The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s performance under its lawn care service contract with the Department of Management Services was deficient, and, if so, whether the amounts deducted by the Department from the monthly payments made to Petitioner under the contract were reasonable and appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner provides lawn care services to residential and commercial properties in the central Florida area. Andre Smith is Petitioner’s owner and president. In November 2004, the Department entered into a contract with Petitioner for lawn care services at nine Department buildings. The contract was awarded to Petitioner through a competitive procurement process in which Petitioner was the low bidder. The contract number was ITN No. 26-991- 490-Z. Petitioner was to be paid a total of $7,384.92 per month under the contract. Each of the nine buildings was apportioned a specific amount of the total price in the contract. The scope of work under the contract generally included lawn care services, open field mowing, and irrigation system maintenance. The lawn care services required under the contract included mowing, edging, weed control, fertilizing, watering, shrub and tree pruning, mulching, and clean-up. The contract specified the frequency that the services were to be performed. Mowing was to be done weekly between April and November, and every two weeks between December and March; hedges and shrubs were to be trimmed at least monthly unless more frequent trimming was required for aesthetic reasons; and mulching was to be done in March and September. The contract required Petitioner to take soil samples at the beginning of the contract and annually thereafter. The results of the soil samples were to be used to determine whether Petitioner needed to apply iron, lime, or other minerals to the lawns. The contract required Petitioner to inspect each building’s irrigation system at the beginning of the contract, and required Petitioner to provide a report to the building manager regarding any repair work needed on the system. Petitioner was also required to check the irrigation system on every visit to ensure that it was operating properly. The contract required Petitioner to apply pre-emergent weed control and fertilizer. The weed control was to be applied in the spring and the fall, and the fertilizer was to be applied three times during the year on an agreed upon schedule. The mulching required by the contract was to be done in March and September. The mulch was to be maintained at a depth of four inches throughout the year. The contract required Petitioner to use cypress mulch. The day-to-day operation of the buildings subject to the contract was the responsibility of on-site building managers, not the Department staff in Tallahassee. The building managers were responsible for the direct oversight of Petitioner’s work under the contract, and they were also responsible for reviewing and evaluating Petitioner’s performance. Petitioner began providing services under the contract in December 2004. Petitioner received full payment from the Department for the services that it provided from December 2004 through March 2005, even though several of the building managers were not satisfied with Petitioner’s performance under the contract during that period. Several of the building managers spoke with Mr. Smith regarding their concerns with Petitioner’s performance under the contract. They also documented Petitioner’s performance deficiencies on the monthly summary report forms that the contract required Petitioner to submit in order to obtain payment. Starting in April 2005, the building managers were required to fill out evaluation forms in addition to the monthly summary report forms. The impetus for the creation and use of the evaluation forms was Petitioner’s continuing unsatisfactory performance under the contract. The building managers used the evaluation forms to rate Petitioner’s performance as “good,” “fair,” or “poor” on the 20 categories of service that Petitioner was required to perform under the contract. Each service was assigned an equal weight -- e.g., one twentieth or five percent of the contract -- and if all 20 services were not applicable to a particular building, the weight assigned to each service was adjusted accordingly. The evaluation form was developed by Kris Parks, who was the contract administrator for Petitioner’s contract. Ms. Parks developed the form on her own. She did not get the input of the building managers in developing the form, and Mr. Smith was not consulted regarding the development of the form. The evaluation forms were used by Ms. Parks in conjunction with the monthly summary report forms in order to reduce the payments made to Petitioner under the contract. Each service for which Petitioner was given a “poor” rating by a building manager resulted in a five percent deduction in the amount paid to Petitioner. Typically, a “poor” rating reflected work that was not performed at all by Petitioner, rather than work that was performed unsatisfactorily. In some situations, a smaller deduction was made if the comments on the evaluation form or the monthly summary report form reflected partial performance despite the “poor” rating. For example, if Petitioner received a “poor” rating for mowing, but the comments reflected that Petitioner provided services twice during the month rather than the required four times, the deduction was 2.5 percent rather than five percent. The reduction of payments under the contract for unsatisfactory performance or unperformed work is specifically authorized by Section 3.13 of the contract. Section 3.13 of the contract states that the monthly summary report form “will be used by [the building managers] to track performance of services, in order to determine a proportional deduction in payment for services that are not performed as agreed” in the contract. It does not mention any other form. The contract does not define “proportional deduction” and it does not include the methodology to be used in calculating the deduction. The contract is silent on those issues. Petitioner’s contract with the Department was amended in May 2005 to reduce the number of buildings that Petitioner served from nine to three. The three remaining buildings were the ones closest to Petitioner’s business location in Lakeland, i.e., the Hargrett and Trammel Buildings in Tampa and the Peterson Building in Lakeland. The reduction in the scope of the contract was the result of Petitioner’s continuing unsatisfactory performance under the contract, and it reflected the Department’s well- founded view that Petitioner was not able to handle all nine buildings. The Department staff was trying to help Mr. Smith by allowing Petitioner to retain a portion of the contract rather than canceling the contract altogether based upon Petitioner’s poor performance. The invoices submitted by Petitioner for April 2005 through July 2005 were as follows: $7,384.92 (April); $7,384.92 (May); $1,938.64 (June); and $1,938.64 (July). The April and May invoices were based upon the nine buildings served by Petitioner in those months. The June and July invoices were based upon the three buildings served by Petitioner in those months. The Department did not pay the invoices for April 2005 through July 2005 in full. It paid Petitioner $2,451.782 for April (33.2 percent of the invoice), $835.82 for May (11.6 percent), $453.393 for June (23.4 percent), and $904.66 for July (46.7 percent). The amounts deducted -- $4,933.14 for April; $6,531.10 for May; $1,485.25 for June; and $1,033.98 for July -- were based upon the Department’s determination that Petitioner failed to perform certain work under the contract. The amounts deducted were calculated by Ms. Parks using the information provided to her by the building managers on the evaluation forms, as described above. The letters by which the Department informed Petitioner of the payment reductions advised Petitioner that it “may have the right to an administrative hearing regarding this matter, pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.” The letters explained what Petitioner was required to do to request a hearing and advised Petitioner that the "[f]ailure to timely request a hearing will be deemed a waiver of [the] right to a hearing." Petitioner timely filed letters challenging the deductions for April, June, and July 2005. The total deductions for those months were $7,452.37. Petitioner did not file anything challenging the deduction for May 2005. Therefore, the $6,531.10 deduction for that month is not at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner is not entitled to the full amount billed to the Department for April, June, and July 2005 because all of the services required under the contract were not performed during those months. Mr. Smith conceded this point in his testimony at the final hearing.4 Mr. Smith contended at the hearing that the amounts deducted by the Department were not reasonable in light of the services that Petitioner did provide. However, Mr. Smith did not identify what he would consider to be a reasonable deduction for the work that Petitioner admittedly did not perform. Petitioner routinely failed to provide mowing services at each of the buildings at the intervals required under the contract. For example, Petitioner only mowed one time during the month of June 2005 at the Hargrett and Trammel Buildings, rather than the four times required under the contract. Petitioner did not put down mulch at any of the buildings in March 2005, as required by the contract. When the building managers asked Mr. Smith about the mulch, he told them that he would get to it. Mr. Smith testified that he was told by the Department staff in Tallahassee that the mulch could be put down in any month so long as it was done twice a year. That uncorroborated, self-serving testimony was not persuasive. Petitioner put down mulch at some, but not all of the buildings in April and May 2005. The mulch that Petitioner put down did not cover all of the areas requiring mulch and it was not put down at the required four-inch depth. At the Trammel Building, for example, the mulch put down by Petitioner was less than half of that required by the contract. No mulch was ever put down at the Hurston Building in Orlando or the Grizzle Building in Largo. Petitioner’s performance was often deficient in regards to trimming and clean-up of debris. For example, on one occasion at the Trammel Building, Petitioner left more than 60 bags of leaves in and around the building’s dumpster; at the Hargrett building, there were overhanging tree limbs that went untrimmed for an extended period; and Petitioner routinely failed to do trimming at the Grizzle Building, although he did a good job picking up debris at that building. The services provided by Petitioner at the Trammel Building got so bad that the building manager had to hire another company at a cost of approximately $1,800 to clean up the site so that it would be presentable for an event in the vicinity of the building that was attended by a U.S. Senator and other dignitaries. The building managers were never given the results of the soil samples that Petitioner was required to take at the beginning of the contract even though they repeatedly requested that information. When Mr. Smith was asked about the soil samples by the building managers, he told them that he would get them done. Mr. Smith claimed at the hearing that he sent the results of the soil samples to the Department staff in Tallahassee, although he could not recall whom specifically he sent the results to, and he offered no documentation to corroborate his testimony on this issue. Petitioner’s testimony regarding the soil samples was not persuasive. The Department’s witnesses credibly testified that they never received the results of the soil samples from Petitioner. Indeed, the evidence was not persuasive that Petitioner ever took the soil samples required by the contract. The print-outs presented at the final hearing, Exhibit DMS-11, do not have any identifying information that would corroborate Mr. Smith’s testimony that the samples described in the print- outs were from the buildings that were the subject of the contract.5 Moreover, the print-outs are dated March 8, 2005, which is more than four months after the samples were supposed to have been taken by Petitioner, and several of the soil samples had pH levels outside of the range set forth in the contract. Mr. Smith testified that Petitioner applied fertilizer and pre-emergent weed control at each of the buildings, as required by the contract. That uncorroborated, self-serving testimony was not persuasive. The more persuasive evidence establishes that Petitioner did not apply fertilizer or pre-emergent weed control. On this issue, the building managers credibly testified that they were never advised by Mr. Smith that the fertilizer or pre-emergent weed control was being applied, even though those services were to supposed be performed pursuant to a schedule agreed upon with the building managers; the building managers credibly testified that they did not observe any signs that fertilizer had been applied, such as the greening of the grass; and fertilizer could not have been applied at the Hurston Building without killing all of the grass because the fertilizer needs to be watered into the lawn, and the sprinkler system at the building was not working at the time. Petitioner failed to perform the required inspection of the irrigation system at several of the buildings, including the Hurston Building, at the beginning of the contract in order to determine whether any repairs needed to be done. The system at the Hurston Building did not work for an extended period of time, which caused large sections of grass around the building to die from a lack of water. The performance deficiencies described above were cited on the monthly summary report forms and the evaluation forms completed by the building managers, which in turn were used by Ms. Parks to calculate the amount deducted from the monthly payments made to Petitioner under the contract. Petitioner was responsible for the costs of the mulch, fertilizer, and pre-emergent weed control required under the contract. The money that Petitioner “saved” by not providing those services likely exceeds the amounts deducted by the Department pursuant to Section 3.13 of the contract. For example, the mulch purchased by Petitioner for the Trammell Building cost approximately $2,250, and that was only half of the mulch needed for that building alone. Petitioner is no longer providing lawn care services to the Department under the contract. The contract was revoked based upon Petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance. The revocation of the contract, which occurred at some point prior to August 2005, is not at issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services issue a final order rejecting Petitioner’s challenge to the payment reductions made by the Department for the months of April, June, and July 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 3rd of November, 2006.
The Issue Whether Orange County Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2015-2- P-FLUE-1 and 2015-2-A-5-1, adopted by Ordinance 2016-17 on July 12, 2016 (the Plan Amendments), are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioners, Seerina Farrell, Ariel Horner, Adele Simons, Marjorie Holt, and Kelly Semrad (the Individual Petitioners), own property and reside in the County. The Individual Petitioners submitted written or verbal comments, recommendations, or objections to the County during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments and ending with the adoption of same (the Comment Period). Petitioner, Ronald Brooke, owns property and resides in the County. Petitioner Brooke submitted written or verbal comments, recommendations, or objections to the County during the Comment Period. Petitioner, Corner Lakes, owns property adjacent to the property subject to the Plan Amendments and operates a business in the County. Corner Lakes, by and through its representative, submitted comments, recommendations, or objections to the County during the Comment Period. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and amend a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167. Intervenor Banksville is one of the co-applicants for the Plan Amendments and owns real property directly affected by the Plan Amendments. Banksville timely submitted oral or written comments to the County in support of the Plan Amendments during the Comment Period. Intervenor CHCG is one of the co-applicants for the Plan Amendments and is the agent of one of the owners of property directly affected by the Plan Amendments. CHCG timely submitted comments to the County in support of the Plan Amendments during the Comment Period. The Rybolt Intervenors are owners of property directly affected by the Plan Amendments and submitted comments to the County in support of the Plan Amendments during the Comment Period. The Property The property subject to the Plan Amendments is 2,796 acres of land located in eastern Orange County between State Road 50 (SR 50 or Colonial Drive) on the south and the Orange/Seminole County line on the north. The property lies wholly within the Econlockhatchee River Basin (Econ River Basin) and is open, active pasture land. The southern portion of the property is bounded on the west by South Tanner Road, a county road that intersects with SR 50 on the southwest corner of the subject property. Just beyond South Tanner Road to the west lies the Econlockhatchee Sandhills Conservation Area (ESCA). The northern portion of the subject property is directly adjacent to the County-mandated area buffering the Econlockhatchee River (Econ River). The subject property is bounded on the east by existing vested residential neighborhoods known as “rural settlements.” Corner Lake rural settlement is adjacent to the southern portion of the property, and Lake Pickett rural settlement is adjacent to the northern portion. Both of the adjoining rural settlements are served by Chuluota Road, another county road which intersects with SR 50 just beyond the frontage of the subject property. Chuluota Road runs north, where it intersects with Lake Pickett Road, which roughly bisects the subject property, and continues to run north to its intersection with McCulloch Road at the Seminole County border. The ESCA is approximately 710 acres of undeveloped property east of the Econ River previously used as pasture. Intervenors, Rolling R. Ranch and Rybolt, conveyed the property to the St. Johns River WMD in November 2008. The following language in the Agreement for Sale or Purchase is relevant to the case at hand: It is the intention of the Seller [Intervenors Rolling R. Ranch and Rybolt] to develop Seller’s Retained Lands into a mixed use project with Development of Regional Impact review and approval for substantial density. . . . Buyer expressly agrees Buyer, as a neighboring property owner, shall not require any buffering or setbacks on Seller’s Retained Lands. In the event any local authority requires a setback between the Property and the Seller’s Retained Lands, Buyer will accept 50% of such setback to be placed upon the Property up to a maximum of 35 feet. No roads, swales, ditches, fencing, landscaping, or other improvements shall be constructed by Seller within any setback area on the Property. The ESCA is owned by the St. Johns River WMD and, in part, by the County. The ESCA is a significant natural resource managed for a public benefit, namely, protection of the Econ River Basin, within which the Plan Amendments are located. The ESCA also hosts hiking and horseback riding trails and is open to the public for passive recreation use. The Plan Amendments The Plan Amendments comprise both a text amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and an amendment to the County’s FLUM. The Text Amendment The text amendment creates “Lake Pickett” (LP) as a new future land use category within FLUE Goal 6: Protection of Rural Land Resources and Other Assets. LP is codified in FLUE Objective 6.8, which limits the application of the category to the area designated as the “Lake Pickett Study Area,” or LPSA, established on the County’s FLUM by the corresponding map amendment, and describes the geographic boundaries of the LPSA. Acknowledging that the new category will allow dense development within rural areas, Objective 6.8 provides that “[t]he LP designation manages the transition of development from surrounding rural neighborhood densities and preservation areas to more dense development clustered towards the center of the [LPSA].” Objective 6.8 provides that “[c]ompatibility is ensured on LP designated lands through the use of ‘Transect Zones’,” among other practices. “Transect Zones allow development to occur by gradually transitioning from less to more dense development.” The objective continues, as follows: Each Transect Zone shall have a stated density unique to that Transect, and each series of Transect Zones shall build upon each other from the least dense Transect to the most dense Transect. Transect Zones allow contiguous rural character to be preserved which may include like-to-like lot configurations along the boundary. Objective 6.8 is implemented by new Policies 6.8.1 through 6.8.15, which establish “Guiding Principles” for all future development in the LPSA; define the type, density and intensity of development in each Transect Zone; provide for buffers and other compatibility measures along the perimeter; and provide requirements for open space, community space, agricultural uses, community centers, the street network, trail system, a “green infrastructure plan,” neighborhood schools, and service by public infrastructure, including water and wastewater. Policy 6.8.2 provides for the following Transect Zones: T1 Natural/Wetland: “[N]atural lands” and areas that will remain undeveloped and/or designated for agriculture use, passive recreation, conservation, or related activities ” T2 Rural: “[S]parsley settled lands in open or cultivated states.” The policy allows an “average density” of two dwelling units per acre (2du/acre). T3 Edge: “[P]redominately single-family detached residential uses within walkable neighborhoods” and includes community buildings, community gardens and parks, and “central focal point uses” which are undefined. The policy allows an “average density” of 5du/acre, a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .25, or a combination thereof. T4 Center: Allows a “mix of residential . . . and non-residential uses, including commercial, office, service, and civic uses that serve a Lake Pickett community as well as the surrounding area.” The policy allows an “average residential density” of 6du/acre and an “average non- residential intensity” of .15 FAR. The policy requires location of “higher concentrations of development” within the “most southerly portion” of the Lake Picket Study Area “adjacent to SR 50, at a maximum FAR of 1.0.” Policy 6.8.8 calls for development of two separate communities: one north and one south of Lake Pickett Road. Policy 6.8.9 requires development to be organized into neighborhoods, maximum size of 125 acres each, organized around a “centralized focal point” such as a park, community garden, community center, civic building or use, day care facility, or “a similar type of use.” Neighborhoods shall contain a mix of housing styles and/or lot sizes “located within a 1/4-mile from the centralized focal point,” which shall “average a minimum of one acre in size,” and be connected to trails or “complete streets.” Policy 6.8.14 requires all development within the LPSA to be served by public water, wastewater, and reclaimed water facilities operated by the County, but acknowledges the County may require the developer to prepay for a portion of the capacity necessary to serve the development. Objective 6.9 and its implementing policies dictate the process for the property owners to obtain a FLUM amendment to LP. The FLUM amendment application must include a draft Conceptual Regulating Plan (CRP), a proposed development program, a justification statement, an Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) Consistency Determination Application, a Transportation Study, and a proposed community meeting schedule. The CRP is described as “a general and illustrative representation of the proposed development and location of the transects.” Policy 6.1.9 requires the following items to be depicted on the CRP, or attachments thereto: General location of Transect Zones; General location and types of the proposed agricultural uses (if applicable), natural areas, and transitional treatments; Location of existing and planned major roadways, trails or other transportation nodes; Location of potential and required connections, including external connections to adjacent roadways and those between the two Lake Pickett communities, and required internal connections between neighborhoods; General location of public school sites and a copy of the application for a Capacity Enhancement Agreement with OCPS; Net developable area for the project and for each of the Transect Zones; and Overall proposed community development program. According to Policy 6.1.9, a “CRP shall be provided during the transmittal process, and shall be refined throughout the review process” for the FLUM amendment. Properties obtaining the LP FLUM designation must be rezoned to Lake Pickett Planned Development (LP PD). The PD Regulating Plan (PD-RP) establishes the final locations of Transect Zones, open space and preservation areas, streets, neighborhoods, schools, trails, and parks. The text amendment does not require the PD-RP to be incorporated with the FLUM amendment to LP. The proposed development plan, including average densities and intensities by Transect Zone “shall be included and adopted as part of the Lake Pickett PD-RP.” The policy provides the development program “shall be substantially consistent with the program submitted with the CRP and approved with the LP FLUM amendment.” If the developer requests to increase the development totals for a Lake Pickett PD-RP, such change must be approved through an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The Map Amendment The FLUM amendment redesignates 1,237 acres of land, the southern portion of the LPSA, from the Rural to the LP category. The property encompasses “Lake Pickett South,” which is roughly bounded by Lake Pickett Road on the north, East Colonial Drive to the south, Chuluota Road on the east, and South Tanner Road on the west. The ESCA lies west of South Tanner Road, the property’s western boundary. The applicants proposed a FLUM amendment for the North Lake Pickett Community, which was not approved by the County and is not considered in the case sub judice. The property subject to the amendment is currently undeveloped and has a FLUM designation of Rural with a density limitation of 1du/10 acres. The LPSA is located wholly outside of the County’s Urban Service Area (USA). USA/RSA Concept The County employs the USA concept as “an effective fiscal and land use technique for managing growth.” The USA identifies areas where the County has primary responsibility for providing infrastructure and services to support urban development. The County has an overarching goal to direct its growth to the USA. FLUE Objective 1.1 states the County “shall use urban densities and intensities . . . to direct development to the [USA] and to facilitate such development.” Policy 1.1.1 states, “Urban uses shall be concentrated within the [USA]” except as specified in particular designations. Policy 1.2.2 requires that “Urban development during the 2007-2030 planning period . . . will occur only in the [USA]” and established exception areas. As part of its year 2000 update to the Comprehensive Plan, the County amended the plan consistent with a “strategy to focus development within the County’s USA.” See Policy 6.2.1. The USA boundary and acreage are based on the supply of usable land needed to accommodate the County’s population and employment forecasts through the year 2030. Policy 1.2.2 prohibits urban development outside the USA boundary, with certain inapplicable exceptions, during the 2007-2030 planning period. Residential development densities allowed within the USA range from Low Density Residential (LDR), up to a maximum of 4du/acre, to High Density Residential (HDR), up to a maximum of 50du/acre. That portion of the County outside the USA is designated as the Rural Service Area (RSA). The RSA designation is a tool for “managing agricultural lands, environmental lands, and historic resources.” To preserve and promote the “intended rural character” of the RSA, the County regulates the scale, density, and intensity of new development in the RSA. The only FLUE category correlating with the RSA is “Rural,” in which the County limits residential development to a maximum density of 1du/10 acres. Zoning Districts which correspond with the Rural land use category are Agriculture 1 (A-1), Agriculture 2 (A-2), Agriculture Residential (A-R), and Rural Country Estate Residential (R-CE-5). Exceptions to RSA Density Limitation The FLUE recognizes specific, established exceptions to the density limitation of residential development at 1du/10 acres within the RSA. These include Rural Settlements, Growth Centers, Specific Area Plans (SAP), and the Innovation Way (IW) Overlay. 1. Rural Settlements When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1991, some “pockets” of existing development at densities greater than 1du/10 acres were intentionally excluded from the USA. These “rural settlements” are essentially “grandfathered” from the prohibition against urban densities within the RSA. Rural settlements recognize the need to maintain agricultural areas and rural uses in the RSA, while providing for rural communities. Some rural settlements “allow a transition of rural uses adjacent to the [USA] while avoiding development in active agricultural areas.” Pursuant to Policy 6.2.1, rural settlements may not be expanded beyond their current boundaries and the County may not establish any new rural settlements.2/ Rural Settlement (RS) categories were established at a range of densities between 1du/5 acres (RS 1/5) to 2du/acre (RSLD 2/1). These categories recognize and preserve the development patterns that existed at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Not all rural settlements were built out at the time of plan adoption. No plan amendments may be approved within rural settlements to RSLD (2du/acre) or higher densities, except for certified affordable housing projects. No plan amendments may be approved for densities in rural settlement at densities higher than 1du/acre. Lake Pickett South is located adjacent to the Corner Lake rural settlement, which is designated LDR and is built out at 4du/acre. Pursuant to Policy 6.2.15, new residential development in a rural settlement is restricted to a density of 2du/acre, which may only be located in limited areas adjacent to higher density or intensity urban development in adjacent municipal jurisdictions. 2. Specific Area Plans In 1995, the County created a Village land use classification to realize a long-range planning concept for Horizon West, a 16,846-acre development in west Orange County. FLUE Goal 4 and Objective 4.1 describe the purpose of the classification, as follows: GOAL FLU4 HORIZON WEST. It is Orange County’s goal to ensure sustainable, quality development in Southwest Orange County to allow a transition from rural to urban uses while protecting environmental quality. OBJ FLU4.1 The Village land use classification has been designed to address the need to overcome the problems associated with and provide a meaningful alternative to the leap-frog pattern of sprawl now occurring in western Orange and eastern Lake County; create a better jobs/housing balance between the large concentration of employment in the tourism industry and surrounding land uses; create a land use pattern that will reduce reliance on the automobile by allowing a greater variety of land uses closer to work and home; and, replace piecemeal planning that reacts to development on a project-by-project basis with a long-range vision that uses the Village as the building block to allow the transition of this portion of Orange County from rural to urban use through a specific planning process that uses a creative design approach to address regional, environmental, transportation, and housing issues. The Village land use classification shall be implemented through the adoption of Specific Area Plans (SAPs) for the Villages and a Town Center. FLUE Goal 4 is a long-range planning tool undertaken by the County in cooperation with the state land planning agency pursuant to section 163.3245, titled “Sector Plans.” This alternative to the Development of Regional Impact state review process was initiated by the 1998 Legislature to “promote and encourage long-term planning for conservation, development, and agriculture on a landscape scale,” and to “avoid duplication of effort” of data-gathering and analysis for developments of regional impact “while ensuring the adequate mitigation of impacts to applicable regional resources and facilities[.]” FLUE GOAL 4, Objective 4.1, and their implementing policies comprise 40 pages of the County FLUE and comprehensively govern the development planning for the area. The concept envisions development of a series of master planned “Villages,” ranging from 1,000 to 3,500 acres, with between two and four neighborhoods complete with diverse housing types, shops, workplaces, schools, parks, and civic facilities. Each Village is modeled on “an urban development pattern,” complete with a Village center, containing a mix of residential, office, commercial, institutional and public uses to serve surrounding neighborhoods; neighborhood centers, with a school, park, or other “focal point,” and convenience retail operations and offices to serve the immediate neighborhoods; and neighborhoods with open space, varying lot sizes and housing types, locating higher density housing closer to the neighborhood center. The approval process for Horizon West Village SAPs, includes development first of a recommended plan, based on public and County staff input on a presentation of alternative master plans at public workshops, then refinement of the recommended plan, through additional informational workshops, and submittal of a Final Master Plan to the County for review. The Village SAP is structured to require a minimum net density of 5du/acre. Thus, Horizon West is a specific exception to the density limit of 1du/10acres in the RSA. In the case at hand, the Intervenors have not applied for a SAP. However, the LPSA text amendment mirrors many of the development characteristics of Horizon West Village concept. 3. Growth Centers The Growth Center FLUE designation is available only as a Joint Planning Area with an outside jurisdiction (i.e., adjoining county or municipal government). Growth Centers recognize urban development outside of, and adjacent to, the unincorporated areas of the County. The County has established two Growth Centers: a Northwest Growth Center and a Growth Center/Resort located in the southeast. The density and intensity of the growth centers is established through a Planned Development (PD) process. 4. Innovation Way Overlay District The Innovation Way (IW) Overlay is established by FLUE Objective 5.1, which reads as follows: The Innovation Way Overlay is a conceptual transect-based overlay designation where the County envisions a transit-ready, multi- modal mixed-use, walkable community with sustainable economic development, adequate public infrastructure, and the protection and resource management of environmentally sensitive areas. The IW Overlay utilizes transect-based planning and “incremental urbanism” to “design complete communities requiring walkable streets, mix of uses, transportation options, and housing diversity.” FLUE Policy 5.1.5. The IW “Conceptual Urban Form” is adopted on the County FLUM as the “generalized and illustrative location and extent of transect zones that collectively depict the desired urban form for Innovation Way.” Similar to the plan amendment process provided for LP, the IW plan amendment process requires rezoning through as a PD, which will determine the adopted boundaries and locations of transect zones. The “proposed location of the transects shall be illustrated on the [Conceptual Regulating Plan] during the [FLUM] amendment process and finalized in the approved IW-PD- RP.” FLUE Objective 5.2. The IW Overlay district utilizes transect zones T1 through T5, and T-SD, a special district zone. Zone T3 accommodates neighborhood development which must be “walkable, highly connected by streets, trails and pedestrian paths, and adequately served by parks and open space.” Each neighborhood must contain a central “focal point.” Although the specific density will be set in the PD-RP, FLUE Policy 5.1.7 establishes a “planned yield” of 3-4du/acre within T3, with a range of 1-10du/acre. Zone T4 accommodates town centers within IW, and provides “a mix of residential, office, retail, light industrial, and high-tech/clean-tech uses.” FLU Policy 5.1.7 establishes a “planned yield” of 7du/acre within T4, with a range of 4- 20du/acre. The development pattern of the LP district is substantially similar to the urban form described for IW, and the use of transect-based planning to transition from surrounding rural development to more dense development within RP. Expansion of the USA The County allows for expansion of the USA boundary only in limited circumstances. FLUE Objective 1.3 and implementing policies provide a process for evaluating applications for expansion of the boundary. An applicant must submit data and analysis to demonstrate that the development would not constitute urban sprawl and is needed to satisfy acreage demands of the projected population. FLUE Policy 1.2.4 lists the applications which have met the criteria and are recognized as expansions to the USA boundary. The list contains approximately 38 developments ranging in size from 1.23 acres to 2,549 acres. In the case at hand, Banksville and CHCG have not applied for an expansion of the USA to encompass the LPSA. In fact, Jim Hall, one of the developer’s consultants, expressed his dismissal of an expansion to the USA to accommodate LPSA because expansions have “a ton of rules” associated with them. Challenges to the Plan Amendments A. Internal Inconsistency Petitioners allege the Plan Amendments are internally inconsistent with a number of Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Principle among them are the goals, objectives, and policies establishing the USA/RSA development framework: FLUE Goal 1, Objective 1.1, Policy 1.1.1, Objective 1.2, Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.23/; Goal 6, Objective 6.1, and Policies 6.1.1, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3. The implicated goals, objectives, and policies read, as follows: GOAL FLU1 URBAN FRAMEWORK. Orange County shall implement an urban planning framework that provides for long-term, cost-effective provision of public services and facilities and the desired future development pattern for Orange County. OBJ FLU1.1 Orange County shall use urban densities and intensities and Smart Growth tools and strategies to direct development to the [USA] and to facilitate such development (See FLU1.1.2.B and FLU1.1.4). The [USA] shall be the area for which Orange County is responsible for providing infrastructure and services to support urban development. POLICIES FLU1.1.1 Urban uses shall be concentrated within the [USA], except as specified for the Horizon West Village and Innovation Way Overlay (Scenario 5), Growth Centers, and to a limited extent, Rural Settlements. * * * OBJ FLU1.2 URBAN SERVICE AREA (USA) CONCEPT; USA SIZE AND MONITORING. Orange County shall use the [USA] concept as an effective fiscal and land use technique for managing growth. The [USA] shall be used to identify the area where Orange County has the primary responsibility for providing infrastructure and services to support urban development. POLICIES FLU1.2.1 The [USA] boundary, and its acreage allocation, shall be based on the supply of usable land needed to accommodate the County’s population and employment forecasts by Year 2030 with respect to the County’s desired development pattern, the County’s ability to provide urban services and facilities, and the County’s urban strategies to achieve its desired development pattern. FLU1.2.2 Urban development during the 2007- 2030 planning period, as identified in FLU1.2.1, will occur only in the [USA] and the established boundary for the Horizon West SAP (identified on Map 2 in the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan) and the Innovation Way Overlay (Scenario 5) . * * * GOAL FLU6 PROTECTION OF RURAL LAND RESOURCES AND OTHER ASSETS. The County will manage land uses within the [RSA], including agricultural lands, environmental land including the Wekiva Area, historic resources and Rural Settlements, so as to conserve these assets and their values. OBJ FLU6.1 RURAL SERVICE AREA. Orange County shall designate that portion of the County outside the [USA] as the [RSA]. The intended rural character and assets of the [RSA] shall be promoted through the following policies. POLICIES FLU6.1.1 The Future Land Use correlation for the [RSA] is: Future Land Use (R) Zoning Rural/Agricultural (1DU/10 AC) A-1, A-2, A-R, R-CE FLU6.1.2 Orange County shall enforce criteria to ensure the scale, and density and/or intensity of development within the [RSA] so that it promotes the intended rural character. The regulations may include, but shall not be limited to, height limitations and buffer requirements. FLU6.1.3 Residential uses in areas designated Rural shall be limited to a maximum density of 1du/10 acres. Density shall refer to the total number of units divided by developable land area, excluding natural water bodies and conservation areas (wetland areas). Agriculturally zoned areas that do not have active agricultural use may be rezoned to an appropriate residential category. Cluster zoning shall not be permitted in the [RSA] except where required for the protection of significant environmental features, such as Wekiva Study Area, Class I conservation area or rare upland habitat. Petitioners allege the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with the above-cited provisions because they allow urban development within the RSA, contrary to policy direction to concentrate urban uses within the USA; contrary to policies which prohibit urban development outside of the USA, Horizon West, and I W Overlay through 2030; and inconsistent with these strategies to achieve “the County’s desired development pattern” separating urban from rural uses through the USA/RSA tools. Respondent and Intervenors meet this allegation with an argument that the LP category does not constitute urban development. Indeed, much of the expert witness testimony on all sides focused on the issue of whether the development authorized by the Plan Amendments is urban in character. The experts agreed that the Comprehensive Plan does not define “urban development” and that the County has discretion to determine the characteristics of urban development within its jurisdiction. The experts further agreed that the “urban-ness” of development is not solely a factor of density, but also depends on factors, such as the uses themselves, as well as buffering, height limitations, and relationship between uses. The experts are correct that the Comprehensive Plan contains no glossary definition of “urban development,” which determines the specific threshold at which residential density becomes “urban.” The experts disagreed over whether a residential density of 4du/acre was rural or urban, and the parties’ arguments in their Proposed Recommended Orders rely on that testimony to varying degrees. None of the expert witness testimony on the issue of urban versus rural was persuasive. Testimony regarding whether 4du/acre was urban or rural was essentially irrelevant, in light of the fact that the Plan Amendments authorize densities of 6du/acre in T4. Whether 4du/acre is an urban or rural density is not dispositive of the issue. Moreover, because the Plan Amendments regulate density in terms of averages, they authorize densities greater than 4du/acre and 6du/acre in T3 and T4 zones. The experts on all sides ignored the plethora of evidence within the Comprehensive Plan itself that reflects the County’s determination of what constitutes urban development. The testimony of Petitioners’ experts, combined with the Comprehensive Plan itself, was the most reliable and persuasive evidence on this issue. For residential development within the USA, the Comprehensive Plan identifies four corresponding FLUM categories, ranging from LDR at up to 4du/acre, to HDR at up to 50du/acre. By contrast, for residential development within the RSA, the County has identified only one corresponding FLUM category, Rural/Agricultural at 1du/10 acres. See Policy 6.1.1. It is of primary importance to note that this is the only future land use category which corresponds with the RSA. In setting its goals for future development within the RSA, the County has adopted a policy limiting future residential development to a very low density. Even where the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges and grandfathers the preexisting “rural settlements” within the RSA at densities greater than 1du/10 acres, the Comprehensive Plan restricts the density of future buildout. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes rural settlements with LDR and Low-Medium Density Residential (LMDR) (max. 10du/acre) FLUM designations, but prohibits other properties within rural settlements from being amended to allow future development at those densities (except for certified affordable housing projects). See Policy 6.2.7. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan prohibits any FLUM amendments to residential densities in rural settlements exceeding 1du/acre. See Policy 6.2.9. Further, the boundaries of rural settlements may not be expanded, and no new rural settlements may be established. See Policy 6.2.1. In summary, the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges preexisting rural settlements in the RSA at densities as high as 10du/acre, but recognizes those as urban, not rural, densities. Even recognizing those urban densities preexisted the RSA designation, the Comprehensive Plan limits future changes to a much lower density of 1du/acre. Much of Respondent and Intervenors argument turned on the fact that the development surrounding the LPSA was at densities as high as 4du/acre, which was not inconsistent with the density proposed for the LPSA. This argument misses the point that the County grandfathered in those densities as urban within the RSA. The argument that the maximum densities proposed for the LPSA, up to 6du/acre in T4, is consistent with surrounding development is a red herring. It ignores the clear direction the Comprehensive Plan has set for future development, regardless of the exceptions that exist. It is contradictory for the County to treat the preexisting densities as exceptions, but justify the Plan Amendments, which propose future similar densities, based on the existence of those exceptions. In an apparent attempt to overcome the fact that the LPSA densities are similar to surrounding development and, thus, may be found to be urban densities, Respondent and Intervenors argue that density must be calculated based upon the net allowable acreage of the community, rather than the acreage of the individual T3 or T4 zone. Lake Pickett South contains 835 developable acres and the LP category authorizes 2,078 dwelling units across that community. Calculated using that method, the average net residential density for Lake Pickett South is 2.49du/acre. Hence, the proponents argue, the Plan Amendments authorize development at densities lower than the surrounding vested communities, thus, the LPSA development is at rural densities. Assuming, arguendo, Respondent’s and Intervenors’ contention is true, then the Plan Amendments cluster the average density of 2.49du/acre within the T2, T3, and T4 zones at densities as high as 6du/acre. Under that scenario, the Plan Amendments are internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 6.1.3, which does not allow clustering of development within the RSA. As all the experts agreed, density alone does not determine whether the development authorized by the Plan Amendments is urban as opposed to rural. Other considerations include the uses authorized, as well as the development pattern and restrictions thereon. The Comprehensive Plan, clearly and specifically, articulates exceptions to the 1du/10acre density limit for future development in the RSA based upon particular considerations. For Horizon West, the consideration is the Village program of development directed at comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, development of a huge undeveloped area in the County’s southwestern area. For the Growth Centers, it is the recognition of the impact of development in the unincorporated County on adjoining local governments, and requiring joint planning for that development. Significantly, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes these exceptions as urban development, based upon both the densities and intensities of uses allowed, as well as development patterns and restrictions. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes Growth Centers as urban development implemented through PD zoning. See Policy 1.1.4.F. Villages within Horizon West have been approved with minimum overall net densities as high as 4du/acre (Village H and Town Center) and as high as 7du/acre (Village I). See Policy 4.1.4. These residential densities are recognized as urban densities. Furthermore, the development plan for Village development is specifically recognized in the Comprehensive Plan as an “urban development pattern.” See Policy 4.1.1 The characteristics identifying the Villages as an urban development pattern include the following: The requirement for a “series of integrated neighborhoods containing housing, shops, workplaces, schools, parks, and civic facilities essential to the daily life of Village residents.” The Village, and each neighborhood, shall be developed with a “center focus,” such as commercial, civic, cultural or recreational uses. Housing must be within a 1.2 mile radius of the Village Center, and where possible, housing units within a neighborhood should be within one-half mile of the neighborhood center. Neighborhoods shall encourage development of a variety of lot sizes and housing types. Each Village must have a well-defined edge, such as greenbelts or wildlife corridors permanently protected from development, as well as open space to serve the residents recreational needs in the form of squares, greens and parks. See Policy 4.1.1A., B., E., F., and G., and 4.1.5 In addition to the requirement for “ample open space,” in the form of squares, greens, and parks, an additional 7.5 percent of the developable land within each project must be permanently allocated to public open space. The LPSA encompasses a smaller land area than Horizon West, and will develop on a smaller scale, but in a very similar development pattern under the Plan Amendments. Similar to the “Village Principles” for Horizon West, the LP “Guiding Principles” require that each of the two communities: Be organized as neighborhoods designed around a “centralized focal point,” such as a park, community center, or civic building/use. Interconnect the communities within the LPSA by a multi-purpose trail linking each neighborhood focal point, such as the school or civic use. Have a minimum 35 percent open space, which may be comprised of both preservation areas, agricultural areas, buffers, neighborhood parks, and trail systems, as well as civic uses, community centers, and other built facilities. In addition, the LP Guiding Principles require each neighborhood to: Provide for a mix of housing styles and/or lot sizes. Be walkable, and no more than 125 acres in size. Locate housing within a quarter mile of the central focal point. Connect the central focal point to trails or “complete streets,” as well as schools and community parks. The Plan Amendments authorize a pattern of development in the LPSA recognized in the Comprehensive Plan as an urban development pattern.4/ Like the IW Overlay district, the RP category utilizes transect-based planning to provide a transition from rural uses outside the LPSA, to the more dense and intense uses at its core. The transect-based approach is specifically recognized by the Comprehensive Plan as comprising an “urban form” of development.5/ See Policy 5.1.2. Further, the development pattern for LP is similar to IW: T2 Low density development in a traditional rural setting; T3 Walkable neighborhoods, highly connected by streets, trails and pedestrian paths, and adequately served by parks and open space; Neighborhoods designed around a central focal point with dwellings located in close proximity thereto; School sites centrally located to serve neighborhoods; T4 Town Centers with a mix of residential, office, retail, etc. The Comprehensive Plan further identifies certain uses as urban, rather than rural. Policy 1.1.4 denotes office, commercial, industrial, institutional, and educational uses, as “predominantly urban” in use. The policy notes that these uses are predominantly found in the USA, but “may also be located within the rural settlements on a limited basis.” The policy goes on to acknowledge these uses are available in the USA as “Urban Mixed Use Option,” such as PD category. This policy also acknowledges allowance of these types of urban development within the RSA exception areas--Horizon West, International Drive Activity Center, and Growth Centers--as discussed previously. By contrast, Objective 6.1 and its implementing policies address only rural residential, agricultural, and agribusiness uses, and some institutional uses (e.g., wastewater treatment plants and landfill facilities) as allowable future land uses in the RSA. This section of the Comprehensive Plan also allows for consideration, by special exception, location of uses “that by their nature are appropriate to locate in the [RSA],” such as hazardous operations, gun ranges, landfills, and kennels. The Plan Amendments authorize development of predominantly urban uses within the RSA, but not within rural settlements or one of the previously designated exception areas. Nevertheless, Respondent and Intervenors maintain that development authorized by the Plan Amendments is not urban because the Plan Amendments “prohibit development which would have an overall urban density or intensity.” It is undisputed that the LPSA will allow residential development at a density of up to 5du/acre in T3 zones, and up to 6du/acre in T4 zones. Respondent and Intervenors refer to these as “small pockets of property” within the RSA which would have higher densities “more associated with urban development levels.” However, Respondent and Intervenors argue these small pockets are not prohibited by Policy 1.1.1 which requires that “[u]rban uses shall be concentrated in” rather than “limited to” the USA. Respondent and Intervenors ignore the language that the existing Comprehensive Plan also specifically limits future urban densities, which are not “concentrated in” the USA, to Horizon West, Growth Centers, IW Overlay, and “to a limited extent,” Rural Settlements. The policy language does not allow urban density anywhere else within the RSA. Instead, the policy directs urban densities outside of the USA to areas previously designated and planned for those densities. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, under the existing Comprehensive Plan, the density, uses, and pattern of development authorized by the Plan Amendments is urban, rather than rural. Jim Hall, Intervenors’ planning expert, acknowledged that he based the LPSA concept on these “exception areas” where “new rules” apply. Additionally, Dwight Saathoff, contractor purchaser of portions of Lake Pickett South, as much as admitted that the development approved for Lake Pickett South is urban, rather than rural, when he prepared a power point presentation for the adoption hearing. Based on the power point, Mr. Saathoff testified that “the Rural Service Area acreage would go from 58.6 percent of the total land, and with the Grow, it would be 58.4 percent. The Urban Service Area land was 41.4 and 41.6 with approval of the Grow.” [Tr. 595:3-6]. Mr. Saathoff’s testimony further supports a finding that the project converts rural land to urban use, without expanding the USA boundary to do so. The Plan Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Goal 1, Objective 1.1, Policy 1.1.1, Objectives 1.2, Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2; Goal 6, Objective 6.1, Policies 6.1.1, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3.6/ Petitioners next challenge the Plan Amendments as inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.3 and Policies 1.3.1 and 1.3.2. FLUE Objective 1.3 is titled “Application for Urban Service Area Expansion,” and prohibits new expansions of the USA unless supported by data and analysis that the expansion is consistent with other objectives, and requires expansions to be evaluated by the criteria established in Policies 1.3.1 and 1.3.2. Intervenors did not submit the Plan Amendments as an application to expand the USA boundaries. The Plan Amendments do not implicate this objective and these policies. The Plan Amendments are not inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.3 and Policies 1.3.1 and 1.3.2. Petitioners next challenge the Plan Amendments as internally inconsistent with FLUE Objectives 6.2 and 6.3. FLUE Objective 6.2 reads as follows: RURAL SETTLEMENT. Rural Settlements provide for a rural residential lifestyle. In some instances, Rural Settlements allow a transition of rural uses adjacent to the [USA] while avoiding development in active agricultural areas. Rural Settlements were intended to recognize and preserve existing development patterns at the time the CP was adopted in 1991. The creation of Rural Settlements recognized the need to maintain agricultural and rural uses in the [RSA], while providing for rural communities. The Plan Amendments do not propose a rural settlement, a land use change within a rural settlement, or a boundary expansion of an existing rural settlement. Petitioners offered no persuasive evidence that the Plan Amendments implicate this policy. FLUE Objective 6.3 reads as follows: OBJ FLU6.3 Orange County shall protect and preserve certain existing Rural Settlements and their established neighborhoods, which by their particular location may be impacted by adjacent urban uses. This objective shall be made measurable by implementing the following policies: Petitioners did not challenge the Plan Amendments as inconsistent with any of the implementing policies, which enumerate development restrictions and procedures applicable to the following rural settlements: Lake Hart/Lake Whippoorwhil, Lake Avalon, and Wedgefield. The LPSA is not located in proximity to the listed rural settlements and Petitioners introduced no evidence that the Plan Amendments would have any impact on those rural settlements. The Plan Amendments are not inconsistent with FLUE Objectives 6.2 and 6.1. Petitioners also challenge the Plan Amendments as inconsistent with FLUE Goal 2, Objective 2.1, and Policy 2.2.17 which read, as follows: GOAL FLU2 URBAN STRATEGIES. Orange County will encourage urban strategies such as infill development, coordinated land use and transportation planning, and mixed-use development, which promote efficient use of infrastructure, compact development and an urban experience with a range of choices and living options. * * * OBJ FLU2.1 INFILL. Orange County shall promote and encourage infill development through incentives identified in the Land Development code for relatively small vacant and underutilized parcels within the County’s established core areas in the [USA]. * * * FLU2.2.17 Throughout the planning horizon, the County shall provide policy and program mechanisms that further the principles of sustainability, including limiting urban sprawl, protecting wildlife and environmentally sensitive natural areas, promoting efficient use of land and water, and creating an environment conducive to quality building and promoting sustainable economic development. The Plan Amendments interfere with and contradict the stated goal of promoting urban strategies such as infill. The Plan Amendments do, as Petitioner’s expert testified, exactly the opposite by directing urban development to areas outside the USA.7/ Objective 2.1, by its plain language, provides strategies applicable only to “relatively small vacant and underutilized parcels within” the [USA]. The objective is inapplicable to the LPSA. The cited policy requires the County to undertake policies and programs to limit urban sprawl, protect wildlife and environmentally sensitive areas, and promote efficient use of land and water. Petitioners presented no evidence that the County has not undertaken such broad policies and programs. The County introduced in evidence its Conservation Ordinance (Article X, Orange County Land Development Code), and its Econ River Protection Ordinance (Article XI), local programs appearing to implement Policy 2.2.17. Whether the Plan Amendments conflict with any of the implementing land development regulations is a matter beyond the scope of this proceeding. The Plan Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Goal 2, but, at least arguably, consistent with Objective 2.1 and Policy 2.2.17. Petitioners next challenge the Plan Amendments as internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 6.4.7, which reads as follows: Orange County shall provide for compatible public and/or private land uses adjacent to significant natural resources that are managed for public benefit. Methods of protection to be considered may include, but shall not be limited to, coordination with appropriate State agencies, Notice of Proximity, the use of density and intensity limitations on land use and development, and the use of buffers. Petitioners contend that the proposed LPSA is inconsistent with this policy due to its proximity to the ESCA. The ESCA is adjacent to the western boundary of the LPSA along South Tanner Road. Proposed policy 6.8.3 notes that “[l]ands located along the perimeter within the [LPSA] shall be compatible with adjacent land outside of the [LPSA], with the exception of the [ESCA].” (emphasis added). Thus, the text amendment acknowledges that the development proposed within the LPSA may not be compatible with the adjacent ESCA. To protect the adjacent ESCA from the impacts of development proposed within the LPSA, the text amendment requires “transitional treatment of the edges” of the LPSA, including a minimum 100-foot vegetative buffer along South Tanner Road “to preserve existing rural view sheds or create a visual buffer from the proposed development within Lake Pickett Communities.” The buffers must consist of “Florida native plant species, as required by Chapter 15 Article XI” of the County Code. The proposed policy also requires these buffer areas to be utilized only as natural/wetland zones. The approved RP for Lake Pickett South depicts all property adjacent to South Tanner Road as either T1 wetlands or T1 natural, with the exception of the property at the corner of SR 50 and Tanner Road, which is designated T4 with no buffer along South Tanner Road. Just inside the buffer, the RP designates property within Lake Pickett South for either T2 (2du/acre), stormwater retention, or agricultural (working farm) uses. The RP places higher density and intensity uses further from the “edge,” thus further from the border with the ESCA. The Plan Amendments were reviewed by both the St. Johns River WMD and the South Florida WMD (SFWMD). The St. Johns River WMD reported on September 9, 2015, that its review “focused on flood protection and floodplain management, wetlands and other surface waters . . . as they relate to important state resources and facilities that will be adversely impacted by the amendment, if adopted.” The applicable staff had no comments on the proposed amendments, but noted that the property subject to the amendments is located within the WMD’s Econ River Hydrologic Basin and any environmental resource permit will have to meet additional surface water management basin criteria. The SFWMD reported, “There appear to be no regionally significant water resource issues; therefore, the District has no comments on the proposed amendment package.” The Department of Environmental Protection “conducted a detailed review [of the Plan Amendments] that focused on potential adverse impacts to important state resources and facilities, specifically . . . wetlands and other surface waters of the state; federal and state-owned lands and interest in lands . . . .” The Department found “no provision that, if adopted, would result in adverse impacts to important state resources subject to the Department’s jurisdiction.” The County coordinated with appropriate state agencies for siting the LPSA adjacent to the ESCA. The RP reflects the use of buffers and density and intensity limitations as methods to protect the adjoining ESCA from development within Lake Pickett South. The text amendment reflects the use of “edge” buffers and transitional density and intensity limitations, through the transect zone approach, to achieve compatibility with the adjacent ESCA. The Plan Amendments are not inconsistent with FLUE Policy 6.4.7. Similarly, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 8.2, which reads as follows: COMPATIBILITY. Compatibility will continue to be the fundamental consideration in all land use and zoning decisions. For purposes of this objective, the following policies shall guide regulatory decisions that involve differing land uses. Petitioners did not identify any implementing policy with which the Plan Amendments are alleged to be inconsistent. Compatibility is not defined by the Comprehensive Plan. Compatibility is defined by the Community Planning Act as “a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition.” § 163.3164(9), Fla. Stat. The parties did not dispute that this definition was applicable to analyzing consistency with Objective 8.2. Petitioners allege the development authorized by the Plan Amendments is incompatible with (1) adjacent rural settlements, and (2) its location in an important wildlife corridor. Petitioners first allege the LPSA is incompatible with the adjacent Corner Lake Estates and Lake Pickett rural settlements, due to the density, intensity, and mix of uses allowed by the Plan Amendments. The Lake Pickett rural settlement located adjacent to the LPSA on the northeast is vested at 1du/acre. The Corner Lakes rural settlement has an existing density of 4du/acre. As discussed previously, these densities are grandfathered from the RSA density limitation of 1du/10acres. The Comprehensive Plan clearly establishes densities of no greater than 2du/acre for future development in rural settlements. Regardless of whether the existing density of these two rural settlements is 4du/acre or greater, the Comprehensive Plan limits future development within the settlements to lower densities more consistent with the RSA. Because no RP has been approved for the northern section of the LPSA, it is impossible to discern what specific density of development may be allowed adjacent to the Lake Pickett rural settlement. Proposed Policy 6.8.3 will apply to development of the north LPSA, which provides that “lands located along the perimeter within the [LPSA] shall be compatible with adjacent lands outside of the [LPSA] . . . .” Aside from the statement that “substantial buffers consisting of Florida native plant species, as required by Chapter 15 Article XI of the Orange County Code, shall be used to replace or enhance perimeter transition treatment,” the Plan Amendments contain no specific requirement for buffer size between the LPSA and the Lake Pickett rural settlement.8/ Mr. Hall, accepted as an expert in land use planning and growth management, testified at length regarding the “edge” treatment, buffering, and lot sizes, designed to make the layout of Lake Pickett South compatible with the adjoining Corner Lakes rural settlement. The edges of Lake Pickett South abutting Corner Lake are all designated as wetlands, buffer areas, or stormwater facilities, with the exception of a strip of T3 residential at 4du/acre with minimum 50-foot lots. However, this strip adjoins existing undeveloped natural buffer area within Corner Lake, not existing residential lots. Overall, Lake Pickett South allows urban development to locate next to the existing Corner Lake rural settlement. The overall density, intensity, and mix of uses allowed in Lake Pickett South is inconsistent with the single-use residential rural community setting of Corner Lake. However, given the transect-based planning approach and the buffering and “edge” treatments required by proposed Policy 6.8.3, it is at least arguable that the development is compatible with the adjacent rural settlements. Petitioners next allege the LPSA is inconsistent with FLUE Objective 8.2 because it is located within an important wildlife corridor and introduces physical obstacles which impede movement of wildlife through the corridor. None of the Petitioners addressed this particular objective in their Proposed Recommended Order.9/ Petitioners did not prove that the LPSA is inconsistent with FLUE Objective 8.2, which specifies compatibility as the fundamental consideration in all land use decisions. Petitioners next challenge the Plan Amendments as inconsistent with Conservation Objectives C1.7 and C1.9. Objective C1.7 reads as follows: OBJC1.7 Orange County shall manage and protect plant and wildlife species designated as threatened, endangered or species of special concern through programmatic and planning approaches for ecosystem analysis and through adoption of land development regulations. The final environmental surveys conducted by Intervenor Banksville’s consultant, Bio-Tech Consulting, Inc., revealed the presence of six wildlife10/ species designated by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) as either threatened, endangered, or of special concern. The County’s conservation regulations are limited to identification and protection of wetlands and the watershed of the Econ River Basin. The County has no regulatory authority over wildlife conservation or preservation. Petitioners introduced credible expert witness testimony regarding the presence of wildlife in the LPSA, and opinions regarding the adverse effects which development in the area, as proposed, is likely to cause. Petitioners clearly would have the County regulations go further to address, or perhaps prohibit, development impacting the wildlife habitats. The question at hand, however, is not whether the County’s adopted “programmatic and planning approaches for ecosystem analysis,” and the County’s land development regulations, adequately address the stated objective, to “manage and protect plant and wildlife species designated as threatened, endangered.” The inquiry in this case is limited to whether the Plan Amendments, as proposed, are inconsistent with the stated objective. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Objective C1.7. Objective C1.9 reads as follows: OBJ C1.9 Orange County shall require the protection of natural resources by minimizing adverse impacts from adjacent developments. This objective shall be made measurable by implementing the following policies. Petitioners are clearly concerned with the impact of the Plan Amendments on the plant and wildlife habitats in the adjoining ESCA. Petitioners’ expert ecologist testified extensively regarding the impact of new communities on the ESCA --increased passive recreational use, such as horseback riding, hiking, and picnicking, as well as the impact of domesticated pets on wildlife in the ESCA. Petitioners’ experts were insistent that the text amendment does nothing to minimize these adverse effects because proposed FLUE Policy 6.8.3 requires no buffer for the ESCA.11/ On the contrary, Policy 6.8.3 requires a minimum 100-foot native vegetated buffer along South Tanner Road, the border between the LPSA and the ESCA. Petitioners did not identify any measurable policy implementing Objective C1.9 with which the Plan Amendments are alleged to be inconsistent. Policy C1.9.2 mirrors the requirements of FLUE Policy 6.4.7, requiring “enhanced protective mechanisms, such as, but not limited to . . . buffers, vegetative buffers, setbacks, density restrictions, easements . . . that will permit continued habitat management practices in areas adjacent to major managed natural resources.” As discussed previously, the Plan Amendments incorporate buffers and density and intensity limitations, through the use of transect-based planning, to address the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent ESCA. Petitioners did not establish that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Objective C1.9. Petitioners allege the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Conservation Goal 2, Objective 2.3, and Policy 2.3.1, which read as follows: GOAL C2 Orange County’s goal is to protect, enhance and maintain the unique and irreplaceable values, functions, diversity and benefit of the natural resources within the Econlockhatchee River Basin, Wekiva Protection Area and the Lake Apopka Drainage Basin. * * * OBJ C2.3 Orange County shall protect and preserve the surface water quality and quantity, wildlife populations and habitat, aesthetics, open space, historical and archaeological resources, floodplains, wetland areas, native upland areas and recreation lands of the Econlockhatchee River Basin by implementing the following policies. * * * C.2.3.1 The Land Development Code shall provide for the protection of the Econ River Basin through mechanisms such as upland buffers, specific restrictions within a 2,200 foot total width protection zone, requiring habitat and historical/archaeological resource assessments and protection, allowing for mitigation, open space or density credits, requiring landscaping to include use of native plant species, utilization of wetland areas as part of drainage facility systems, requiring State or Federal listed species protection, clustering of development, restricting floodplain encroachment, and limiting forested habitat fragmentation. Petitioners introduced no evidence to support a finding that the County’s land development code fails to provide the listed protections for the Econ River Basin. Respondent and Intervenors introduced in evidence Article XI of the County code, titled “Econlockhatchee River Basin Protection.” The article includes basin-wide regulations which include management plans for protection of endangered, protected, and species of special concern, use of native plant species in landscaping, regulations to limit adverse impact of development on hydrologic functions of conservation areas, upland buffers of 50 feet for conservation areas, and limits on discharge rates for stormwater management systems. John Miklos, Intervenor’s expert in environmental and ecological assessments and environmental and ecological planning, testified, credibly, that the County’s land development code is even more stringent than the St. Johns River WMD requirements because it imposes development restrictions within a 2,200 foot corridor on either side of the Econ River, in addition to the 1,100 foot “critical area regulations” imposed by the St. Johns River WMD. The article also contains specific regulations for a “critical area” defined as the main river channel extending 1,100 feet landward of the Econ River and its major tributaries. Nothing in the Plan Amendments exempts the development authorized thereby from the requirements of Article XI. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Conservation Goal C2, Objective 2.3, and Policy C2.3.1. Petitioners next allege the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Transportation Element Goal T1 and Policy T1.1.1.3, which read, as follows: GOAL T1 A safe, accessible, convenient, efficient and financially feasible multimodal transportation system which minimizes environmental impacts. * * * T1.1.1.3 Whenever reasonably possible, future roadway projects shall be designed to promote livability and land use- transportation integration, in part by avoiding the severing or fragmenting of existing neighborhoods. The County will coordinate with FDOT, the Central Florida Expressway Authority, and other appropriate entities to help ensure that limited access and other roadway projects which are constructed by them avoid or minimize negative impacts to existing neighborhoods, wildlife corridors, and sensitive natural areas and to coordinate these projects with conservation and land use decisions. Petitioners introduced no credible evidence that the transportation improvements necessary to serve the proposed development would sever or fragment existing neighborhoods or that the County would not coordinate the improvements to SR 50 with appropriate state agencies. Chuluota Road will require widening in conjunction with the proposed development. That road serves both Corner Lake and Lake Pickett rural settlements, but there is no evidence that the road project would sever or fragment those neighborhoods. Petitioners also alleged the Plan Amendments were inconsistent with Neighborhood Element Objective N1.1, which reads, “Orange County shall ensure that future land use changes are compatible with or do not adversely impact existing or proposed neighborhoods.” For the reasons cited in the discussion related to consistency with FLUE Objective 8.2, the Plan Amendments are consistent with adjoining neighborhoods based on the edge treatment requirements and transect-based approach to density. Finally, the Petitioners challenge the Plan Amendments as internally inconsistent with the Potable Water Element Goal 1, Objective 1.1 and Policies 1.4.2 and 1.4.3, which read, as follows: GOAL PW1 It is Orange County’s goal to provide an efficient and adequate level of water service and facilities in a cost effective manner to accommodate existing and future development. OBJ PW1.1 Orange County shall continue to provide for the correction of its existing water system deficiencies. This objective shall be made measurable by implementing the following policies. * * * PW1.4.2 Potable water service shall not be extended to areas outside the [USA] except in the following circumstances: The facilities to be extended will serve a Growth Center or other exception areas as provided in the Comprehensive Plan (CP); The Board of County Commissioners has made an affirmative finding that a public health hazard exists for existing development. Such facilities shall not serve as the basis for additional new development; The facilities are to be extended to provide adequate fire flows to existing developments which are located within one- half (1/2) mile of an existing waster transmission main; For approved sector plans as provided for in the CP; and The circumstances described under Policy PW1.5.2 and Policy PW1.5.3.12/ The Petitioners presented no evidence regarding deficiencies in the county’s water system or how the instant amendment would relate to the county addressing said deficiencies. No evidence was introduced on which to base a finding that providing water service to the LPSA would be inefficient, inadequate, or not cost-effective. The Plan Amendments do not require extension of water utilities to serve the proposed development. The County utilities department evaluated the Plan Amendments and reported that water mains on SR 50, Lake Pickett Road, and North Tanner Road are available to serve the development, as well as wastewater mains in the vicinity. The developer will be paying to connect the development to the existing water mains, as well as install the water and wastewater infrastructure within the development boundaries. The Plan Amendments are not inconsistent with PW Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.4.2 and 1.4.3. Urban Sprawl Petitioner Brooke additionally challenges the Plan Amendments as contrary to section 163.3177(6)(a)9., which provides that “any amendment to the future land use element shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.” The Act defines urban sprawl as “a development pattern characterized by low density, automobile-dependent development with either a single use or multiple uses that are not functionally related, requiring the extension of public facilities and services in an inefficient manner, and failing to provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses.” The statute sets forth 13 primary indicators that a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, and eight factors which, if met, determine a plan amendment discourages urban sprawl. Petitioner’s expert testified that the Plan Amendments are characterized by the at least nine of the indicators of sprawl. Intervenors’ expert disagreed. The first primary indicator implicated by Petitioner Brooke is that the development “[p]romotes, allows, or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while not using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development.” § 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(II)., Fla. Stat. The Plan Amendments do direct urban development to locate within a rural area. The evidence did not establish how far the LPSA is located from the boundary of the USA.13/ Based upon Map 11 of the FLUM series, Corner Lake rural settlement is located 1.5 miles east of the USA boundary. The LPSA is located west of Corner Lake, thus closer than 1.5 miles from the USA boundary. Intervenors demonstrated the location of major employment centers within two miles of the LPSA, including the University of Central Florida and the Central Florida Research Park, both of which are located within the USA. The LPSA is not located at a substantial distance from existing urban areas. Assuming, arguendo, the location of the LPSA was considered to be at “a substantial distance” from existing urban areas, Petitioner Brooke introduced no evidence of undeveloped lands within or closer to the USA which are available and suitable for the proposed development. Petitioner Brooke did not prove that the Plan Amendments meet primary indicator (II). Petitioner next contends that the Plan Amendments fail to “adequately protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater recharge areas, lakes, rivers . . . .” § 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(IV), Fla. Stat. As previously addressed, the Plan Amendments do not exempt the development from the County’s existing land development code requirements for identification and protection of conservation areas and special protection for the Econ River Basin, which are the County’s primary protection and conservation mechanisms. It is clear that Petitioners wish the County regulations went further, but that issue is beyond the scope of this proceeding. Petitioner did not prove that the Plan Amendments trigger primary indicator (IV). Petitioner next contends that the Plan Amendments “[f]ail[] to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including active agricultural and silvicultural activities, passive agricultural activities, and dormant, unique, and prime farmland and soils.” § 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(V). Adjacent uses to the south and east of the LPSA are rural residential settlements. The ESCA is adjacent to the west. No evidence was introduced establishing the uses to the north in Seminole County. No evidence was introduced to establish the use of adjacent rural settlement for any agricultural or silvicultural activities, either active or passive. The only evidence demonstrated that Corner Lake consists of residences and wetland conservation areas. Petitioner did not prove that the Plan Amendments trigger primary sprawl indicator (V). Primary indicator (XI) is that the development “[f]ails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services.” Potable water and wastewater facilities exist, and uncommitted capacity is available to serve the development as proposed. The County utilities department reviewed the Plan Amendments and reported sufficient plant capacity to serve the development at adequate levels of service. Parks and Recreation also reviewed the Plan Amendments and reported sufficient acreage capacity to serve the proposed development. The County fire rescue department reported that those portions of the property which are within 2.5 miles of Station 82 are within an “optimal emergency services delivery” area. Other portions are not within an optimal delivery area, but are within a seven-minute response time. Anecdotal testimony from the Corner Lakes HOA President regarding a delayed response time to a residential security alarm is not competent evidence on which to base a finding that the existing emergency response service is inadequate. The development will require significant investments in public roadway facilities in order to meet level of service requirements. Several segments of the major county roadways to be impacted by the development authorized by the Plan Amendments, Lake Pickett Road and Chuluota Road, are already overcapacity. Segments of SR 50 currently operate at an acceptable level of service, based on a six-laning project currently underway, but are projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service by the 2035 planning horizon. Transportation analysis shows significant and adverse impacts from the proposed development on all three roadways (at varying rates depending on the time of the day modeled). In order to approve the Plan Amendments, the developer has entered into a Transportation Network Agreement, and corresponding Term Sheet, by which it has committed to pay an estimated $16,000,000 to the State for widening impacted segments of SR 50, and an estimated $14,844,000 to the County for widening Chuluota Road from SR 50 to Lake Pickett Road. The Plan Amendments do not fail to maximize use of existing transportation infrastructure. The existing infrastructure is, apparently, over-maximized. The Plan Amendments do not trigger primary sprawl indicator (XI). Next, Petitioner Brooke argues the Plan Amendments “[f]ail[] to maximize use of future public facilities and services.” § 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(VII), Fla. Stat. Because the Comprehensive Plan provides a strategy of designating the USA as the area for which the County is responsible for providing infrastructure and services to support urban development, Petitioner Brooke argues that location of urban development outside the USA fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. While Petitioner Brooke’s arguments sounds theoretically correct, it is not supported by the evidence. The evidence shows that the potable water and wastewater service lines previously constructed under the Econ River are sized for capacity to serve the demands generated by the Plan Amendments, and that the plant capacity exists as well. Petitioner introduced no evidence that service capacity to meet the future demand generated by the Plan Amendments would reduce, or otherwise interfere with, the County’s ability to provide those services to development inside the USA. Moreover, the Plan Amendments dictate that the developer, rather than the County, will incur the costs of constructing connections to the existing potable water and wastewater lines. As to the transportation facilities, the impacted segments of Lake Pickett and Chuluota Road are currently deficient and included in the County’s long-range transportation plan for widening as “partnerhip projects,” meaning the County requires a partner to fund these future projects. Through the transportation funding agreements, the Plan Amendments will provide the funding partner the County needs to eliminate the current backlog on these roadways, as well as mitigate the projected impacts of the future development. The Plan Amendments do not fail to maximize use of future public facilities and services, which is primary urban sprawl indicator (VII). Petitioner Brooke next cites primary indicator (VIII), that the Plan Amendments “[a]llow for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government.” § 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(VIII), Fla. Stat. Petitioner introduced no evidence of increased costs associated with providing services to the development authorized by the Plan Amendments, with the exception of transportation. As previously discussed, the Plan Amendment actually reduces the County’s cost to provide transportation services to existing and committed developments through the planning horizon, and funds much of the cost to improve the impacted roadways to serve the new development. Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendments trigger primary urban sprawl indicator (VIII). Next, Petitioner implicates section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(IX), that the Plan Amendments fail to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. On this primary indicator, Petitioner is correct. The Plan Amendment directs urban uses to a location surrounded by development recognized in the Comprehensive Plan as rural agricultural, rural residential, and conservation, or specified exceptions thereto. The Plan Amendments do trigger primary urban sprawl indicator (IX). Petitioner Brooke next argues the Plan Amendments constitute urban sprawl because they “discourage[] or inhibit[] infill development or redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities.” § 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(X). Fla. Stat. As previously found, the Plan Amendments direct urban development to the RSA, which is contrary to an urban infill strategy. The Plan Amendments discourage infill by authorizing urban development outside of the designated urban area. The Plan Amendments do trigger primary urban sprawl indicator (X). Lastly, Petitioner Brooke alleges the Plan Amendments “result[] in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses.” § 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(XII), Fla. Stat. Petitioner’s expert, Ms. Diettrich, opined that the proposed development is not sited adjacent to or continuing from any related use, thus fails to connect related uses. Based on that evidence alone, the undersigned was unable to find that the Plan Amendment triggers primary indicator (XII). Altogether, Petitioner proved the Plan Amendments trigger two primary indicators of urban sprawl. Once primary sprawl indicators are identified, the urban sprawl analysis shifts to whether the Plan Amendments meet four of eight criteria which determine that an amendment discourages urban sprawl. Respondent and Intervenors introduced testimony from their expert planner, Mr. Hall, that the Plan Amendments satisfy six of the criterion: (1) promote the efficient and cost- effective provision or extension of public infrastructure or services; (2) promote walkable and connected communities and provide for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system; (3) promote the conservation of water and energy; (4) preserve agricultural areas and activities; (5) preserve open space and natural lands and provide for public open space and recreation needs; and (6) create a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the nonresidential needs of the area. Mr. Hall testified that the LPSA promotes efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure because the developer is paying, rather than the County. That arrangement is more cost-effective than taxpayer investment. Proposed policies 6.8.6, 6.8.12, and 6.8.13 require the neighborhoods within the LPSA to be designed as walkable and with interconnected greenspaces, trails, and paths. However, the LPSA does not promote a range of housing choices. Proposed policy 6.8.2 limits T3 to single-family detached housing, with some single-family attached housing limited to the perimeter and close to T4. Zone T4 allows single-family attached and “vertically-integrated uses,” which is undefined. Multifamily uses are prohibited. The proposed development does not promote a multimodal transportation system. The Department of Transportation reports there are “no transit service links adjacent to the project site,” and although “significant transit improvements are planned for the UCF/East Orange County area over the next six to 10 years,” funding for the projects had not been identified. The Plan Amendments do promote conservation of water and energy through the requirement in proposed FLUE Policy 6.8.4 that each community adhere to a “Green Infrastructure Plan” including a Master Stormwater Plan utilizing Low Impact Development (LID) practices, and a Master Conservation, Open Space and Community Space Plan identifying connections of the internal greenspaces to countywide trail systems. The Plan Amendments do require a substantial amount of open space and natural lands, and provide for public open space and recreation needs. Pursuant to proposed Policy 6.8.6, each community within the LPSA must provide 35 percent open space, no more than five percent of which may be community spaces.14/ Further, each neighborhood will be organized around a community focal point, such as a community park, garden, center, etc. Finally, the LPSA is designed with a mix of land uses to meet many of the demands of the residents in the area for nonresidential needs. Zone T4 areas will include commercial, office, service and civic uses to serve the communities, “as well as the surrounding area.” The LP Guiding Principles and Policies meet four of the criterion which determine that a plan amendment discourages urban sprawl. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendments fail to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Data and Analysis The next basis on which Petitioners challenge the Plan Amendments is supporting data and analysis. Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires all plan amendments to be “based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment.” The statute continues, “To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment.” Id. The Individual Petitioners, with the exception of Petitioner Brooke, maintain that the Plan Amendments do not react appropriately to data and analysis regarding the impact of the Plan Amendments on natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas within the LPSA and the adjacent ESCA.15/ For purposes of this section, these Petitioners will be referred to as the “Farrell Petitioners.” Petitioner Brooke additionally maintains the Plan Amendments do not react appropriately to the community goals and vision codified by the USA/RSA concept. 1. Natural Resources On the issue of natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas, the Farrell Petitioners presented the testimony of Ariel Horner, who was accepted as an expert in Florida ecology and ecosystem conservation. Ms. Horner performed research in the ESCA during her undergraduate and graduate studies, and currently teaches courses in ecology and conservation utilizing the ESCA as a teaching tool. The Farrell Petitioners introduced photographs taken by Ms. Horner utilizing game cameras installed in the ESCA in March and April 2015, and February and March 2016. The photographs depict a number of “listed species,” including the Florida black bear, Sherman’s fox squirrel, gopher frogs, and ovenbirds. The pictures document the presence of endangered, threatened, or species of special concern, within the ESCA. Ms. Horner testified extensively regarding the habitat requirements for these species and expressed her expert opinion that these same species are very likely present on the LPSA property as well. Ms. Horner’s opinion regarding the habitat needs of the various listed species was informed, in part, by management plans prepared by the FWC. Petitioners did not introduce any FWC management plans into evidence and Ms. Horner did not use any excerpts or maps from said plans as demonstratives. The Farrell Petitioners also offered the testimony of Dr. John Fauth, accepted as an expert in conservation biology, vertebrate and invertebrate zoology, and statistical analysis. Dr. Fauth testified that the LPSA is located within a bio diversity hotspot, the North American Coastal Plain, which data that does not support development of the property for the density and intensity authorized by the Plan Amendments. The North American Coastal Plain extends from southeast Texas east to Florida and north along the east coast as far as coastal Connecticut and Massachusetts. Within the southeast, the plain includes the entirety of Louisiana and Mississippi, large portions of Alabama, Georgia, and North and South Carolina, Arkansas, and western Tennessee. The presence of the LPSA within this vast region was not persuasive evidence to support any specific development restriction on the particular parcel. Both Dr. Fauth’s and Ms. Horner’s expert opinions regarding the high ecological value of the LPSA, is due to its location within a regional wildlife corridor. Dr. Fauth testified extensively regarding the importance of maintaining corridors for listed species, such as the Florida panther and black bear, to travel from southern to northern Florida and further on to other areas within the North American Coastal Plain. The ability of species to migrate without barriers from human development is important to mating, feeding, reproduction, and many other essentials for long-term viability of various listed species. The Farrell Petitioners introduced, through the testimony of Dr. Fauth, a map from the St. Johns River WMD Management Plan for the ESCA. The map depicts the location of the ESCA within a “larger, multi-corridor system.” The map encompasses east Orange and Seminole, south Volusia, and western Brevard counties. The map depicts “District-Owned Conservation Easements,” “FNAI [Florida Natural Areas Inventory] Public Lands,” “Management Areas,” including managed preserves, state forests, and conservation areas; as well as, properties designated “Priority 1” through “Priority 5.” The map does not indicate what the priority properties are listed for and no witness testified to the meaning of the priority areas. Based on the totality of the evidence, the undersigned infers the properties are designated by priority for public acquisition. The LPSA lies within a corridor extending between the Hal Scott Regional Preserve in southeastern Orange County to the Little Big Econ State Forest north in Seminole County. Further east lie the Bronson State Forest and the Seminole Ranch Conservation Area, extensive “Management Areas” in the region. The scale of the map is large, and no witness testified as to the exact location of the LPSA on that particular map. Based upon the evidence of record, it appears the LPSA lies wholly within an area designated “Priority 1.” The LPSA is one of thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, of Priority 1 properties within the corridor between the Hal Scott Regional Preserve and the Little Big Econ State Forest. No evidence of record supports a finding that development of the ESCA will prevent wildlife from traversing the larger corridor, or prevent the WMD from acquiring other properties or conservation easements that could, eventually, link the preservations areas. The St. Johns River WMD staff reviewed the proposed Plan Amendments “focused on flood protection and floodplain management, wetlands and other surface waters . . . as they relate to important state resources and facilities that will be adversely impacted by the amendment, if adopted,” and had no comments, other than to note that the property’s location in the Econ River Basin will require additional criteria to be met for issuance of environmental resource permits in the area. The Department of Environmental Protection reviewed the proposed Plan Amendments for “potential adverse impacts to important state resources and facilities” including “federal and state-owned lands and interest in lands, including state parks, greenways and trails, [and] conservation easements.” The Department found “no provision that, if adopted, would result in adverse impacts to important state resources subject to the Department’s jurisdiction.” The County has limited jurisdiction with regard to protection of wildlife; the protection of endangered, threatened, and species of special concern is within the authority of the state and federal government. Although the County was required to transmit the proposed Plan Amendments to the FWC for review, pursuant to section 163.3184(3)(b), no evidence was introduced regarding any comment from the FWC on the proposed Plan Amendments. The state agency with authority for regulating wildlife had no comment regarding the impact of the Plan Amendments on any state or regional resource, including the proposed corridor. Despite the County’s limited authority to regulate wildlife, the County environmental staff included the following in its staff report on the Plan Amendments in a section titled “Habitat Protection”: It appears that portions of the [property] have been identified as part of the Florida DEP, Priority Ecological Greenway Network 2013. This project of the Florida Ecological Greenway Network (FEGN) identifies areas of opportunity for protecting a statewide network or ecological hubs and linkages designed to maintain large landscape-scale ecological functions including focal species habitat and ecosystem services throughout the state. The FEGN aggregates various data identifying areas of ecological significance from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, [FWC], existing and proposed conservation lands, and other relevant data. These data were combined to identify large, landscape-scale areas of ecological significance (ecological hubs), and a network of landscape linkages and corridors connecting the hubs into a statewide ecological greenways system (ecological greenways and wildlife corridors). Developing portions of this ecologically significant area without proper ecological design consideration would diminish the functionality of the area as a greenway and move the land use from a state of higher sustainability to a state of lower sustainability in terms of resources needed to sustain the lower state. The applicant shall provide reasonable assurances that the habitat and ecological function of this ecosystem will not be diminished as a result of the proposed development. Road and pedestrian crossings of wetland and environmentally sensitive corridors shall be minimized over wetlands and floodplains and be designed to allow for unimpeded passage of wildlife. (emphasis added). The text amendment addressed the issue of habitat and ecological function through the use of the transect planning. Objective 6.8, and Policies 6.8.1 and 6.8.2, dictate a development pattern that transitions from open space and conservation areas on the edges of the LPSA through gradually increasing densities of residential, to a center of highest density, intensity, and mix of uses. This approach minimizes disturbance of the “corridor” by concentrating the most intense uses to the center while maintaining relatively undisturbed edges. Petitioners maintain that the proposed development, as reflected in the PD-RP, does not provide reasonable assurances that the habitat and ecological function of the property will not be diminished, primarily because road and pedestrian crossings of wetland and environmentally sensitive areas, as planned, fragment habitat which does not allow for unimpeded passage of wildlife. Petitioners argument on this point is a challenge that the zoning (PD-RP) is inconsistent with the Plan Amendments as reflected in the text amendment. The exclusive method to challenge the consistency of the zoning (or any other land development order) with the Comprehensive Plan, is section 163.3215, which provides for an action in an appropriate circuit court. Petitioners argument is not cognizable in the instant proceeding. Furthermore, the Plan Amendments do not exempt the proposed development from the land development code, Article X, which governs the identification, classification, and corresponding protection of wetlands, during the development permitting process. Many of Petitioners’ concerns will be addressed in the permitting process for the proposed development. Likewise, the process triggering evaluation of the specific property for presence of listed species is the local permitting process. The developer’s preliminary environmental assessment confirmed the presence of several listed species on the subject property, including Sherman’s fox squirrel, Florida Sandhill Crane, Little Blue Heron, White Ibis, gopher tortoise, and bald eagle. The report identifies whether each species is state- or federal-listed, and details the corresponding development restrictions to be imposed during permitting. The LPSA lies within the Econ River Basin, and is subject to Article XI of the County’s land development code. Section 15-442 specifically requires all development applications to include a survey of listed species utilizing FWC Wildlife Methodology Guidelines. The code provides, “[a] management plan shall be required of the development for the protection of an endangered, threatened or species of special concern and shall become part of the conditions for approval of the project.” The data gathered from such surveys is generally good for about a 90-day period because of the relative transient nature of certain species. Listed-species surveys are performed during the permitting phase in order to base permitting decisions on “fresh” data. The Farrell Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendments do not react appropriately to the data concerning the location of the property within a larger wildlife ecosystem to the extent necessary during the planning process. The Farrell Petitioners next argue that the Plan Amendments do not react appropriately to the data regarding natural resources within the ESCA because the development proposed by the Plan Amendments will negatively impact the ESCA. Testimony on this issue pertained to increased use of the ESCA by adjoining residents in the proposed development, particularly with respect to planned additional horse trails, hiking and other passive recreation, as well as the introduction of pets, especially cats, which hunt and kill many wildlife species, especially birds. The testimony on this issue was part hearsay, part speculation and unpersuasive. Neither the state nor the local agency charged with managing the ESCA mentioned a concern with increased public usage when reviewing the Plan Amendments for impact on these resources. The Plan Amendments do not prohibit the managing entities from limiting, or otherwise regulating, the use of the ESCA to maintain its ecological integrity or from conducting public information and awareness campaigns. The Farrell Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendments fail to react appropriately to data regarding the natural resources present on the adjacent ECSA. Additionally, Petitioner Brooke argues the Plan Amendments do not react appropriately to data and analysis in the form of the community goals and vision established by the Comprehensive Plan USA/RSA concept. Brooke states that FLUE Goal 1 and its implementing objectives and policies establish the community’s “desired future development pattern” directing all urban densities and intensities to the USA. Thus, Brooke argues that the Plan Amendments, which direct urban densities and intensities of use to the RSA, do not react appropriately to the community goal and vision established by the Comprehensive Plan. Section 163.3177(1)(f) lists “community goals and vision” as a type of data, along with surveys, studies, and other data available at the time the plan amendment was adopted, on which the plan amendment must be based. The statute anticipates “community goals and vision” as something separate from, or other than, the comprehensive plan itself. Many communities have a free-standing vision statement which may, in part, inform future planning decisions. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Hendry Co., Case No. 14-1441GM (DOAH Feb. 12, 2015). As such, the separate statement is a community vision or goal which may support a subsequent plan amendment. In this case, Petitioner Brooke has just repackaged an internal inconsistency argument as a data and analysis argument. Under the rubric of the Community Planning Act, the comprehensive plan must be based upon data and analysis that form the basis for crafting the goals, objectives, and policies of the plan. In order for that construct to make sense as the plan is amended going forward, plan amendments must be supported by data and analysis documented outside of the comprehensive plan itself. The comprehensive plan cannot constitute the supporting data and analysis for an amendment to itself.16/ While the undersigned applauds Petitioner Brooke’s creativity, the argument is not well-taken. The internal inconsistency argument was, however, both well-plead and well- proven. 2. Infrastructure and Services In both their Petition and PRO, the Farrell Petitioners raise the issue of whether the Plan Amendments react appropriately to data and analysis regarding the provision of infrastructure and services. However, their PRO fails to address this issue, focusing instead solely on the natural resources issue. It is unclear whether the Farrell Petitioners abandoned this claim, so it is addressed here in an abundance of caution. The Farrell Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendments fail to react appropriately to data and analysis regarding the availability of infrastructure and services. The Plan Amendments require developer-funded connection to, and construction of onsite, wastewater and potable water services. The Plan Amendment is also contingent upon written infrastructure agreements to provide for public schools, emergency services, and parks and recreation services. Transportation impacts and funding of needed improvements are addressed through the transportation network agreements required by proposed FLUE Policies 6.9.3 and 6.9.4. No persuasive evidence supported a finding that these terms are not an appropriate reaction to data and analysis regarding the availability of infrastructure and services. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Finally, Petitioners challenge the Plan Amendments as contrary to section 163.3177(1), which requires comprehensive plans to establish “meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development regulations.” The Farrell Petitioners’ allegation in the pre- hearing stipulation is generalized: “[T]he Plan Amendments . . . eliminate existing meaningful and predictable guidelines for development.” In their PRO, the Farrell Petitioners allege the Plan Amendments “eliminate[] . . . existing meaningful maximum allowable density limitations and replace[] density with average densities that are much higher urban densities” exceeding the RSA cap of 1du/10acres but outside the USA, thereby failing to provide meaning and predictable standards. The Farrell Petitioners did not elaborate this argument. Contrary to Petitioners’ assertion, the use of non- specific densities with mixed-use transect-based urban development in the County is neither new nor novel. The most prominent example being Innovation Way, which establishes a range of densities within each transect zone, allowing the final density to be established by the IW-PD-RP. See FLUE Policy 5.1.7. In fact, the process for approving a plan amendment to IW is identical to the LPSA text amendment: The proposed location of transect zones are depicted on a CRP during the IW map amendment process. No development within the IW boundary may be approved without an approved IW-PD-RP, which determines the adopted boundaries and location of the transect zones. See FLUE Objective 5.2 and implementing policies. What is new and novel about the LPSA approach is the County’s position that the development pattern and densities are rural, rather than urban. The Farrell Petitioners did not introduce evidence regarding whether the LPSA amendment process itself provides meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land.17/ The allegation that the use of average densities renders the Plan Amendment devoid of meaningful and predictable standards was not proven. Petitioner Brooke maintains that the Plan Amendments do not provide meaningful and predictable standards because they are internally inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies directing urban densities and intensities of use outside the USA. Petitioner Brooke’s arguments are, again, creative, but yet another attempt to get the proverbial second, or in this case, third bite at the apple. Repackaging an internal inconsistency issue as a “meaningful and predictable standards” issue does not ipso facto make it an meaningful and predictable standards issue. The Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendments fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development regulations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that Orange County Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2015-2-P-FLUE-1 and 2015-2-A-5-1, adopted by Ordinance 2016-17 on July 12, 2016, are not “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondents, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. (Ag-Mart), and its employees' Justin Oelman (in DOAH Case No. 06-0729) and Warrick Birdwell (in DOAH Case No. 06-0730), committed some, any, or all of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints detailed herein and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with administration of the Florida Pesticide Law, Chapter 487, Part I, Florida Statutes. Among the duties of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring within the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services are the designation and regulation of restricted-use pesticides, the testing and licensure of certified pesticide applicators, and the enforcement of federal worker protection standards regarding the exposure of farm workers to pesticides. §§ 487.011, 487.042, 487.044, and 487.051, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-2.039. The Administrative Complaints allege two types of violation of the Florida Pesticide Law. First, they allege that Ag-Mart harvested tomatoes prior to the end of the pre-harvest interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied to a tomato plant before that plant's fruit may be safely harvested. The pre-harvest interval is specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. Second, they allege that Ag-Mart allowed workers to enter sprayed fields prior to the end of the restricted entry interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied before it is safe for a worker to enter or remain in the treated area. The restricted entry interval is also specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. In 2004, Ag-Mart operated farms in several locations in Florida and North Carolina. Ag-Mart operated packing houses in Plant City, Florida, and in New Jersey. Ag-Mart grows, packages, and distributes grape tomatoes under the "Santa Sweets" label, and a round-type tomato marketed as "Ugly Ripe." During all times relevant to this proceeding, Ag-Mart's principal administrative offices were located in Plant City, Florida, and Ag-Mart's operations were managed by its president, Donald Long. At the final hearing, several Ag-Mart employees, including Mr. Long, testified as to Ag-Mart's practices in establishing planting and pesticide spraying schedules, carrying out those schedules in the field, and ensuring that legal restrictions on pesticide use are observed. This testimony is credited as to Ag-Mart's general pattern and practice, but does not disprove the Department's evidence as to particular instances of pre-harvest interval or restricted entry interval violations. Among other duties, Mr. Long was responsible for scheduling Ag-Mart's cultivation of tomato plants at the company's farms, so that product is available year-round. Mr. Long prepared a 2004 planting schedule that spaced the planting of new crops a week to ten days apart to ensure a continuous flow of tomatoes once the plants matured. For the 2004 season, the South Florida farm began planting in September 2003, with harvesting commencing in December 2003 and continuing through May 2004. The North Florida farm started its spring season plantings in March and April 2004, with harvest beginning in early June 2004 and lasting until August 2004. Each "planting" at Ag-Mart consists of a specific amount of acreage that is cultivated for a specific period of time to produce an expected yield of tomatoes. Mr. Long determines the size of each planting based on past yields and projected needs. A single planting of grape tomatoes is harvested multiple times. Depending on conditions, a planting of grape tomatoes at the South Florida farm can be harvested between ten and 15 times in the fall, with fewer harvesting opportunities in the spring. A planting of grape tomatoes at the North Florida farm may be harvested between eight and ten times. Each planting takes up portions of acreage called "fields," which are divided by land features and irrigation systems. Fields are of varying sizes, depending on the nature of the terrain and the irrigation system. The fields are numbered, and a planting is usually done in a certain number of roughly contiguous fields. A field is further divided into separately numbered "blocks," each block consisting of six rows of tomato plants, three rows on each side of a "drive area" through which tractors and harvest trucks can maneuver to reach the plants. The blocks are numbered in sequence from the beginning to the end of the field. At the South Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated ten separate plantings of between 79 and 376 gross acres. Each planting contained as few as three and as many as ten separate fields. At the North Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated five separate plantings of between 92 and 158 gross acres. Each planting contained either two or three separate fields.2 The cycle of farming activities at the Ag-Mart farms included ground preparation, planting, staking, tying, harvesting, and post-harvest clean-up. Farm laborers were recruited and transported to the fields by crew leaders, who must be registered as farm labor contractors with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation pursuant to Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61L-1.004. The crew leaders supervised the field laborers and prepared their weekly time cards. The crew leaders were directed by Ag-Mart's labor supervisors as to where the laborers were to work and which tasks were to be performed at any given time. Crew leaders providing services to Ag-Mart in 2004 included: Sergio Salinas, d/b/a Salinas & Son, Inc.; Pascual Sierra; and Juan Anzualda, d/b/a Juan Anzualda Harvesting, Inc. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda were crew leaders at the South Florida farm in the spring 2004 season. Mr. Sierra was a crew leader at the North Florida farm in 2004. At the South Florida farm, Mr. Salinas and three or four supervisors called "field walkers" oversaw the daily work of the 150 to 200 farm laborers who worked in Mr. Salinas' crew. Mr. Salinas owned and operated buses that transported the workers to and within the farm. Mr. Salinas also operated trucks to haul the harvested tomatoes from the fields to the shipping dock on the South Florida farm. A truck was also needed to move portable toilets to the fields for the use of the laborers. Because of the amount of equipment necessary to conduct a harvest, and the intense hand labor required to pick a row of tomatoes, Mr. Salinas always kept his crew together in one location while harvesting. During the period of January through May 2004, Mr. Salinas' crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day, and never more than four fields in one day. Mr. Anzualda and his 15 field walkers supervised a crew of 150 laborers at the South Florida farm during March and April 2004. Mr. Anzualda always kept his crew together when performing harvesting activities, due to the amount of equipment and the time necessary to set up near the work areas. Mr. Anzualda estimated that it took between 45 and 90 minutes to set up his equipment and line up his workers along the rows before harvesting could commence in a given field. Mr. Anzualda's crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day at the South Florida farm during the peak harvest period of March and April 2004, and never in more than four fields in one day. Ag-Mart paid the farm laborers the piece rate of $2.50 per tub of grape tomatoes. A "tub" weighs about 21 pounds. Different piece rates applied to different forms of work. For tying activities, the laborers under Mr. Salinas were paid $0.75 per 100 linear feet of work, while those under Mr. Anzualda were paid $0.50 per 100 linear feet. The laborers were paid the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour for some work, such as weeding and the harvest of Ugly Ripe tomatoes. In any event, the laborers were guaranteed the minimum wage, and were paid $5.15 per hour if that amount was greater than their pay would have been under piece work rates. Planting activities are performed by hand. Tomato plants are started in greenhouses, and then transplanted to the field when they are six weeks old and about six inches high. Staking is performed manually and by machine, as stakes are placed between the tomato plants to support the plants as they mature. Tying is performed manually, from about the second week after planting until the eighth or ninth week. "Tying" involves tying the tomato plants with string to the stakes to allow them to grow up the stakes as they mature. The tomato plants are six to seven feet tall at maturity. After the tomatoes were planted in 2004, Ag-Mart's farms began the application of pesticides according to a company-wide spray program devised by Mr. Long prior to the season. The spray program outlined the type and volume of pesticide products to be applied to the maturing tomato plants from the first week of planting through the end of the harvest. Once tying and harvesting activities began, Ag-Mart's spray program called for the application of pesticides "behind the tying" or "behind the harvest," meaning that spraying was done immediately after tying or harvesting was completed in a field. The spraying was done behind the workers because picking and tying opens up the plants, which enables the pesticide to better penetrate the plant. The timing of the spraying also allows fungicide to cover wounds from broken leaves caused by picking, thus preventing infection. Harvesting is performed manually by the farm laborers, who pick the ripe fruit from the tomato plants and place it into containers. The crew leader lines up the laborers with one person on each side of a row of tomatoes, meaning that a crew of 150 laborers can pick 75 rows of tomatoes at a time. The farm workers pick all of the visible fruit that is ripe or close to ripe on the blocks that are being harvested. Once the picking is complete on a block, it takes seven to ten days for enough new fruit to ripen on that block to warrant additional harvesting. Justin Oelman was Ag-Mart's crop protection manager at the South Florida farm in 2004. Mr. Oelman worked for Ag-Mart for eight years as a farm manager and crop protection manager before leaving in 2005 and had three years prior experience as a crop protection manager for another tomato grower. As crop protection manager in 2004, Mr. Oelman was the licensed pesticide applicator responsible for ordering chemicals and directing the application of pesticides. His job included writing up the "tomato spray ticket" for each pesticide application. The spray ticket is a document that, on its face, indicates the date and time of a pesticide application and its location according to planting, field, and block numbers. The spray ticket also states the name of the tractor driver who physically applies the pesticide, the type and amount of the pesticide applied, and the number of acres treated. Licensed pesticide applicators are required by Department rule to record the information included on the spray ticket. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032. In applying pesticides to the South Florida farm's grape tomato crop in 2004, Mr. Oelman followed the spraying program designed by Mr. Long before the season. Because the pesticides were applied behind the farm workers' field activity, Mr. Oelman maintained close communications with Josh Cantu, the Ag-Mart labor supervisor in charge of tying activities on the South Florida farm, and with Eduardo Bravo, the labor supervisor in charge of grape tomato harvesting. Mr. Bravo in turn directed crew leaders such as Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda on where to take their crews to conduct harvesting work. These communications kept Mr. Oelman apprised of where the crews were working and how much progress the tying or harvesting activities were expected to make by the end of the day. Mr. Oelman was then able to plan the next day's pesticide applications so that his tractor drivers would be ready to enter the field and apply the pesticides soon after the tying or harvesting activities were completed. Mr. Oelman typically wrote the spray tickets on the day before the actual pesticide application, based on the information gathered from Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu. Thus, the starting times shown on the tickets are times that were projected by Mr. Oelman on the previous afternoon, not necessarily the time that spraying actually commenced. Spraying could be delayed for a number of reasons. At times, the work in the fields would not progress as quickly as Mr. Cantu or Mr. Bravo had anticipated, due to the heaviness of the harvest. Pesticides are not applied to wet plants; therefore, rain could delay a planned spray application. Mr. Oelman's practice was to write a new spray ticket if a day's planned application was completely cancelled. However, if the planned spray application was merely delayed for a time, Mr. Oelman did not create a new spray ticket or update the original ticket to reflect the actual starting time. Mr. Oelman failed to explain why he did not always create a new ticket when the information on the existing ticket ceased to be accurate. Mr. Oelman directly supervised the Ag-Mart employees who drove the tractors and operated the spray rigs from which pesticides were applied to the tomato plants. Mr. Oelman trained the tractor drivers not to spray where people were working, but to wait until the tying or harvesting activities in designated fields had been completed. Once the fields had been sprayed, Mr. Oelman would orally notify Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu of the location of the pesticide applications. Mr. Oelman would also post copies of the spray tickets at the farm's central posting board, on which was posted relevant information regarding the pesticides being used at the farm, the restricted entry intervals and pre-harvest intervals for the pesticides, and other safety information.3 When restricted-use pesticides4 were to be applied, Mr. Oelman posted the entrances to the field with warning signs before the application began. The signs, which stated "Danger/Pesticides/Keep Out" in English and Spanish, were left in place until twelve hours after the expiration of the restricted entry interval for the applied pesticide. Mr. Oelman attested that he always made these postings when restricted-use pesticides such as Monitor and Danitol were applied at the South Florida farm. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda testified that they never harvested tomatoes from fields posted with pesticide warning signs. Mr. Anzualda checked for warning signs every day to ensure that his crew was not being sent into fields where pesticides had recently been applied. The restricted entry interval (REI) and the pre- harvest interval (PHI) are set forth on the manufacturer's label of each restricted-use pesticide, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Parts 156 (labeling requirements for pesticides and devices) and 170 (worker protection standard). The REI, a worker safety standard, is the time period after application of a restricted- use pesticide that must elapse before workers are allowed to enter the treated area. The PHI, a food safety standard, is the time period that must elapse after a spray application before harvesting can begin. The REI and PHI vary according to individual pesticides. In 2004, Warrick Birdwell was the farm manager at Ag- Mart's North Florida farm in Jennings. Prior to 2004, Mr. Birdwell had worked ten years for other tomato growers in Virginia and Florida. As farm manager, Mr. Birdwell was responsible for all operations from ground preparation through post-harvest clean-up at the North Florida farm. Mr. Birdwell was also a licensed restricted-use pesticide applicator and was responsible for the application of pesticides at the North Florida farm. In 2004, Mr. Birdwell was assisted in carrying out the spray program by Dale Waters, who supervised the tractor drivers and equipment.5 During 2004, grape tomatoes were harvested at the North Florida farm on a rotation of at least seven days per block, meaning that it would take at least seven days after a harvest, in a given field, to grow enough vine ripe fruit to warrant another harvest. Mr. Birdwell prepared the spray tickets for the planned application of pesticides. He created his spray tickets a day or two before the actual date that the application was scheduled to take place. At times, delays occurred due to weather, equipment failures, or slower than anticipated progress in the harvest. Mr. Birdwell's practice was to create a new ticket and destroy the old one if the delay prevented a scheduled application from occurring on the scheduled date. However, if the spraying was commenced on the scheduled date, but had to be completed on the next day, Mr. Birdwell kept the original spray ticket without amendment. Mr. Birdwell failed to give a reason why a new ticket was not created each time the information, included in the original ticket, ceased to be accurate. Mr. Birdwell communicated throughout the day with Charles Lambert, the North Florida farm's labor supervisor, to monitor the progress of the harvesting activities and ensure that workers did not enter fields where REIs or PHIs were in effect. Mr. Birdwell also directed that warning postings be placed at the entrances to fields where restricted-use pesticides had been applied. Farm labor crews were allowed to move on the farm property only at the specific direction of Mr. Lambert, whose constant communication with Mr. Birdwell helped ensure that labor crews stayed out of treated fields until it was safe to enter them. Harvested product received at Ag-Mart's packing houses is tracked by foreman receiving reports, which identify the product and its quantity, the name of the crew leader responsible for harvesting the product, the farm from which the product was shipped, and the planting number from which the product was harvested. The receiving reports are used to calculate the commission payments due to the Ag-Mart crew leaders, who are paid based on the amount of fruit their crews harvest, and to analyze the yields of specific plantings. The "date received" column on the receiving reports showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse. In March 2005, the Palm Beach Post published an article stating that three women, who harvested tomatoes for Ag- Mart in 2004, bore children who suffered from birth defects. The article questioned whether the birth defects were connected to the pesticides used by Ag-Mart on its tomatoes. The women had worked at both the South Florida and North Florida farms, and at an Ag-Mart farm in North Carolina. In response to the article, the Collier County Health Department began an inquiry to determine the cause of the birth defects and asked for the Department's help in performing a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm, where the three women, identified as Francisca Herrera, Sostenes Salazar, and Maria de la Mesa (also called Maria de la Mesa Cruz), worked from February through July 2004. The Department's investigation commenced with a work request sent from Tallahassee to Environmental Specialist Neil Richmond in Immokalee on March 7, 2005.6 Mr. Richmond regularly conducts inspections at golf courses, farms, chemical dealers, and fertilizer plants throughout Collier County. The work request directed Mr. Richmond to obtain pesticide use records for Ag-Mart covering the period of February through July 2004 and employee records showing the names of the three employees and the dates they worked in 2004. The work request further directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm to document the pesticide products used in the field. Finally, the work request directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a full worker protection standard inspection to document the posting of fields, central posting information, and REIs at the South Florida farm. Mr. Richmond initially visited Ag-Mart's South Florida farm on March 28, 2005, accompanied by two persons from the Collier County Health Department. During the course of the inspection, Ag-Mart's farm manager, Doug Perkins, produced spray tickets for both the South Florida and North Florida farms for the period February through July 2004. Mr. Perkins also produced a spreadsheet identifying the dates worked and the farm locations for each of the three women named in the newspaper article. This spreadsheet was prepared at the direction of Ag- Mart's human resources manager, Angelia Cassell, and was derived from the three workers' timesheets for 2004. On March 30, 2005, Mr. Richmond filed a written report with the documents he received from Ag-Mart. The Department's Bureau of Compliance Monitoring then assigned the matter to Case Reviewer Jessica Fernandez in Tallahassee. Ms. Fernandez was given the task of reviewing all the information gathered by the Department's inspectors to determine whether Ag-Mart had violated the Florida Pesticide Law or any of the Department's implementing rules. On April 12, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent a request for additional information to Mr. Richmond, which stated in relevant part: According to the work log included in this file, Ms. Fransisca [sic] Herrera, Ms. Maria de la Mesa Cruz and Ms. Sostenes Salazar worked at the Ag-Mart farm located in Immokalee between January 2004 and October 2004. Please obtain as much information as possible regarding the specific Planting, Field and Block numbers in which these workers worked during the period of February 2004 through June 2004. Mr. Richmond went to the South Florida farm on March 13, 2005, and communicated this request for additional information to Mr. Oelman, who responded that it would take several days to gather the requested information. Mr. Richmond returned to the farm on April 15, 2005. On that date, Mr. Oelman explained to Mr. Richmond the sequencing of harvesting and spray activities at the South Florida farm. Mr. Oelman told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's harvest records indicate, only, which planting the laborers were working in on a given day and that a planting includes more than one field. Mr. Oelman also told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's spray records are kept according to field and block numbers and that his practice was to spray behind the picking. On April 22, 2005, Ms. Cassell faxed to Mr. Richmond a spreadsheet entitled "Field Locations for SFL 2/04 thru 6/04." All involved understood that "SFL" referred to the South Florida farm.7 With the assistance of subordinates in her office, Ms. Cassell produced this document to show, in her words, "the total of what field locations the [three] women might have worked in." Ms. Cassell started with time cards, which indicated the dates and hours the three women worked. Then she obtained foreman receiving reports, which she understood to tell her which plantings were harvested on which dates. Finally, she obtained, from the farm, a handwritten document showing which fields were included in each planting. From this information, Ms. Cassell was able to fashion a spreadsheet indicating the range of fields each woman could have worked in from February through June 2004. Mr. Richmond testified that he read the spreadsheet's title and understood the document to show where the women actually worked each day. The document appeared self- explanatory. No one from Ag-Mart told Mr. Richmond that the spreadsheet showed only where the women could have worked, or "possible" locations. Mr. Richmond passed the spreadsheet on to Ms. Fernandez, with a report stating that it showed "the field locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa where they worked on respective dates." Ms. Fernandez also operated on the assumption that the spreadsheet showed what its title indicated, the actual field locations of the three women on any given day from February through June 2004. Ms. Cassell testified that she put the title on the spreadsheet without much thought, simply as an identifier for the file on her computer's hard drive. Ms. Cassell understood that she was creating a spreadsheet of all the fields the women could possibly have worked in on a given day. She could be no more precise, because Ag-Mart did not keep records that would show the specific fields where an individual worked on a given day. The president of Ag-Mart, Mr. Long, confirmed that Ag- Mart does not keep records on which fields a worker is in on a given day. At the time the Department made its request, Mr. Long told Ms. Cassell that there was no way Ag-Mart could provide such precise worker location data. The closest they could come would be to correlate harvest or receiving data, which showed what plantings a crew had harvested from, with the workers' time cards. Ag-Mart knew whose crew each woman had worked in; so the spreadsheet listed all the fields in the planting worked by the crew, as a way of showing which fields the women might have worked in. On May 4, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent Compliance Monitoring Bureau Chief Dale Dubberly a request for additional information, which Mr. Dubberly forwarded to Mr. Richmond the next day. Ms. Fernandez first requested the time work started and ended for each worker in each field on every date listed in the spreadsheet provided on April 22, 2005. Ms. Fernandez next asked for the field location for each worker from July 2004 to November 2004. She asked for the block numbers corresponding to each of the fields in North Florida, South Florida, and North Carolina during the 2004 season and a map showing the distribution of blocks, fields and plantings for those farms during the 2004 season. She asked for spray records for South Florida for October and November 2004. Finally, Ms. Fernandez requested a more legible copy of the spreadsheet, which she stated "shows each worker's field location." Upon receiving this request through Mr. Richmond, Ms. Cassell, her staff, and Ag-Mart farm compliance manager, Amanda Collins created a new spreadsheet, which Ms. Cassell titled "Field Locations for 3 Employees for 2004." This spreadsheet was identical in format to the earlier document, but was expanded to include the dates the three women worked for all of 2004. For each worker, the spreadsheet provided a cell for each day worked, and within that cell a list of field numbers. Again, the Department took these field numbers to represent fields in which the women actually worked, when Ag-Mart actually intended them to represent fields in which the women possibly worked. Some of the cells listed as many as 23 field numbers for one day. The method of developing this spreadsheet was similar to that employed for the first one. The weekly time cards of the three women were used to provide the days they worked. Ag-Mart's weekly time cards show the name of the employee, the rounded hours worked each week, the number of piece units worked, the hours worked for minimum wage, and the initials of the crew leader for whom the employee worked that week. For their South Florida farm work in 2004, Ms. Herrera and Ms. Salazar worked exclusively for crew leader Sergio Salinas. Ms. de la Mesa worked at South Florida for crew leader Juan Anzualda and at North Florida for crew leader Pascual Sierra.8 To identify the fields where the three women might have worked on a given day, Ms. Cassell and her staff again used foreman receiving reports and planting schedules. The receiving reports were understood to provide the dates of shipping for harvested product, and these were correlated to the dates on which the three women worked. Again, Ms. Cassell listed every field within a planting as a possible work location, because Ag-Mart kept no data that identified the fields in which the women actually worked on a given date. On May 6, 2005, Mr. Richmond met with Ms. Cassell and Ms. Collins at Ag-Mart's Plant City administrative offices. The meeting lasted no more than 15 minutes and consisted of Ag-Mart employees turning over various documents to Mr. Richmond, along with some explanatory conversation. Ms. Cassell specifically recalled explaining to Mr. Richmond that the field location spreadsheet indicated the "total possible fields that the three employees could have worked in." Mr. Richmond denied that Ms. Cassell gave him any such explanation. Ms. Collins recalled that Mr. Richmond and Ms. Cassell had some discussion about the spreadsheet, but could recall no particulars.9 Mr. Richmond forwarded the documents received at the May 6, 2005, meeting to Ms. Fernandez in Tallahassee. His written summary, also dated May 6, 2005, represents Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous understanding of the meaning of the documents he was given at the Plant City meeting. The summary stated, in relevant part: Ms. Collins provided the times which the three ladies worked at the various locations which came from the three ladies time cards (See Exhibits V-1 through V-3, copies of time worked information). Ms. Collins stated that this has the start and finished [sic] times, but does not have which fields they worked at a particular time as they may pick in several fields throughout the day. Ms. Collins provided another copy of the field locations for each of the three ladies (See Exhibits W-1 and W-2, copies of field locations of workers). Ms. Collins also provided maps with field locations depicting blocks and plantings (See Exhibits X-1 through X-13, maps depicting field locations with blocks and plantings). The field no. is the main number in each block, the first two numbers are the numbers of the planting, while the remaining number in the set is the block number. . . . At the hearing, Mr. Richmond testified that he "absolutely" would have communicated to Ms. Fernandez any conversation he had with, either, Ms. Cassell or Ms. Collins indicating that the field location spreadsheet was anything other than a document showing where the women worked on a given day. This testimony is credible and, coupled with Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous written statement, leads to the finding that Mr. Richmond's testimony regarding the May 6, 2005, meeting in Plant City should be credited. On May 12, 2005, Ms. Cassell sent Mr. Dubberly an e- mail with an attachment correcting some aspects of the spreadsheet. Ms. Cassell's e-mail message stated: I have attached the the [sic] revision to the original sheet given on the 3 woman's [sic] field locations. I included which field location for NC. There was one revision I made for Francisca on week ending 4/24/05 [Ms. Cassell clearly means 2004]. She was in NC that week and on the last two days of that week I had SFL field numbers and it should of [sic] been NC [sic] please discard old report and replace with revised one. The Department cites this e-mail as further indication that Ag-Mart represented the spreadsheet as indicating actual field locations for the three women, or at least that Ag-Mart said nothing to clarify that the spreadsheet showed something other than the fields where the women actually worked. Ms. Fernandez, the case reviewer whose analysis led to the filing of the Administrative Complaints against Ag-Mart, believed that the field location spreadsheets prepared by Ms. Cassell and her staff reflected the actual work locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa. As a case reviewer, Ms. Fernandez receives files compiled by the field staff and reviews the files to determine whether a violation of the Florida Pesticide Law has occurred. The procedure of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring appears designed to ensure that the case reviewers have no contact with the subjects of their investigation and, instead, rely on field inspectors to act as conduits in obtaining information from companies such as Ag-Mart. As a result, Ms. Fernandez had no direct contact with anyone from Ag-Mart and, thus, had no direct opportunity to be disabused of her assumptions regarding the field location spreadsheet. Ms. Fernandez conceded that she had never been on a tomato farm at the time she conducted her review of the Ag-Mart case. She did not take into consideration the acreage of the fields or the size of the work crews and their manner of operation. She made no attempt to visualize the effort it would take for one worker to harvest in ten or 20 fields in one day. She assumed that each woman worked in at least part of each field listed on the spreadsheet for each day listed. Ms. Fernandez believed that the spreadsheet was clear on its face and saw no need to make further inquiries as to the plausibility of the assumption that it reflected actual, not possible, field locations. As found above, Ag-Mart made no statement to any Department employee to qualify that the spreadsheet meant only possible field locations. Nonetheless, common sense should have caused someone in the Department to question whether this spreadsheet really conveyed the information that its title appeared to promise. On some days, the spreadsheet places a single field worker in 23 fields. Ag-Mart's crew leaders credibly testified that their crews never worked in more than four fields in one day and more often worked in only one or two. Even granting Ms. Fernandez' ignorance, Mr. Dubberly or some other superior in the Department should have had enough knowledge of farm operations to question the plausibility of Ms. Fernandez' assumptions. While Ag-Mart is at fault for not explaining itself clearly, the Department is also at fault for insisting that the spreadsheet be taken at face value, no matter how implausible the result.10 At the hearing, Ms. Fernandez explained how she used the documents provided by Ag-Mart to draft the Administrative Complaints. As an example, Counts I and II of the North Florida Complaint provide: Count I On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre- harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count II The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 7-8 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on June 6, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. Ms. Fernandez obtained the information regarding the date, time, and manner of pesticide application from the spray tickets described above. She obtained the Monitor and Danitol PHI information from the product label. She obtained the harvest information from the spreadsheet, which indicated that Ms. de la Mesa worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Counts I and II alleging violations of the PHIs for Monitor and Danitol had an accompanying Count XIX, alleging a violation of the REI for Monitor arising from the same set of facts: Count XIX The Monitor 4 Spray and the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray labels contain the following language: "AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS. Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also contains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE) and restricted entry interval. The requirements in this box only apply to users of this product that are covered by the Worker Protection Standard." On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The application started at 11:30 am and ended at 5:30 pm on June 6, 2004. The Monitor 4 Spray label states: "Do not enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted entry interval (REI) of 48 hours." Work records show that Ms. de la Mesa, directed by licensed applicators Mr. Charles Lambert (PV38793)11 and Mr. Warrick Birdwell (PV36679), worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004, and that her working hours for June 7, 2004, were 8:00 am to 6:30 pm. Therefore, Ms. de la Mesa and other workers were instructed, directed, permitted or not prevented by the agricultural employer, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. from entering treated fields before the expiration of the REI stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Throughout the hearing, Ag-Mart contended (and the Department did not dispute) that no statute or rule requires Ag-Mart to keep a daily log of the fields where its employees work. The Department also conceded that Ag-Mart was cooperative throughout its investigation.12 Ag-Mart contends that all counts should be dismissed because of the Department's reliance on the field location spreadsheet, which shows only the possible field locations of the workers. This contention goes to far. For example, the counts set forth above are well taken, because the spray tickets indicate that fields 7 and 8 were sprayed on June 6, 2004, and the field location spreadsheet indicates that Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Ag-Mart further attacked the spreadsheet by suggesting the unreliability of the dates on the foreman receiving reports. As found above, the receiving reports generally showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse, as well as the crew leader who provided the tomatoes and the planting from which the tomatoes were harvested. At the hearing, Ag-Mart contended that the date the product was shipped was not always the same date it was harvested. Further, Ag-Mart demonstrated that one of the receiving reports relevant to this proceeding showed the date the product was received at the packing house, rather than the date the product was shipped from the farm, due to a clerical error. Ag-Mart argued that this example showed that the receiving reports were not a reliable source for determining the precise dates of harvest in a given field on the North Florida farm. Ag-Mart's evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the unreliability of the receiving reports, where Ag-Mart itself relied on the reports to provide the Department with the spreadsheet showing possible field locations of the three workers. Ag-Mart had ample opportunity to make a thorough demonstration of the reports' alleged unreliability and failed to do so. Ag-Mart also attempted to cast doubt on the accuracy of the spray tickets through the testimony of Mr. Oelman and Mr. Birdwell, both of whom stated that the spray tickets are written well in advance of the pesticide applications and are not invariably rewritten or corrected when the spraying schedule is pushed back due to rain or slow harvest. However, the pesticide applicator is required by law to maintain accurate records relating to the application of all restricted-use pesticides, including the date, start time and end time of the treatment, and the location of the treatment site. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(1). The Department is entitled to inspect these records. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(6). Ag-Mart may not attack records that its own employee/applicators were legally required to keep in an accurate fashion. The Department is entitled to rely on the spray tickets as accurate indicators of when and where pesticide applications occurred. Thus, the undersigned has accepted the accuracy of the spray records and the receiving reports, but not of the field location spreadsheet. However, there are some dates on which the fields shown on the spreadsheet perfectly match the fields shown on the spray tickets, as in Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint set forth above. It is found that the Department has proven these counts by clear and convincing evidence. In addition to Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint, the Department has proven the following counts of the North Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence: Counts XI, XII, and XXII (spraying in fields 7 and 8 on June 17, 2004; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 19, 2004); and Count XIII (spraying Agrimek 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide, with PHI of seven days, in fields 7 and 8 on June 3, 2005; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004). The Department has proven none of the counts in the South Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Some explanation must be made for the finding that Counts XXXI and XXXII were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Those counts allege as follows: Count XXXI On April 17, 2004, Mr. Lorenzo Reyes, Mr. Demetrio Acevedo and Mr. Francisco Vega treated approximately 212.5 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 11, 6 and 4, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6 and 4 on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count XXXII The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 11, 6 and 4 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on April 17, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. These counts base their allegation that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6, and 4 on April 21, 2004, on the field location spreadsheet, which indicates that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in fields 4, 6, 9, 10, and/or 11 on April 21, 2004. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the three sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were also applied to fields 9 and 10 on April 15, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on April 21, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. However, the Department did not amend the South Florida Complaint to allege the fact of the second spray ticket, and, so, must be held to the allegations actually made in the complaint. Ag-Mart may not be found guilty of facts or violations not specifically alleged in the South Florida Complaint. See Cottrill v. Department of Insurance, 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (facts not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). See also B.D.M. Financial Corporation v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 698 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (violations not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). In similar fashion, Counts XLI and XLII of the South Florida Complaint allege that fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 were sprayed with Monitor and Danitol on May 15, 2004, and allege PHI violations in fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 on May 20, 2004, based on the field location spreadsheet's indication that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in one or more of fields 18 through 25 on that date. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the four sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were, also, applied to fields 20, 23, 24, and 25 on May 14, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on May 20, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. Again, however, the Department failed to amend the South Florida Complaint to reflect its subsequently developed evidence. Subsection 487.175(1)(e), Florida Statutes, provides that the Department may enter an order imposing an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. The statute further provides as follows: When imposing any fine under this paragraph, the department shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation, the cost of rectifying the damage, the amount of money the violator benefited from by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and the compliance record of the violator. Mr. Dubberly testified that the Department does not have a rule for determining the amount of fines, but uses a matrix, attaching a rating of 0 to 5 for each of the criteria named in the quoted portion of the statute, with 5 representing the most egregious violation. The extent of harm caused by the violation is divided into two classifications: (A) the degree and extent of harm related to human and environmental hazards and (B) the degree and extent of harm related to the toxicity of the pesticide(s). The remaining criteria considered in the matrix are: (C) the estimated cost of rectifying the damage, (D) the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and (F) the compliance record of the violator. Each factor is given its numerical value. The values for factors (B) through (F) are added, then the total is multiplied by the value for factor (A). The resulting number is then multiplied by $100.00 to determine the amount of the fine. The PHI violations were primarily food safety violations, the concern being that there might be an unacceptable pesticide residue on the tomatoes if they were harvested within the PHI. The REI violations were based on concerns for worker safety from pesticide exposure. In determining the fines for PHI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 2 for factor (A). In determining the fines for REI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 3 for factor (A), based on a reasonable probability of human or animal death or injury, or a reasonable probability of serious environmental harm. For purposes of this proceeding, all the pesticides used by Ag-Mart were restricted-use pesticides. In considering the value to be assigned to factor (B), the Department relied on the pesticide labels, which contain signal words for the category of potential hazard to human or animal life posed by that pesticide. Monitor contained the signal word "Danger," which represents the highest level of potential hazard. A value of 5 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving the use of Monitor. Danitol and Agrimek contained the signal word "Warning," which indicated a lesser potential hazard. A value of 3 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving Danitol or Agrimek. Because the estimated cost of rectifying the damage and the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance was unknown, the Department assigned a value of 0 to factors (C) and (D). As to factor (E), dealing with the willfulness of the violation, the Department assigns a value of 0 if there is no evidence of willfulness, a value of 1 if there is apparent evidence of willfulness, and a value of 5 if it determines the violation was intentional. Because of the large number of alleged PHI and REI violations, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (E), finding apparent evidence of willful intent for each alleged violation. As to factor (F), dealing with the violator's compliance history, the Department considers the three years immediately preceding the current violation. The Department assigns a value of 0 if there are no prior violations, a value of 1 for a prior dissimilar violation, a value of 2 for multiple prior dissimilar violations, a value of 3 for a prior similar violation, and a value of 4 for multiple prior similar violations. Because Ag-Mart had one prior dissimilar violation within the preceding three years, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (F) for each alleged violation. Because the sole basis for finding apparent evidence of willful intent was the number of alleged violations, the Department calculated its recommended fines in two ways: by assigning a value of 0 based on no evidence of willful intent and by assigning a value of 1 based on apparent evidence of willful intent. In DOAH Case No. 06-0730, the North Florida Complaint, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,200 (no evidence of willful intent) or $1,400 (apparent evidence of willful intent) for each of the PHI violations alleged in Counts I, III, V, VII, IX, and XI, which involved the use of Monitor. The Department recommended a fine of either $800 (no evidence) or $1,000 (apparent evidence) for Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, and XII, involving the use of Danitol, and for Counts XIV, XV, and XVI, involving the use of Agrimek. For each of the REI violations alleged in Counts XIX through XXII, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,800 (no evidence) or $2,100 (apparent evidence). The Department established by clear and convincing evidence seven of the 20 counts of the North Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing, and none of the 58 counts of the South Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing. The undersigned accepts the Department's calculation of the recommended fines for these violations and recommends that the Department apply the lower calculation for each of the violations. Thus, the recommended fines are as follows: Count I, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count II, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XI, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count XII, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XIII, PHI violation involving the use of Agrimek, $800; Count XIX, REI violation, $1,800; and Count XXII, REI violation, $1,800. Thus, the total recommended fine for the seven proven violations is $8,400. In conclusion, it is observed that these cases demonstrate a gap in the enforcement mechanism of the Florida Pesticide Law, at least as it is currently understood and practiced by the Department. The law requires licensed applicators to comply with the PHI and REI restrictions on the labels of the restricted-use pesticides they apply to these crops. The law requires the applicators to keep accurate records of when and where they apply pesticides and of the kind and quantity of pesticides applied in each instance. Yet all parties to this proceeding agreed that the law does not require either the applicators or the growers to keep accurate records of when and where farm workers enter the fields and conduct the harvest. This failure to complete the record- keeping circle makes it extremely difficult for the Department to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a PHI or REI violation has taken place. The PHI and REI restrictions appear virtually unenforceable through company records, except when some fluke of record keeping allows the Department to establish that a given worker could only have been in a recently sprayed field on a given day. It does little good to know when the pesticides were applied to a field if there is no way of knowing when workers first entered the field or harvested tomatoes after the spraying. Ag-Mart credibly demonstrated that its general practices are designed to minimize worker exposure and guarantee safe harvest, but the company keeps no records to demonstrate to its customers that it observes these practices in particular instances and is under no legal obligation to keep such records. This state of regulatory affairs should be as disturbing to Ag-Mart as to the Department, because purchasers of tomatoes in Florida's grocery stores do not require clear and convincing evidence in order to switch brands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order that provides as follows: That Ag-Mart committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, XI, XII, and XIII of the North Florida Complaint, for which violations Ag-Mart should be assessed an administrative fine totaling $8,400; That Ag-Mart pay to the Department $3,000 to resolve Counts L through LIV of the South Florida Complaint and Counts XVII and XVIII of the North Florida Complaint; and That all other counts of the North Florida Complaint and the South Florida Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 16th day of March, 2007.
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioner for the purchase of agricultural products, and whether such indebtedness constitutes a breach of the conditions of the bond posted by the Surety for which payment should issue.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SARASOTA GROWERS INCORPORATED (SARASOTA GROWERS), is a producer of agricultural products, primarily nursery ornamental plants, in Sarasota County, Florida. W.R. Walden is president of SARASOTA GROWERS. Respondent, TOULIA XIOTAS INCORPORATED, d/b/a GULF BREEZE LANDSCAPING (GULF BREEZE), is a licensed dealer in agricultural products, holding License Number 10091, issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. At all material times, David Joy was the manager of GULF BREEZE. Co-Respondent and Surety, FRONTIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK (FRONTIER), posted Bond Number 5004806 in the amount of $9,999.00 in support of Respondent's license as a dealer in agricultural products. The inception date of the bond was April 30, 1996, and the expiration date of the bond was April 30, 1997. In early 1997, Respondent GULF BREEZE through its manager, David Joy, contacted SARASOTA GROWERS and ordered the delivery of certain agricultural products. By usual business practices, payment was demanded upon delivery. On February 10, 1997, SARASOTA GROWERS delivered agricultural products to GULF BREEZE. The invoiced value of the agricultural products delivered to GULF BREEZE was $2,255.00. On February 12, 1997, SARASOTA GROWERS delivered agricultural products valued at $302.50 to GULF BREEZE. On March 7, 1997, SARASOTA GROWERS delivered agricultural products valued at $18.00 to GULF BREEZE GULF BREEZE did not pay for the agricultural products at the time of delivery by SARASOTA GROWERS. At each of these deliveries, SARASOTA GROWERS was informed by an employee of GULF BREEZE that the manager David Joy, was not present, but that payment by check would be mailed. After the delivery of March 7, 1997, SARASOTA GROWERS ceased making deliveries to GULF BREEZE. After several demands for payment by SARASOTA GROWERS, GULF BREEZE remitted a partial payment of $1,000.00 for the agricultural products delivered by SARASOTA GROWERS. GULF BREEZE failed to properly make payment for agricultural products delivered by SARASOTA GROWERS and is indebted to SARASOTA GROWERS in the amount of $1,575.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered directing Respondent TOULIA XIOTAS INCORPORATED, d/b/a GULF BREEZE LANDSCAPING, to pay Petitioner SARASOTA GROWERS INCORPORATED $1,575.50 for agricultural products sold to Respondent, and in the event Respondent fails to make such payment, within fifteen (15) days of that order, that the Surety be required to pay pursuant to the bond posted. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 W. R. Walden, President Sarasota Growers, Incorporated 1001 Sinclair Drive Sarasota, Florida 34240 Toulia Xioutas, Incorporated Gulf Breeze Landscaping 901 MacEwen Drive Osprey, Florida 34229 Frontier Insurance Company of New York 195 Lake Louise Marie Road Rock Hill, New York 12775-8000
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Gro Mor Co., Inc., has been engaged in the fertilizer, seed and pesticide business in Florida since approximately the year 1933. On January 2, 1958, the Department of State issued to the Petitioner Charter No. 208744 permitting the use of the corporate name Gro Mor Co., Inc. In 1968 the Petitioner registered "Gro Mor" as a trademark with the Florida Department of Agriculture, and it now has some 265 registered fertilizer mixes which are protected under the "Gro Mor" trademark, in addition to approximately 20 registrations of unmixed materials. Gro Mor Co., Inc. has annual gross revenue of approximately 1.1 million dollars. It is presently operating in 11 Florida counties, some of which overlap with counties where Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. does business. On November 7, 1980, the Department of State issued Charter No. F04615 to the Respondent, permitting the use of the corporate name Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. Although Gro Mor Co., Inc. and Gro-More Farm Service Center are both in the fertilizer business, they do not compete directly with each other because the product mix of the two companies is different. Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. is a custom-blend fertilizer plant, and in general each company has its own customers for its own products. On occasion, however, Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. has done business with some companies which also deal with Gro Mor Co., Inc. Sometime in 1980, the representative from Gro Mor Co., Inc. became aware that the Respondent was doing business as Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. Since 1980, the Petitioner has received four invoices which should have been directed to the Respondent, and one invoice which was received late because it was mailed to the Respondent instead of to the Petitioner. These invoices were introduced and received in evidence; other instances of customers misdirecting invoices have been disregarded as self-serving assertions not corroborated by evidence that is available to the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner admitted that it has regularly received properly addressed invoices from the same firms which sent the misdirected invoices to Gro Mor Co., Inc. On one occasion when the Petitioner's representative requested information on the Petitioner company from the Department of Agriculture, he received information on both Gro Mor Co., Inc. and Gro-More Farm Serviced Center, Inc. No evidence was presented to indicate that this happened more than once. When Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. was in the incorporation process, the attorney for the company was directed to select a name and draw up the charter. The incorporators had no knowledge of the existence of Gro Mor Co., Inc. Since the corporate purpose was to engage in the fertilizer business, the name Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. was selected because fertilizer makes crops grow more. In the two or more years the Respondent has been operating as Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc., its representatives cannot recall getting invoices which should have been directed to Gro Mor Co., Inc.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Gro Mor Co., Inc. be DENIED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9 day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: David H. Galloway, Esquire Post Office Box 1119 Plant City, Florida 33566 George J. Ellis, Jr., Esquire 1721 Memorial Park Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32204 William S. Stevens, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Lincoln A. Herreid, was, at all times material hereto, licensed to practice land surveying in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 3015. At issue in these proceedings are three surveys, which Respondent admits he performed, signed and sealed, to wit: A survey of the real property located at 9 East Lucy Street, Florida City, Florida; a survey of a portion of the real property located in Florida Fruitland Company's Subdivision No. One, Dade County, Florida; and, a survey of the real property located at 20301 S.W. 117 Avenue, Miami, Florida. 9 East Lucy Street Survey On December 17, 1983, Respondent signed and sealed a Sketch of Survey" for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Hays Subdivision, Plat Book 55, Page 53, Public Records of Dade County, Florida, commonly known as 9 East Lucy Street, Florida City, Florida. The Lucy Street property is rectangular in shape, and abuts streets on its north, east and west sides. The survey shows only one angle and no bearings, fails to reflect the measured distance to the nearest intersection of a street or right-of-way, and fails to reflect whether any monument was found, or set, at the southeast corner of the property. The evidence establishes that no monument was found, or set, at the southeast corner of the property. Respondent avers that no monument was set because debris, composed of paints and chemicals, preempted the area and precluded the setting of a monument. However, no offset witness point was set, nor did the survey reflect why a monument had not been set. Florida Fruitland Company Subdivision Survey On February 24, 1984, Respondent signed and sealed a "Waiver of Plat," a survey of a portion of Tract 21, Section 15, Township 53 South, Range 40 East, of Florida Fruitland Company's Subdivision No. One, Plat Book 2, Page 17, Public Records of Dade County, Florida. The Waiver of Plat shows only one angle and no bearings, indicates the four corners of the property by "Pipe," without reference to whether the pipe was set or found, fails to reflect the measured distance to the nearest intersection or right-of- way, fails to reference the source documents for the legal description of the property, and fails to provide vertical datum and benchmark descriptions. Further, the survey incorrectly positioned the property, reflected inaccurate boundary measurements, and established an incorrect elevation. The property, which is the subject of the Waiver of Plat, is rectangular in shape, zoned commercial (no side set- backs required), and its front (the northern boundary of the property) abuts Northwest 70th Street, between N.W. 82nd Avenue and N.W. 84th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The evidence establishes that the north/south dimensions of the property, as reflected by Respondent's survey, were overstated by 2.1' on the west boundary line, and 2.01' on the east boundary line. Although Respondent correctly depicted the correct distances of the east/west property line, the positioning of that line in relation to the fractional line was in error by .12', and the northwest and northeast corner placements were in error by .24' and .20', respectively. The elevation established by Respondent's survey was in error by one foot. 20301 S.W. 117 Avenue Survey On June 13, 1984, Respondent signed and sealed a "Sketch of Survey," for Lot 17, Block 6, Addition J., South Miami Heights, Plat Book 68, Page 74, Public Records of Dade County, Florida commonly known as 20301 S.W. 117 Avenue, Miami, Florida. The Sketch of Survey reflects only one angle and no bearings, and failed to set a monument or offset witness point for the northeast corner of the property.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Debruyn Produce Co. owes Petitioner, Florida Farm Management Inc. the sum of $4,846.00 for watermelons shipped by Petitioner and handled by Respondent as Petitioner's agent during the period from May 30, 1989 through July 5, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant fact are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner, Florida Farm Management, Inc. was a "producer" of agricultural products in the state of Florida as that term is defined in Section 605.15(5), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Debruyn Produce Co. was a licensed "dealer in agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent was issued license number 596 by the Department, and bonded by Peerless Insurance Company (Peerless) for the sum of $47,000.00, bond number R2-27-13, with an effective date of November 13, 1988 and a termination date of November 13, 1989. At all times material to this proceeding, Debruyn was authorized to do business in the state of Florida. Around the last week of April, 1989, Petitioner and Respondent orally agreed, among other things, for Petitioner to produce certain quantities of Mickey Lee Watermelons and for Respondent to market those watermelons. This oral agreement was reduced to writing, executed by the Respondent and sent to Petitioner to execute. Petitioner, after making certain changes in the agreement and initialing those changes, executed the agreement and returned it to the Respondent. It is not clear if Respondent agreed to the change since they were not initialed by Respondent. However, the parties appeared to operate under this agreement as modified by Petitioner. Under the agreement, Respondent was to advance monies for harvesting and packing, furnish containers and labels for packing and agreed to pay certain chemical bills. Petitioner was to reimburse any monies advanced by the Respondent for (a) harvesting or packing; (b) containers and labels and; (c) chemicals, from the proceeds of the sale of watermelons. Any balance owed Petitioner for watermelons was to be paid within 30 days. Additionally, Respondent was to receive a commission of 8% of net FOB, except 30 cent maximum on sales of less than $6.25 per carton and 40 cents per carton for melons delivered on contract to National Grocers Co. The relationship of the parties was to be that of producer and sales agent. Before entering into the agreement with Respondent, Petitioner had agreed to furnish National Grocers Co. four shipments of melons totalling 8,000 cartons. Respondent agreed to service that agreement. Although Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger shows a credit of $6,007.13 for chemicals paid for by Respondent, the parties agreed that only $3,684.68 was expended by Respondent for chemicals and that Respondent should receive credit for that amount. The parties agree that Respondent advanced a total of $18,960.00 for harvesting and packing and the Respondent should be given credit for this amount. The parties agree that Respondent paid to Petitioner the sum of $12,439.32 and the Respondent should be given credit for this amount. Cartons and pads for packing the melons were shipped on two occasions and the total sum paid by Respondent for those cartons and pads was $17,225.00. The cartons were printed with the logo of Respondent on one side and the logo of Petitioner on the other side. Petitioner agrees that the number of cartons and pads used by him came to $12,463.78 and the Respondent should be given credit for that amount. All cartons and pads in the sum of $17,255.00 were delivered to Petitioner's farm. The amount in dispute for the remainder of the carton is $4,762.22. The Respondent was responsible under the agreement to furnish cartons and pads (containers). Respondent ordered the cartons and pads after determining from Petitioner the number needed. There were two orders for cartons and pads placed and delivered. There was an over supply of cartons and pads delivered to Petitioner. This over supply was the result of a miscommunication between Petitioner and Respondent as to the amount of cartons and pads needed. Petitioner agrees that all of the cartons and pads were delivered to his farm but that he was unable to protect these cartons and pads from the weather. However, Petitioner advised Respondent that the remainder of the carton and pads could be picked up at his farm. Respondent contended that he was denied access to the farm and was unable to pick up the remainder of the cartons and pads and, therefore, they were ruined by exposure to the weather. While there may have been times when Respondent attempted to retrieve the carton and Petitioner was unavailable, there is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent was intentionally denied access to Petitioner's farm to retrieve the cartons. Clearly, the ordering, purchasing and storing of the cartons and pads was a joint effort and both Petitioner and Respondent bear that responsibility. Therefore, the Petitioner is responsible for one-half of the difference between the total cost of the cartons ($17,225.00) and the amount used by Petitioner ($12,462.78) which is $2,381.11 and Respondent should be given credit for this amount. Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger shows that Petitioner shipped melons to Respondent in the amount of $54,715.63, after adjustments for complaints and commission. Respondent's accounts payable ledger shows receiving melons from Petitioner in the amount of $51,483.00, after adjustments for complaints and commission. The difference in the two ledgers in the amount of is accounted for as follows: Invoice No. 210066 - Customer paid $2.00 per carton less on 93 cartons, Petitioner agreed to the reduction. However, Petitioner's account is in error by 9 cents which reduces total amount to $54,715.54. Invoice No. 210067 - Respondent paid for more melons than Petitioner shows were shipped - $39.60. Invoice No. 210068 - difference in calculation of commission $13.32 Invoice No. 2100105 - difference due to Petitioner not agreeing to adjustment in price taken by customer. $2,886.00 Invoice No. 2100239 - difference of $108.04 due to Respondent allowing customer adjustment which Petitioner did not agree to. Invoice No. 2100267 - difference of $210.00 for same reason stated in (e) above. Petitioner should be allowed the difference due to miscalculation of commission in invoice Nos. 210068, 2100134 and 2100160 in the sum of $68.10 since Petitioner's calculation was in accordance with the agreement. There was no dispute as to the condition of melons being as contracted for upon receipt. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the melons shipped under invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 by Petitioner were not of the size and number contracted for by the customer. As to invoice Nos. 2100239 and 2100267, the adjustments were made after the fact without contacting Petitioner. As to invoice No. 2100105, the Petitioner shipped the melons to Russo Farms, Inc., Vineland, N.J., as per Respondent's order who then unloaded the melons and reloaded on Russo's truck and shipped to another buyer. It was this buyer's complaint that resulted in Russo demanding an adjustment. Respondent granted such adjustment without approval of the Petitioner. Although Respondent did contact Petitioner in regard to this complaint, Petitioner would not authorize a federal inspection, which he could have, but instead, requested that Respondent obtain an independent verification of the basis of the complaint. Instead of an independent verification of the complaint, Respondent had Russo evaluate the load as to size of melons and number of boxes. No complaint was made as to condition of the melons. Petitioner would not accept Russo's evaluation because based on the total weight of the melons shipped, as indicated by the freight invoice, Russo's evaluation could not have been correct. The only evidence presented by Respondent as to size and number of melon in regard to invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 was hearsay unsupported by any substantial competent evidence. Petitioner should be allowed the difference in invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 for a sum total of $3,204.00. No adjustment should be made for the differences in invoice No. 210067 other than the 9 cent error made by Petitioner because this amount is not used in Petitioner's calculation of the gross amount due for melons shipped. Therefore, the sum total of all melons sold and shipped is $54,715.63 - 0.09 = $54,715.54. The amount due Petitioner is calculated as follows: Sum total of melons shipped with proper adjustments $54,715.54 Subtract from that the following: Chemicals 3,684.68 Advances 18,960.00 Cost of Cartons $12,462.78 + 2,381.11 14,773.89 Payment 12,439.32 Subtotal of Deductions 49,857.89 Difference and amount owed $4,857.65
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Debruyn Produce Company, Inc. be ordered to pay the Petitioner Florida Farm Management, Inc. the sum of $4,857.65. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Debruyn Produce Company, Inc. fails to timely pay Petitioner, Florida Farm Management, Inc. as ordered, the Respondent, Peerless Insurance Company be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes, and that the Department reimburse the Petitioners in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner. 1. Not a finding of fact but the issue in this case. 2.-3. Adopted in findings of fact 2 and 4. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Adopted in finding of fact 4. First sentence adopted in finding of fact 7. The balance is not material but see findings of fact 16-23. Not material but see findings of fact 16-23. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record but see findings of fact 9-14. Adopted but modified in findings of fact 21 and 22. 10(A), 10(C)(1), 10(E), and 10(F) adopted in finding of fact 24. 10(C)(2)(3), 10(d) rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. See findings of fact 5, ,7, 9 - 15. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent. 1.-7. Adopted in findings of fact 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 6, and 7 respectively as modified. Not material. This involved invoice Nos. 210066 and 210067 and adjustment were agreed to be Petitioner and is not part of this dispute. See Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger, Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Adopted in finding of fact 21 as modified. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Not material. This involved invoice No. 2100160 and adjustments were granted by Petitioner and is not part of this dispute. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1. 12.-13.Adopted in finding of fact 21 as modified. Adopted in finding of fact 5, and 9-15 as clarified. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record but see findings of fact 9-15. Adopted in finding of fact 13 as clarified. Adopted in finding of fact 23 as clarified but see findings of fact 9-22.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $2,295.00 for agriculture products, plus $50.00 filing fee, totaling $2,345.00.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Horizon Nursery was a producer of agriculture products. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Designing Women Landscaping was a dealer in agriculture products. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Designing Women Landscaping purchased agriculture products from Horizon Nursery. Linda Esposito testified on behalf of Horizon Nursery. She is the Office Manager of Horizon Nursery. Beth Best testified on behalf of Designing Women Landscaping. She is the Vice President of Operations for Designing Women Landscaping. No dispute exists that Horizon Nursery and Designing Women Landscaping began their business relationship in February 2005. Horizon Nursery has a form titled “Terms and Conditions of Credit” for dealers in agricultural products who desire to do business with it on credit. Horizon Nursery also refers to the form as a credit application. The Terms and Conditions of Credit contains a section at the end of the form for the date, the name of the firm, the signature and title of the person executing the form on behalf of the firm, the printing of that person’s name, and the social security number of that person. The Terms and Conditions of Credit provisions provide in pertinent part: Charges are due 30 days from invoice date. All past due accounts are subject to a service charge of 1.5% per month. * * * The undersigned applicant does hereby certify that the information given is correct . . . it is agreed and understood by HORIZON NURSERY . . . and the undersigned that all purchases made on an open account will be paid in full according to the terms of sale on each invoice and this application. Horizon Nursery possessed a Terms and Conditions of Credit form dated February 8, 2005, with the firm name of Designing Women Landscape. Further, the Terms and Conditions of Credit form contained the signature of the owner of the firm, however, the name of the owner was not printed. The social security number was redacted. Designing Women Landscaping admitted that the signature appears to be that of its President, Susan Hallett.1 An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that the signature is that of the President of Designing Women Landscaping. Designing Women Landscaping did not possess a copy of the Terms and Conditions of Credit. A finding of fact is made that Designing Women Landscaping executed, agreed to, and was subject to the Terms and Conditions of Credit. Regarding payments on an account, Horizon Nursery’s standard operating procedure is to apply a payment first to service charges on the account and then to the oldest outstanding invoice of the account. Designing Women Landscaping received specific invoices from Horizon Nursery, regarding agricultural products ordered by and shipped to it, and paid the specific invoices for agricultural products from Horizon Nursery. However, several payments by Designing Women Landscaping were made beyond 30 days of the date of the invoices. When a payment was not made within 30 days of an invoice date, Horizon Nursery added a service charge to the balance owed in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of Credit; and, in accordance with its standard operating procedure, applied the payment first to the service fee owed and then to the oldest outstanding invoice. However, when Horizon Nursery sent a subsequent invoice to Designing Women Landscaping for agricultural products that were ordered by and shipped to Designing Women Landscaping, the invoice reflected, among other things, the cost for agricultural products ordered by and shipped to Designing Women Landscaping, but did not reflect the service charge that had been added to the Designing Women Landscaping’s account for the late payment. Moreover, none of the invoices for agricultural products ordered by and shipped to Designing Women Landscaping reflected service charges that had been added to the Designing Women Landscaping’s account for late payments. Horizon Nursery’s AR Dated Invoice/Payment Report reflects a beginning balance of $-0- for Designing Women Landscaping as of April 3, 2006. Subsequent to April 3, 2006, according to the AR Dated Invoice/Payment Report, Designing Women Landscaping began to accrue service charges. Throughout the business relationship between Horizon Nursery and Designing Women Landscaping, no dispute exists that Designing Women Landscaping received specific invoices totaling $168,622.96 for agricultural products ordered by and shipped to it by Horizon Nursery; and that Designing Women Landscaping paid $168,622.96 to Horizon Nursery. The last specific invoice submitted to Designing Women Landscaping was invoice no. 115783 dated April 8, 2008, in the amount of $2,295.00. Horizon Nursery’s AR Dated Invoice/Payment Report reflects that a payment of $2,295.00 was received by Horizon Nursery on May 15, 2008. The payment was received beyond 30 days of the date of the invoice. In accordance with its Terms and Conditions of Credit, Horizon Nursery added a service charge to Designing Women Landscaping’s account. Additionally, in accordance with its standard operating procedure, Horizon Nursery applied the payment first to service charges and then to the oldest outstanding invoice. Applying the two aforementioned procedures, Designing Women Landscaping’s account resulted in a balance owed. By a statement dated December 15, 2008, Horizon Nursery notified Designing Women Landscaping that it had an outstanding balance of $2,460.99, representing two outstanding invoices: invoice no. 115542 dated December 17, 2007, in the amount of $450.00, with a balance of $165.99, and invoice no. 115783 dated April 8, 2008 in the amount of $2,295.00, with a balance of $2,295.00, which was the last specific invoice to Designing Women Landscaping. Because Horizon Nursery had applied payments from Designing Women Landscaping first to service charges and then to the oldest outstanding invoice, the two invoices remained outstanding even though Designing Women Landscaping had paid the amounts indicated in the invoices. Horizon Nursery’s employee responsible for accounts receivable had several telephone conversations, regarding the late payments, service charges, and how Horizon Nursery applied the payments received, with Designing Women Landscaping’s bookkeeper, who was the employee responsible, among other things, for paying the invoices approved by Ms. Best. Designing Women Landscaping’s bookkeeper was employed with it for nine to 12 months. At no time did Horizon Nursery discuss with or communicate to an officer of Designing Women Landscaping regarding the service charges, late payments, and how Horizon Nursery applied the payments received. Even though Horizon Nursery’s statement dated December 15, 2008, and ledger reflects a balance of $2,460.99, Horizon Nursery is claiming $2,295.00, the amount of the invoice dated April 8, 2008. Additionally, Horizon Nursery is claiming $50.00 for filing the Amended Claim with the Department. No appearance was made by the casualty company, Nova Casualty Company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding that Designing Women Landscaping, Inc., d/b/a Designing Women Landscaping and Nursery is indebted to Horizon Nursery of Florida, LC in the amount of $2,295.00 and ordering the payment of same, plus a filing fee of $50.00 for filing the Amended Claim. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 5th day of February, 2009.
