Leon FL Lawyers | Vernon L Whittier Jr. -- eLawyers

89-001126 MARION COUNTY HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1989)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: May 10, 1989

The issues presented concern the question of the entitlement of the Petitioner to the grant of a permit from the Respondent allowing the placement of a banner over State Road 40, the 900 block of State Road 40, at Silver Springs Boulevard in Ocala, Florida. See Rule 14-43.001(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code.Denial of permit to place a banner over a road controlled by Department Of Transportation. Prior decisions on similar requests do not lead to a different result here.

89-000951RX LETTUCE LAKE CAMPGROUND, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1989)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: May 01, 1989

Pursuant to notice, final hearing in the above-styled case was held on March 20, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida, before William F. Quattlebaum, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. APPEARANCES For Petitioner: C. Clinch Kavanaugh, III, Esquire 5011 Ocean Boulevard Post Office Box 35193 Sarasota, Florida 34242Department decision to limit logo program to campgrounds within six miles of interstate exit was arbitrary

88-002801 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. SOUTHERN MOBILE HOMES OF OKEECHOBEE (1988)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Mar. 01, 1989

The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's sign was erected and/or maintained in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and, if so, whether it should have been removed for not having a state sign permit.Respondent's sign was not erected with the requisite permits.

88-003462 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. THOMAS F. SAUNDERS, TIM AND CHRISTINA SAUNDERS (1988)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Feb. 21, 1989

Whether DOT should revoke permits Nos. 721-02 and 722-02 because the nonconforming signs originally permitted have been replaced with a larger structure? Whether DOT is estopped to revoke the permits on these grounds where authorized personnel verbally assured the permittee, and others not in the outdoor advertising business who acted in reliance, that the replacement was not unlawful, and later stated in writing that the permits or one of them was valid?DOT estopped to revoke sign permit where it has knowledge that nonconforming sign was modified and issued permit anyway.

88-000550 ROBERT AND ANNA KASZONI vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1988)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Jan. 18, 1989

Petitioners not entitled to additional relocation expense since funds pre- viously received would've been adequate but for Petitioner's personal choice

88-005227RU OUTDOOR MEDIA OF PENSACOLA, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1988)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Dec. 29, 1988

By a Petition filed October 21, 1988, Petitioner sought a determination, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, that a non-rule policy of the Department of Transportation was a rule that: (a) was not adopted properly under Chapter 120 Florida Statutes, and (b) was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.DOT's policy that sign permits issued before 7/1/84 aren't subject to some statutes adversely affects Pet & is invalid for failure to promulgate.

88-004117 RICHARD D. NUDTSEN vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1988)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Dec. 20, 1988

Operation of seaplane base in lake poses danger to residents and to persons in lightweight low-powered watercraft. Permit denied

88-001652 SKIFF'S WORKINGMAN'S NURSERY vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1988)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Nov. 28, 1988

Petitioner seeks reimbursement for expenses related to relocation of the business caused by construction of I-595 in Broward County, Florida. Respondent Department of Transportation Preliminarily denied Petitioner's request for reimbursement for impact fees and professional services related to the relocation. Accordingly, the issues for determination herein are whether impact fees and design services are eligible for reimbursement as relocation expenses. Petitioner presented the testimony of Steven H. Magee, Edward P. Skiff, Donald Cowell, Ginger Gordon, Rhonda Lynn Sawyer, and by way of deposition Jane Steele and David Nicholson. Additionally, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1-6 and 9-13 were admitted in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of David Nicholson and Ginger Gordon.Impact fees paid by a relocated business are development permit fees, not operating expenses, and are therefore reimbursable to displaced business

88-002356 HOLLYWOOD HILLS CITIZENS COMMITTEE, PHYLLIS BRIGLIO, EUGENE BRIGLIO, MRS. ROY THOMPSON, AND ERNA L. DAHMEN vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (1988)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Sep. 12, 1988

The issue is whether the application meets the standards found in Section 330.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-60, Florida Administrative Code. The specific factual issues presented for resolution are: Whether the site is adequate for the proposed helistop. Whether the proposed helistop will conform to minimum standards of safety. Whether safe air-traffic patterns could be worked out for the proposed helistop and for all existing airports and approved sites in the vicinity.Neighbors' objection to licensure of helistop on 6th floor of Memorial Hospital in Hollywood failed to show hospital's proposal violated DOT rules.

87-004388 LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1987)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Jul. 25, 1988

Evidence insufficient to show DOT's classification street as county road to be in error and no evidence that estoppel applied.

Vernon L Whittier Jr.