welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Vance Weston Kidder
Vance Weston Kidder
Vance Weston Kidder
Visitors: 40
0
Bar #142709(FL)     License for 53 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Vance Weston Kidder? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

08-004359  ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT vs FRANK H. AND LINDA M. MOLICA  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 03, 2008
The issues are (1) whether Respondents, Frank H. and Linda M. Molica, dredged and filled wetlands on their property in Merritt Island, Brevard County (County), Florida, without a permit and should take certain corrective actions, and (2) whether Respondents' activities are exempt from permitting under Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes.1 Respondents dredged and filled in a wetland without a permit; activities did not qualify for an agricultural exemption.
14-001420RU  PAUL STILL vs SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 25, 2014
The issues to be determined in this case are whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, 62-42.300, and a document incorporated by reference (“the Proposed Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; whether the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) complied with statutory requirements regarding preparation of a statement of estimated regulatory costs (“SERC”) for the Proposed Rules; and whether the approval by the Governing Board of the Suwannee River Water Management District (“SRWMD”) of a document entitled “Recovery Strategy: Lower Santa Fe River Basin” (“Recovery Strategy”) is invalid because it required rulemaking.It is concluded that proposed rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, and the Supplemental Regulatory Measures incorporated by reference in rule 62.-42.300(1)(d) are valid, but proposed rules 62-42.300(1)(a) and (b) are invalid because they are vague.
14-001421RP  PAUL STILL vs SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 24, 2014
The issues to be determined in this case are whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, 62-42.300, and a document incorporated by reference (“the Proposed Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; whether the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) complied with statutory requirements regarding preparation of a statement of estimated regulatory costs (“SERC”) for the Proposed Rules; and whether the approval by the Governing Board of the Suwannee River Water Management District (“SRWMD”) of a document entitled “Recovery Strategy: Lower Santa Fe River Basin” (“Recovery Strategy”) is invalid because it required rulemaking.It is concluded that proposed rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, and the Supplemental Regulatory Measures incorporated by reference in rule 62.-42.300(1)(d) are valid, but proposed rules 62-42.300(1)(a) and (b) are invalid because they are vague.
14-001443RP  PAUL STILL vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 27, 2014
The issues to be determined in this case are whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, 62-42.300, and a document incorporated by reference (“the Proposed Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; whether the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) complied with statutory requirements regarding preparation of a statement of estimated regulatory costs (“SERC”) for the Proposed Rules; and whether the approval by the Governing Board of the Suwannee River Water Management District (“SRWMD”) of a document entitled “Recovery Strategy: Lower Santa Fe River Basin” (“Recovery Strategy”) is invalid because it required rulemaking.It is concluded that proposed rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, and the Supplemental Regulatory Measures incorporated by reference in rule 62.-42.300(1)(d) are valid, but proposed rules 62-42.300(1)(a) and (b) are invalid because they are vague.
14-001644RP  FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 11, 2014
The issues to be determined in this case are whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, 62-42.300, and a document incorporated by reference (“the Proposed Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; whether the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) complied with statutory requirements regarding preparation of a statement of estimated regulatory costs (“SERC”) for the Proposed Rules; and whether the approval by the Governing Board of the Suwannee River Water Management District (“SRWMD”) of a document entitled “Recovery Strategy: Lower Santa Fe River Basin” (“Recovery Strategy”) is invalid because it required rulemaking.It is concluded that proposed rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, and the Supplemental Regulatory Measures incorporated by reference in rule 62.-42.300(1)(d) are valid, but proposed rules 62-42.300(1)(a) and (b) are invalid because they are vague.
06-002464  MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA vs C. RAY GREENE, III; ANGUS S. HASTINGS; AND ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT  (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 14, 2006
The issue in this case is whether the portion of Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) Application Number 97106 seeking an allocation of 499,000 gallons per day (gpd) of groundwater for commercial/industrial uses (supply bulk water to bottling plants) meets the conditions for issuance as established in Section 373.223, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-2.301, and the Applicant’s Handbook, Consumptive Uses of Water.1 The County does not oppose or contest the portion of the CUP application authorizing use of 6.0 million gpd of surface water for limerock mining operations.Applicant proved the criteria for a Consumptive Use Permit for bottled water had been met. The local comprehensive plan and zoning are not relevant.
05-000130  SIERRA CLUB, INC. vs FCC PARTNERS LP, LTD, PLAZA PARTNERS GROUP LP, LTD, PYRAMID PARTNERS GROUP LP, LTD AND ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT  (2005)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 14, 2005
The ultimate legal and factual issue in this matter is whether FCC Partners LP, LTD, et al. (collectively FCC) has provided the St. Johns River Water Management District (District) with reasonable assurances that the activities it proposes to conduct for construction and operation of a surface water management system for a commercial and residential project and alteration of two surface water management systems to implement a wetland mitigation plan pursuant to Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Application No. 4-031-17237-4 (the Permit), meet the conditions for issuance of permits established in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-4.301 and 40C-4.302 and the District’s Applicant’s Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Water (A.H.).The applicant provided reasonable assurances that its project complies with the applicable provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-4.301 and 40C-4.302, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the Applicant`s Handbook.
05-000131  ST. JOHNS RIVERKEEPER, INC. vs FCC PARTNERS LP, LTD, PLAZA PARTNERS GROUP LP, LTD, PYRAMID PARTNERS GROUP LP, LTD AND ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT  (2005)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 14, 2005
The ultimate legal and factual issue in this matter is whether FCC Partners LP, LTD, et al. (collectively FCC) has provided the St. Johns River Water Management District (District) with reasonable assurances that the activities it proposes to conduct for construction and operation of a surface water management system for a commercial and residential project and alteration of two surface water management systems to implement a wetland mitigation plan pursuant to Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Application No. 4-031-17237-4 (the Permit), meet the conditions for issuance of permits established in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-4.301 and 40C-4.302 and the District’s Applicant’s Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Water (A.H.).The applicant provided reasonable assurances that its project complies with the applicable provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-4.301 and 40C-4.302, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the Applicant`s Handbook.
02-001496  MARILYN MCMULKIN vs ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, JAY GINN, AND LINDA GINN  (2002)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 16, 2002
The issue in this case is whether, and under what conditions, the Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), should grant Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 40-109-81153-1 authorizing Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn (Ginns or Applicants), to construct a 136-unit single-family residential development with associated surface water management system.Petitioner opposed Respondents` residential development on the grounds that the stormwater management system caused flooding, water contamination from a nearby closed landfill, impacts on eagles` nests and wetland impacts. Applicants provided assurances.
02-001497  DIANE MILLS vs ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, JAY GINN, AND LINDA GINN  (2002)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 16, 2002
The issue in this case is whether, and under what conditions, the Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), should grant Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 40-109-81153-1 authorizing Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn (Ginns or Applicants), to construct a 136-unit single-family residential development with associated surface water management system.Petitioner opposed Respondents` residential development on the grounds that the stormwater management system caused flooding, water contamination from a nearby closed landfill, impacts on eagles` nests and wetland impacts. Applicants provided assurances.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer