

99-000147 FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC. vs CITRUS COUNTY (1999)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 11, 1999

May this appeal be dismissed as moot due to the impossibility of the development order being granted?Motion to dismiss as moot was granted upon evidence that Comprehensive Plan and all maps were in sync before incompleteness determination appeal was complete.

91-005353VR EQUITY RESOURCES, INC. vs COUNTY OF LEON (1991)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 26, 1991

The issue to be decided is whether the Petitioners have demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that development rights in certain real property have vested against the provisions of the Tallahassee-Leon County 2010 Comprehensive Plan.Reliance on existing zoning does not establish element of estoppel - County not estopped from applying new comprehensive plan to future development.

92-007423RX PASCO COUNTY (RYALS ROAD) vs TAMPA BAY REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (1992)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 07, 1992

Whether Policy 20.11.1 of Goal 20: Transportation, of Rule 29H-9.002, Florida Administrative Code, (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Rule"), constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?Regional planning council rule establishing Levels of Service for Development of Regional Impact review not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

91-001416VR EDWARD M. MITCHELL vs COUNTY OF LEON (1991)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 04, 1991

Whether the Appellant, Edward M. Mitchell, has demonstrated that development rights in certain real property he owns have vested against the provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan?Development of real property not estop Leon County from requiring compliance with comprehensive plan.