Whether SFP's revised application for a permit to construct a sewage treatment plant with percolation ponds should be granted or, for failure of SFP to give reasonable assurances that the plant will not cause pollution significantly degrading the waters of Gator Cove, be denied?Petitioners` request for a permit to construct a sewage treatment plant with percolation ponds was denied. Request did not meet requirements of Department of Environmental Regulation.

The issues in this cause are related to the question of whether Admiral Corporation (Admiral) should be granted a construction and operation permit for a management and storage of surface waters system for the Hammock Dunes, Phase I, development. The agency with permit review responsibility is the St. Johns River Water Management District (District). This hearing is occasioned by the challenge by Petitioners to the notice of intent to grant the subject permit.Recommend grant of a permit for management and storage of surface water.

The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to the issuance of an individual construction permit for a proposed stormwater management system intended to serve Phase II of the Petitioner's land development project.DER should issue stormwater discharge construction permit to Petitioner Petitioner's wet detention system complies with all criteria and won't degrade receiving waters.

Evidence shows that DER jurisdictional line was properly located pursuant to rules & statutes in effect at that time.

The issues in this matter are those raised through a notice to show cause/administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent alleging various violations of Chapter 498, Florida Statutes. In particular, Respondent is alleged to be a subdivider who has offered or disposed of an interest in subdivided lands or been a participant in that arrangement as described in Section 498.023(1), Florida Statutes, without registering to do so or being exempt from the requirement of registration. Further, Respondent is said to have made false and misleading statements to purchasers concerning the conduct of the sale of subdivided land as described in Section 498.051(1)(b), Florida Statutes. In addition, the Respondent is accused of offering or distributing or participation in that offering or distribution of the subdivided land without providing a public offering statement to the purchasers of the land prior to the disposition as spoken to in Section 498.023(2), Florida Statutes. Respondent does not take issue with the latter allegation, assuming the need to register to sell subdivided land or the unavailability of an exemption from the terms of Chapter 498, Florida Statutes.Respondent offered and disposed of subdivided lands that were not registered and which had not been exempted from registration and a fine was recommended.

The issues presented in this action are based upon an administrative complaint from the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against Milton T. Warren. Through the administrative complaint, Respondent is charged with violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in that he willfully or deliberately disregarded and violated applicable building codes in the course of his involvement with a project in Palatka, Florida known as the Ginn job. In particular, Respondent is accused of continuing to work on the project with disregard for a notice of correction left at the job site and that he covered unapproved work in that he removed a stop work order at the job site without prior authorization. The specific references to local building codes by citation shall be made in the conclusions of law.Respondent should be fined $1000 for disregarding building code, stop work order and notice of correction.

Petitioner's challenge to the proposed permit to dredge and fill in waters of the state fails. Allow permitted activity subject to conditions.

Whether Respondent ITT Community Development Corporation's and Admiral Corporation's application for dredge and fill permit and water quality certification to construct a bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway in Flagler County should be approved, pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and PL 92-500. This proceeding arose upon Petitioners' request for an administrative hearing on the Department of Environmental Regulation's notice of intent to issue a permit to ITT Community Development Corporation and Admiral Corporation under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Public Law 92-500, incident to the proposed construction of a high-level concrete highway bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway at Palm Coast, Florida. The Petition for Hearing disputed the Department's determination that the proposed project would not result in violations of water quality or interfere with the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interests, and alleged that construction of the bridge would promote urbanization and overdevelopment of a productive sensitive barrier island that is scarce habitat for endangered animal and plant species. At the hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of five witnesses and submitted five exhibits in evidence. Respondent ITT Community Development Corporation and Admiral Corporation presented the testimony of four witnesses and submitted thirteen exhibits in evidence. Department of Environmental Regulation presented one witness, but submitted no exhibits in evidence. Seven public witnesses testified at the hearing and, during the course of their testimony, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1 was received in evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, Petitioners' Exhibits 1 and 2 were rejected as irrelevant to the issues determined during the course of the hearing. Ruling on the admissibility of Petitioners Exhibit 5 was reserved, but it is now received as a supplemental hearsay document. Ruling was also reserved on Respondent's Motion to strike certain testimony of Petitioner Schatz regarding reports he received. The motion is now denied. Additionally, motions to strike were granted as to the testimony of Petitioners' witness Robert S. Wilkerson, and that portion of the testimony of Respondent's witnesses Fred A. Greene and Stephen Smith, relative to public interest factors other than those set forth in Section 253.123(3)(d), Florida Statutes, as being irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding. Similarly, the testimony of all public witnesses dealt with public interest factors which were outside the scope of the proceeding, and, therefore, findings are not made with respect to such testimony. Proposed Recommended Orders filed by the parties have been fully considered and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either irrelevant, unnecessary, or unsupported by law or fact, and are specifically rejected. The parties entered into a Prehearing Stipulation and three supplements thereto, which were accepted by the Hearing Officer. The Stipulations narrowed the disputed issues of fact and law in the proceeding, and also included agreed factual matters as incorporated hereinafter. The remaining disputed issues of fact were agreed to be as follows: Whether or not the proposed activities will interfere with the conservation of the Florida panther and the Florida black bear to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest. The remaining disputed issues of law were agreed to be as follows: Whether the bridge construction will promote urbanization and overdevelopment of a sensitive barrier island. However, by Order of August 29, 1983, the Hearing Officer ruled that any future development activities are not a relevant issue in this proceeding. The parties stipulated that Petitioners could preserve their objection for purposes of appeal, and did so with a proffer during the hearing. Whether the proposed activity constitutes filling pursuant to Section 253.124, Florida Statutes. During the course of the hearing, the Hearing Officer ruled that Section 253.124 is not In issue in this proceeding. Whether the following legal authorities are applicable: Article IV, Section 9, Florida Constitution Section 372.072(h), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 39, Florida Administrative Code The Governor's Executive Order Number 81-105 The applicability and supremacy of 16 USC Sections 1531 at seq. and 50 CFR Part 81 It is determined that none of the above-cited legal authorities are applicable in this proceeding, except as noted hereinafter. Upon request of the applicant, official recognition was taken of Chapter 17-1, 17-3, and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, and Resolution Number 83-13, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County on August 18, 1983.Petitioner didn't prove granting Respondent's permit to dredge/fill/build bridge would adversely affect Petitioner's interests. Recommend grant permit.

The issues presented in this hearing concern the request by Ortega Island, Inc. to be granted permission, by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, to construct a bridge across the Stockton Canal in Duval County, Florida. The permit review is under the general authority of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and associated rules.Respondent is entitled to permit to construct bridge over the canal with certain conditions attached.

Respondents failed to prove their dredge and fill project would not harm the Class III waters it would involve. Recommended Order: deny permit.