Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
JOHN DOE CORPORATION vs TALLAHASSEE-LEON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 06-004510 (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Nov. 09, 2006 Number: 06-004510 Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2024
# 1
# 2
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs CITY OF WINTER PARK, 07-005681GM (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Winter Park, Florida Dec. 14, 2007 Number: 07-005681GM Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2024
# 3
S. J. STEPHANY vs. ORANGE COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, 86-002470 (1986)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 86-002470 Latest Update: Oct. 21, 1986

The Issue The issue at hearing was whether the Orange County Parks Department is entitled to dredge and file permit #48-118375-4 for its public boat ramp and dock project in Trimble Park.

Findings Of Fact Trimble Park is one of thirteen public parks operated by the Orange County Parks Department. It is located in Orange County on a small peninsula protruding into Lakes Beauclaire and Carlton, two lakes in the Oklawaha chain. Orange County owns a portion of the park and leases the remainder of the park property from the State of Florida. The park shares the peninsula with approximately eight private residences located near the base of the peninsula along Trimble Park Drive. At present the only entrance road into the park, Trimble Park Drive, dead-ends with a cul-de-sac near the upper tip of the peninsula well within the park. S. J. Stephany and his wife live in one of the eight residences on Trimble Park Drive directly across from the berm constructed by Orange County in the park to serve as a buffer between the proposed project and the private residences. The Stephanys' backyard is on Lake Carlton. Trimble Park currently provides camping, picnicking, playground and boating facilities near the tip of the peninsula. The current boat ramp and dock are located in a wetland area on the shore of Lake Beauclaire. There are no established parking places for boaters to leave their cars and boat trailers, and the boaters park anywhere they can find space off the road, including under trees and within the playground and picnic area. Three oaks and a pine tree have died in recent years in the area where the boaters now park. Ginger Corless attributes the loss of trees to root damage caused by the vehicles. The project which is the subject of this proceeding seeks to move the boating facility (ramp and dock) from the current site to a small natural cove closer to the base of the peninsula also on the shore of Lake Beauclaire. The new site includes less than one-half acre of wetlands. The ramp is to be removed from the current site and the site will be allowed to revegetate. The new site will include 15 paved parking spaces for boaters and 15 more spaces on a stabilized surface, for a maximum of 30 boaters. A ranger will be on site seven days a week and the gate to the boating facility will be closed whenever the 30 spaces are full, thus limiting access to the ramp. A road separate from Trimble Park Drive is to be constructed for traffic to the ramp and dock. That road will divert boat traffic away from the front of all but two of the private residences. A six-foot berm has been constructed along Trimble Park Drive and will be landscaped with palm trees and pampas grass to shield the boat facility from the private property. The new ramp is not intended to accommodate larger boats and the new facility will not result in increased boating traffic as the current usage is already at least the 27 trailers observed by Ginger Corless in the Park on September 21, 1986. The Department of Environmental Regulation issued a permit (number 48- 097955-4) for this same project on March 13, 1985. The permit expired a year later, before Orange County could obtain the funds for construction. Since an extension was not timely requested, Orange County re-applied in April 1986. The application in 1986 is essentially the same as that approved in 1985: the construction of a boat ramp and docks, the dredging of 946.9 cubic yards of sand and the filling of 43.12 cubic yards of material. Dr. Stephany brought to the attention of the Parks Department an error in the latitude and longitude reference to the project location in the application. The application has been corrected and the error is deemed a non- substantive clerical error. No one claims to have been misled as to the actual location of the park. After review of the application, file documents and site, Department of Environmental Regulation staff concluded that the requirements of Section 403.918 Florida Statutes were met. Lake Beauclaire is not an outstanding Florida water. While Lake Beauclaire frequently does not meet class III water quality standards, the proposed project will not further degrade the quality. There are bald eagles, osprey and likely some otters on the site, but these species adapt to human pressures and adapted to the existing boat ramps. They will not leave the area. The site for the new dock and ramp is less significant from an environmental standpoint than the existing site. The area was previously cleared for agricultural purposes and noxious water hyacinths and cattails predominate. The site is not significant from an historical or archeological standpoint. S. J. Stephany received notice of the permit by mail, by copy of the June 6, 1986 cover letter and Notice of Permit addressed to the Orange County Parks Department. He availed himself of the point of entry by requesting and actively participating in this formal hearing. The Department of Environmental Regulation did not require the Orange County Parks Department to publish notice in a newspaper because this was a short form application. Dr. Stephany candidly conceded that he is not a water quality expert. His concerns about the project at hearing were limited to: a) lack of notice, b) an adverse impact on the value of his home, c) an increase in noise from the project from outboard motors and vehicles and d) zoning problems. His neighbors are also concerned about their property values and want the road to the park rerouted to avoid traffic past their property.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is therefore, Recommended that a Final Order be entered issuing Department of Environmental Regulation permit no. 48-118375-4 as described in the Department of Environmental Regulation Notice of Permit dated June 6, 1986. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2470 The following comprise my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this proceeding: Findings of Fact proposed by Petitioner, S. J. Stephany. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence in this proceeding. A prior permit had been issued and there was no evidence of controversy regarding that permit. Adopted in paragraph 7 as to absence of newspaper notice; otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. The nursery is not a party to this proceeding. Adopted in general in paragraph 1 as to the description of the Park. The "clouded jurisdiction" is immaterial in this permit proceeding. &6. Rejected as unsupported by evidence. 7.&8. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 6. Rejected as immaterial. The evidence in this case supports a finding that no increase will result from this project. Adopted in general in paragraph 4. Rejected as unsupported by evidence. 13.-20. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 21. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 22.&23. Rejected as unsupported by evidence. Rejected as unsupported by evidence. Rejected as immaterial. The existence or appropriateness of an alternative site is not at issue. Adopted in paragraph 5, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Findings of Fact Proposed by the Department of Environmental Regulation and Concurred in and Adopted by the Orange County Parks Department 1.-4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 1 and 3. 7.&8. Adopted in paragraph 3. 9. Adopted in substance in paragraph 1. 10.-13. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as unsubstantiated by the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 4. 16.-18. Adopted in substance in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 7. COPIES FURNISHED: S. J. Stephany 105 Rockport Street Eustis, Florida 32726 Vivian Feist Garfein, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Gehrig, Esquire Orange County Legal Department 201 South Rosalind Avenue DER 5th Floor Orlando, Florida 32802 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary 2600 Blair Stone Road Twin Towers Office Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 5
ROLANDA BOADA vs CITY OF HIALEAH GARDENS, 01-003463 (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida Aug. 31, 2001 Number: 01-003463 Latest Update: Sep. 16, 2002

The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of discriminating against Petitioner in employment based on his age, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on September 13, 1955. He was initially employed by Respondent in 1996. He remained employed with Respondent until he was terminated in late November 2000. At the time of his termination, Petitioner served as the Assistant Director of Parks. His immediate supervisor was Julio Martinez, who was the Director of Parks. On July 18, 2000, Yioset de la Cruz was elected Mayor of Respondent. Mayor de la Cruz had been employed by Respondent during the administrations of Mayors Oliveros, Fatima, and Morejon. However, Mayor Morejon terminated the employment of Mr. de la Cruz, as well as several other employees who had served under Mayor Fatima. Running on the promise to clean up the city, Mr. de la Cruz won 57 percent of the vote and defeated then-Mayor Morejon. When he assumed office, Mayor de la Cruz had to address several pressing financial issues, including a projected deficit of $540,000 for the fiscal year and the cancellation of Respondent's insurance by The Florida League of Cities. At the same time, the people of Hialeah Gardens had become dissatisfied with the maintenance and operation of their city parks, which are the most visible reflection of the quality of their city government. Appointing Arturo Ruiz to oversee the parks and their maintenance and operation, Mayor de la Cruz nonetheless remained directly involved in parks administration by imposing new discipline upon parks workers to ensure public satisfaction with the maintenance and operation of city parks. Shortly after disciplining Petitioner for improper use of his city telephone, Mayor de la Cruz visited Respondent's office, which was located in one of the major city parks, to assure that city park employees had completed their preparations for the long holiday weekend of Thanksgiving 2000. Unable to find Petitioner at his office, Mayor de la Cruz asked to see Petitioner's time card and found that he had not punched out for the day. After driving through nearby parks in search of Petitioner, Mayor de la Cruz returned to the office, where the secretary belatedly informed him that Petitioner had called in to say that he had fallen ill and asked that another employee punch him out for the day. After Mayor de la Cruz and the secretary finished speaking, Mayor de la Cruz spoke with Petitioner by telephone. When Mayor de la Cruz attempted to discuss the matter with Petitioner, Petitioner became disrespectful and insubordinate. Petitioner began screaming and swearing at the Mayor, who responded by promptly firing Petitioner. The evidence in this case is clear that Mayor de la Cruz fired Petitioner due to his insubordination, not due to his age.

Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Request for Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary A. Costales Law Office of Gary A. Costales, P.A. 2151 LeJeune Road, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 J. Frost Walker, III, Esquire Law Office of J. Frost Walker, III 100 West Sunrise Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33133 Derick Daniel, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relation 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Violet D. Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149

Florida Laws (2) 120.57760.10
# 7
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs PUTNAM COUNTY, 07-003773GM (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Palatka, Florida Aug. 22, 2007 Number: 07-003773GM Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2024
# 8
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs CITY OF DUNNELLON, FLORIDA, 06-000417GM (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Hernando, Florida Feb. 02, 2006 Number: 06-000417GM Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2024
# 10

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