Whether an amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 15-10 on June 3, 2015, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).1/Plan Amendment was not "in compliance" where County's interpretation of comprehensive plan policy was contrary to the plain language.

The issues to be determined in this case are whether the amendments to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan that were adopted through Ordinance Nos. 10-19, 10-20, 10-21 and Remedial Ordinance No. 10-43 ("Plan Amendments") are "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011).1/Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the plan amendments adopted by Lee County are not in compliance.

Ultimately at issue in this case is whether certain comprehensive plan amendments, adopted by Lee County Ordinance No. 94-30, are "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, many of the subordinate issues raised by parties seeking to have the plan amendments found to be "not in compliance" have been withdrawn, and others have been stricken as not timely raised or for other reasons. The remaining issues are addressed in this Recommended Order.Amendments deleted overlay used to settle case on 89 plan, leaving plans % district's or other objectionable measures in mixed use categories and overall located number.

The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to formal training and education sponsored by the Division of Workers' Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.491(6), Florida Statutes.Employee not entitled to additional training and education because these services are not required for him to obtain suitable gainful employment.

The issue is whether Lee County is entitled to a permit to install markers prohibiting personal watercraft in certain waters.DEP not required to review legality or fairness of ordinance on which request for markers is based.

The issue in this case is whether the Department of Management Services is entitled to operation and construction and operation permits for the management and storage of surface water.Application failed to provide reasonable assurances regarding water quantity and quality, maintenance respondents and adverse impacts to get construction and operations permit or operations permit

Whether Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00315-S issued to Respondents Samuel and Connie Hubschman, Trustee, expired or vested. Whether the alleged violations set forth in the Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, were resolved in a settlement prior to hearing. Whether the Respondents have conducted construction activity outside the scope of any permit authorization. Whether there has been an alteration of a wetland impoundment. Whether the Respondents have violated conditions set forth in permits issued by Petitioner.The agreement between the parties as to the resolution of permit violations should be placed in writing before they are relied upon by either party.

As stated by the Hearing Officer the issue in this case is whether the District should issue a surface water management permit to Russell E. and Marilyn F. Scott, and Caloosa Television Corporation for the construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a television signal tower and control building in Southeast Lee County, Florida. There are no significant water resource impacts related to the management of surface water by the proposed project. The harm at issue in this case is the potential for wood storks and other wading to strike the tower and guy wires which are not structures related to management and storage of waters. The parties disagree as to whether the District has jurisdiction to consider the bird impacts related to collisions with the tower and guy wires, and if so, whether the tower and guy wires will have a significant adverse impact on the water resources of the state through a reduction of wood storks, an endangered species, and other wading birds which through feeding on fish remove biomass from such water, thereby maintaining water quality. In determining jurisdiction in this case, the parties disagree on the meaning of "works" and "surface water management system" as used in Chapter 373, F.S. and Rule 40E-4, F.A.C. The petitioners argue that since one set of guy wires will be placed across one end of the cypress wetland located on the subject property, the entire project including the guy wire and tower is a "works" and part of the surface water management system, which is subject to the permitting jurisdiction of the District. The District and respondent Caloosa Television Corporation contend that the tower and guy wires are not structures related to surface water management and are not "works" nor part of the surface water management system, and therefore, bird mortality, as a result of hitting the tower and guy wires, is not subject to the permitting jurisdiction of the District.SWM permit issued. Works defined. Tower and guy wire were works. Wire crossed wetland edge. SFWMD had authority over tower and impact on birds in area.

Whether amendments to Respondent, Lee County's (County), comprehensive plan, CPA2018-10014, adopted by ordinance on June 19, 2019, are "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the 2019 Plan Amendments were not in compliance as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.

Whether Lee County Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2015-00005, adopted by Ordinance No. 20-07 on June 17, 2020 (the “Plan Amendment”), is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2019).1Petitioners proved that the Plan Amendment was not "in compliance" because it increased residential density in the Coastal High Hazard Area contrary to section 163.3178(8), Florida Statutes.