STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
HUDSON HARGETT, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 90-2487
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, this cause came on for formal hearing before P. Michael Ruff, duly-designated Hearing Officer, on August 20, 1990, in Cross City, Dixie County, Florida. The appearances were as follows:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: John K. McPherson, Esquire
22 South Main Street Gainesville, FL 32601
For Respondent: Frances S. Childers, Esquire
Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS
1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner is entitled to a permit permitting installation of an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) on his property located in Dixie County, Florida, in the vicinity of the Suwannee River and whether he is entitled to seek a variance from the statutes and rules concerning permitting of such systems.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This cause arose upon the application of the Petitioner, Hudson Hargett, for a permit authorizing the installation of an OSDS on his property near the Suwannee River, consisting of a residential lot. The application for permit was denied on April 5, 1990 by a letter transmitted to the Petitioner from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Dixie County Public Health Unit indicating that the application for permit was denied because the proposed system did not meet the requirements of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code on the basis that the subject lot and installation site for the proposed system was beneath the ten-year flood elevation as determined by the Suwannee River Water Management District for the location of that lot at the "river mile" of the Suwannee River involved. The Petitioner thereupon timely requested an administrative proceeding to contest that denial and also inquired
of the Department concerning the possibility of applying for a variance from the permitting statutes and rules at issue. Representatives of the Department advised him that due to the entry of Executive Order 90-14 on January 17, 1990, regarding the Suwannee River, that the Governor had directed the Department to implement the Suwannee River Task Force recommendations, specifically recommendation #36, which stated that OSDS's, private wells and central waste water facilities should be prohibited within the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River. For that reason, the Department's representatives advised the Petitioner that it would be futile to apply for a variance because none could be granted based upon the Department's view of the applicability of that Executive Order.
The cause came on for hearing as noticed at which the Petitioner presented the testimony of Hudson Hargett. One joint exhibit was admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of Richard Hunter and James Fross, representatives of the Department involved with permitting decisions and variance requests. The Respondent's four exhibits were admitted into evidence. Subsequent to the hearing, the parties requested and obtained a transcript of the proceedings and timely submitted Proposed Recommended Orders, which have been treated in this Recommended Order, and which specific proposed findings of fact have been addressed again in the Appendix attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT STIPULATION OF FACTS
On November 23, 1988, Governor Bob Martinez created the Suwannee River Task Force to evaluate and report to the Governor on the effectiveness of current efforts to protect the Suwannee River, and to make recommendations on future actions. The final report of the task force was presented to the Governor on November 15, 1989.
Recommendation #36 of that report reads, in part: "On-site sewage disposal systems, private
wells and central waste water facilities, should be prohibited within the ten-year flood plain and should otherwise be in compliance with applicable rules and regulations.
On December 18, 1990, Petitioner applied to the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, for a septic tank permit. Application was made through the Dixie County Public Health Unit.
On December 27, 1989, the Dixie County Public Health Unit informed Petitioner that his check was made out for the wrong amount and was being returned. The Health Unit also informed Petitioner that additional information was needed in order to apply for the septic tank permit. Petitioner did not understand that this information was needed in the permit application.
On January 17, 1990, Governor Bob Martinez issued Executive Order #90- 14, which provides, in part:
"The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services [is] directed
to take the actions necessary to implement task force recommendations.
HRS construed this to mean that, among other things, recommendation #36, quoted above, was to be carried out.
On March 2, 1990, the Petitioner refiled the application with the additional required information.
On April 2, 1990, the Public Health Unit did a site analysis of the lot where the septic tank would be placed. The report of the analysis stated, among other things, that it was uncertain whether the lot was within the ten-year flood plain and that a ten-year flood elevation for the lot would have to be obtained from the Suwannee River Water Management District.
According to the Water Management District, the lot is in the ten-year flood plain.
The Dixie County Public Health Unit denied the Petitioner's application because the requirements of Chapter 10D-6 relating to conventional underground septic tanks were not met.
In compliance with Executive Order 90-14, the Dixie County Public Health Unit advised Petitioner that it would be futile to apply for a variance.
The HRS Environmental Health office advised Petitioner that, pursuant to the Executive Order, alternative systems; i.e., one that operates differently than the traditional underground septic tank, were not being approved.
Based on the foregoing statements, Petitioner sought formal administrative review of the actions of the Public Health Unit.
ADDITIONAL FACTS
The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as Lot 7, Suwannee River Park, unit
That lot is approximately 66.82 feet by 99.97 feet by 100 feet by 96.05 feet in size. It was purchased September 18, 1989 for a purchase price of
$37,000.00.
On December 18, 1989, the Petitioner filed the above-mentioned application for an OSDS permit to place a conventional septic tank disposal system on the lot. The Petitioner indicated on his application form that he intended using this as a new system to serve a residence. The residence was proposed to contain four bedrooms.
Pursuant to instructions from the Respondent in the application process, the Petitioner had Mr. Herbert Raker of Cross City, Florida, a registered land surveyor, survey the property and establish a benchmark elevation for the lot. That benchmark elevation is 5.14 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and that is six inches above the grade level directly beneath the benchmark point. The site of the proposed septic tank system installation is at
a surface elevation of the property of 4.1 feet above MSL. The ground water table level at the time the site evaluation was made by the Department was 54- inches below the surface of the lot grade. The lot, and particularly the installation site for the proposed system, meets the 75-foot setback requirement from the nearest surface water body applicable to subdivisions platted after 1972.
The property is located within the ten-year flood elevation for the Suwannee River basin. That flood elevation at the subject lot and installation site is is feet above MSL for the river mile attributable to the lot's location in the Suwannee River Water Management District's method of calculating the ten- year flood elevation based upon the platted river mile of the Suwannee River. That information was obtained from the Suwannee River Water Management District by the Petitioner at the behest of the Respondent in the application process and is admitted into evidence in this proceeding without objection. Although the document containing that flood elevation is a hearsay document in character, it does, however, comport with the government records, reports and compilations exception to the hearsay rule contained in Section 90.803(8), Florida Statutes, and can thus be considered in this proceeding to support a finding of fact.
The Petitioner testified in a general way that his property would not be usable without the ability to install the septic tank system at issue and that he paid $37,000 for the lot in the belief that he would be able to get a septic tank disposal system permit. The Petitioner did not apply for a variance from the statutes and rules regarding the permitting of OSDS's because he was informed by the Department that it would be futile to seek a variance since none were being granted in light of the Governor's Executive Order, incorporating by reference the Task Force report, which was being interpreted by the Department in the manner delineated in the above stipulation of facts. He generally testified that his lot, in his belief, was well-drained and amenable to the installation of a septic tank system and that he was agreeable to the employment of an alternative sewage disposal system if such would be permissible, but offered no evidence to establish the soil type, the topography of the lot and proposed installation site, drainage, water table conditions, or the anticipated hydraulic load caused by the system. The Petitioner did not offer evidence to establish that the proposed system would not be potentially adverse to the health of the applicant or other members of the public or significantly degrade the ground or surface waters. Evidence offered by the Department, however, indicated that the water table elevation was approximately 54 inchs beneath the surface grade of the lot which would allow for the installation of the subject system if the soil type is appropriate, which was not proven, and were the property not within the ten-year flood elevation, which it is.
It was not established that a mounded system for the septic tank and drain field proposed, constructed above the present grade level of the lot, would be feasible, inasmuch as in excess of ten feet of fill would be required. Respondent's exhibit 2 in evidence indicates that the property is not in a regulatory floodway as that relates to the permitting rules concerning the necessity for an engineer's evaluation and explanation concerning the feasibility of mounding such a system above grade level without the potential for altering the level of the "base flood." That rule-would not: be applicable since the property in not within the regulatory floodway. No evidence was adduced to indicate when the subdivision of which the lot is a part was platted and recorded, if it was. That is it has not been shown that it was platted before 1972 as that relates to the less restrictive permitting standards for lots platted before that time.
Although the site survey performed by Mr. Fross indicates that the water table is 54 inches below the existing grade, the mottling found in the soil then he examined it existed at a depth of 18 inches below the surface, which indicates a wet season water table level of 18 inches and that the property is characterized by a "perched water table." This would indicate the likelihood that installation of a drain field or absorption bed in the surface of the lot would not have sufficient separation from the water table during wet seasons. Although the types of soil at the proposed system location consisting of organic soils and brown sands and the levels at which they were found is indicated on Respondent's exhibit 2. There is no testimony to establish whether such soil types and stratification is appropriate for the installation of such a system. In any event, since the property was established to be located within the ten-year flood elevation for the Suwannee River, it was established that the drain field would be subject to frequent flooding, as envisioned by the rule cited hereinbelow.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1989).
Petitioner is seeking to obtain an OSDS permit for property located in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with the statutes and rules cited herein. The Petitioner did not file an application for a variance because of representations made by Department personnel that such an application would be futile, in light of the Department's interpretation of the applicability of the Governor's Executive Order referenced in the above Findings of Fact. Nor did the Petitioner adduce proof of potential alternative sewage disposal systems and methods for the property in question which might safely and effectively treat the effluent without causing degradation of ground or surface waters or health hazards, because of that same representation concerning the effect of the Governor's Executive Order.
The Petitioner has the burden to establish proof necessary to demonstrate entitlement to an OSDS permit or to a variance from the necessity of meeting the requirements in the permitting statute and rules so as to allow construction of the OSDS on the property in question. See Florida Department of Transportation v. J. W. C. Co. Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The Petitioner did not offer proof regarding the three standards to be considered, quoted in the below-referenced statute, regarding the manner in which a variance can be granted, rather the Petitioner advanced legal arguments concerning why the Governor's Executive Order and the Task Force report recommendation it incorporates should not be employed by the Department to absolutely preclude the Department's exercise of its legislatively-mandated discretion in considering applications for variances on their individual merits, in the context of the requirement for variances enunciated in the statute cited and quoted below. Therefore, no proof supportive of the grant of a variance from the permitting statute and rules has been adduced in this proceeding, nor any proof regarding available alternative sewage disposal systems which might be effective for the property in question, although, by the effect of their arguments and legal theory, the Petitioner is seeking opportunity to apply for such in the future. The issue of the Petitioner's entitlement to a OSDS permit itself will be addressed first.
The basic requirements for on-site sewage disposal system permits are contained in Section 381.272, Florida Statutes which provides as follows:
"(1) where a publicly owned or investor owned sewage system is not available, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services may issue permits for construction or installation of on-site sewage disposal systems under conditions as described in this section.
Subdivisions and lots in which each lot has a minimum of at least one-half acre and either a minimum dimension of 100 feet or a main of at least 100 feet of the side bordering the street and the distance formed by a line parallel to the side bordering the street drawn between the two most distant points of the remainder of the lot may be developed with a private potable well and on- site sewage disposal system, provided the projected domestic sewage flow does not exceed an average of 1500 gallons per acre per day, and provided satisfactory drinking water can be obtained and all distance and set back, soil conditions, water table elevation, and other requirements of this section and rules promulgated hereunder can be met.
Subdivisions and lots with public water system may utilize on-site sewage disposal systems, provided there are no more than four lots per acre, provided the projected daily domestic sewage flow does not exceed an average of 2500 gallons per acre per day, and provided all distance and set back, soil conditions, water table elevation and other related requirements which are generally applicable to the use of on-site sewage disposal systems are met."
The specific requirement for on-site sewage disposal systems for lots platted before 1972, set forth in Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, does not pertain to the property in question because no evidence has been offered as to the date the lot was platted.
Rule 10D-6.043(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that no on- site sewage disposal system shall be installed without a permit obtained from the Department.
Rule 10D-6.044(3), Florida Administrative Code, states that suitability of the property for use of an on-site sewage disposal system shall be determined by evaluation of lot size, anticipated hydraulic load to the system, soil and water table conditions, and soil drainage and site typography.
Rule 10D-6.046, Florida Administrative Code describes the requirement for location and installation of an on-site sewage disposal system and Rule 10D- 6.046(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that each lot upon which an OSDS his installed shall have a minimum area of one-half acre.
Rule 6D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code states that: "(6) The final lot elevation of the site of
the proposed system installation and the
additional unobstructed land referred to in Rule 10D-6.046(4) is not subject to frequent flooding. In addition, the bottom surface of the drain field trench or absorption bed shall not be subject to flooding based on
ten-year flood elevations. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service soil maps, state of Florida Water Management District's data, and federal emergency management agency flood insurance maps are resources that can be used to identify the flood prone areas. Mound systems, sand filters or other systems which require the placement of fill material or construction of above grade structures, will not be authorized within a regulatory floodway unless certified by an engineer registered within the state of Florida that the placement of such fill or structures will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood. The certification of such systems shall be substantiated by data and method of calculation provided by the engineer and shall be subject to review and approval by the County Public Health Unit."
It should be noted, however, that this particular property is not within the regulatory floodway. Therefore, the engineering certification and calculation would not be required preparatory to installation of a mounded system consisting of fill material or construction above grade.
When pursuing a permit application, the applicant must demonstrate entitlement to this OSDS permit based upon demonstrated compliance with the criteria of the statutes and rules cited herein. The application was denied, specifically because the site of the proposed drain field system is within the ten-year flood elevation parameter for the Suwannee River. The Petitioner has failed to prove that the property is either located outside or above the ten- year flood elevation, so as to entitle him to an OSDS permit, in accordance with the rule cited last above, which was the sole basis for the Department's denial of the permit application as shown by the denial letter and testimony of record. In fact, the evidence affirmatively establishes that the property and the proposed installation site is below the ten-year flood elevation. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the Petitioner did not establish that the appropriate types of soil extended 42 inches or more below the bottom surface of the proposed drain field trench or absorption bed in accordance with Rule 10D-6.047(1) nor that the water table elevation at the wettest season of the year is at least 24 inches below the bottom surface of the drain field trench or absorption bed for purposes of (2) of the rule. In fact, Respondent's
exhibit 2 in evidence shows that the bottom of the proposed drain field trench would occur only approximately 18 inches above the wet season water table level. The failure to show compliance with these additional standards would be an independent basis for denial of the permit., but the failure to comply with the ten-year flood elevation standard in paragraph (6) of Rule 10D-6.047 is a sufficient basis for denial of the permit.
The applicant's proof also does not support entitlement to a variance from the above-cited statutes and rules regarding the permitting requirements for OSDS's. The applicant, for instance, did not demonstrate that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage in question and did not demonstrate that the discharge from the individual sewage disposal system proposed would not adversely affect the health of the applicant or other members of the public or would not significantly degrade the ground or surface waters involved. In fairness to the Petitioner, it should be pointed out that the applicant did not come to the hearing seeking to prove entitlement to a variance, apparently because the Department had instructed him that it would be futile to apply for a variance and no variance application was ever filed by the applicant because of the Department's instructions to him regarding its belief as to the applicability of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14 to any consideration of variance requests.
In that connection, in that order, the Governor directed the Department to implement the Suwannee River Task Force recommendation, as described in the Task -Force report. Recommendation #36 of that report recommended that OSDS's, private wells and central waste water facilities should be prohibited within the ten-year flood plain and should otherwise be in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations concerning such systems and their installation. The Department has thus taken the position that the Task Force report incorporated in the Governor's Executive Order indicates that OSDS's are sources of pollution in the Suwannee River and that regulations prohibiting installation of OSDS's, within the ten- year flood plain, are designed to protect public health and prevention of significant degradation of ground or surface waters. In effect, the Department conclusively presumes that if such systems are installed within the ten-year flood plain, they will cause such degradation or adverse effect on public health and ground or surface waters. The Department has, thus, conclusively presumed that no such variance applications can be granted nor can alternative systems and approaches to treatment and disposal of sewage effluent on-site be considered or granted, if the installation site is at or beneath the ten-year flood elevation.
Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, however, along with the related rules enacted pursuant to it, authorizes the Department to grant variances from the statutory and rule- embodied permitting requirements for OSDS's. That statutory and rule mandate constitutes authority emanating from the Florida legislature directing the Department to allow for variances from a strict application of the statutory and rule permitting requirements, so as to authorize the grant of variances there from when the requirements enunciated in the above-cited variance statute and related rules are met by an applicant. This section, and the rules enacted under it, concerning variances, thus, clothe the Department with discretion in this area and with the mandate that such a variance procedure be inaugurated and followed for the benefit of the members of the public who seek OSDS permits, have them denied and, therefore, need an opportunity to demonstrate a hardship entitlement to a variance under the purview of the three enumerated variance criteria. The Department has discretion to deny or grant the variance, but it is not an unbridled discretion and the consideration of variance applications must conform to the three
requirements set forth in the statutory section cited last above and essentially repeated in Rule 10D-6.045(3), Florida Administrative Code. This statutory and regulatory scheme sets up a discreet variance procedure to be followed when the Department has denied a permit application and accords the affected public the opportunity to avail themselves of it. If the Department persisted in its interpretation of the effect of the Governor's Executive Order, it would, in effect, create a conclusive presumption against the grant of any variances for any property and OSDS installation sites owned by an applicant which happened to lie beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The Executive Order of the Governor cannot legally obviate the mandate by the legislature that the department exercise discretionary authority in such matters, within the bounds of the variance criteria set forth in Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, and the above-cited rule enacted pursuant thereto. If the Executive Order is so interpreted, it would constitute a violation of the separation of powers doctrine embodied in the Florida Constitution and, thus, would be an impermissible usurpation of the authority of the legislative branch by an arm of the executive branch of government. Rather, at most, the Governor's Executive Order and the incorporated Task Force report recommendation, can serve merely as guidance to the Department in considering variance applications under the mandated variance criteria referenced above, as that relates to the quantity and quality of proof expected of variance applicants, regarding the issue of whether reasonable alternatives exist for the treatment of sewage in their attempts to establish a hardship situation and whether the discharge will adversely effect health of applicants, members of the public or significantly degrade ground or surface waters. It cannot appropriately be used as a conclusive presumption having universal application to all such cases dictating that all variances be denied if they simply relate to property or installation sites lying below the ten-year flood elevation, foreclosing all opportunity to show lack of adverse health effects or lack of degradation of ground or surface waters; foreclosing the applicant's ability to demonstrate that no reasonable alternatives exist for treatment of the sewage in question and that, therefore, they suffer a hardship of the type which would justify the grant of the variance. Since the variance statute in question and, in effect, the rules enacted pursuant to it, constitute a legislative mandate that the variance procedure embodied therein be inaugurated and followed by the Department in situations where permits are initially denied by the Department, that scheme must be followed until repealed or amended.
Although the subject OSDS permit entitlement has not been proven by the applicant because of the ten-year flood consideration discussed above, the applicant should be accorded the opportunity to establish entitlement to a variance. Likewise, if the applicant, by later application, can demonstrate changed factual circumstances, for instance, that alternative treatment and disposal systems or methods are available and feasible, which was not done in this case, a later permit application encompassing demonstration of such changed circumstances regarding the ability of the site to accommodate an OSDS, which will comport with the above-cited statutes and rules should be accorded the Petitioner.
Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore
RECOMMENDED:
That a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit, without prejudice to the applicant applying for and seeking a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting for the reasons found and concluded above, and without prejudice to applying for and pursuing an OSDS permit application should the applicant, at a later time, be able to demonstrate that alternative methods of treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent at issue can feasibly be performed, within the bounds of the standards enunciated in the above-cited statutes and rules concerning on- site sewage disposal permitting.
DONE and ENTERED this 21st of December, 1990 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1990.
APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2487 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS-OF FACT
Accepted.
Accepted. 5-14. Accepted.
RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
1-7. Accepted.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS
1323 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS
1323 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
John K. McPherson, Esquire
22 South Main Street Gainesville, FL 32601
Frances S. Childers, Esquire Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS
1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
HUDSON HARGETT,
Petitioner, CASE NO. 90-2487
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
This cause came on before me for the purpose of issuing a final agency order. The Hearing Officer assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) in the above-styled case submitted a Recommended Order to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). A copy of that Recommended Order is attached hereto.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order except where inconsistent with the following:
In Executive Order 90-14 the Governor concluded that the greatest threat to the Suwannee River is potential development along the river and that only those land uses compatible with maintaining the natural resource values of the Suwannee River basin should be allowed.
The problems with use of septic tanks in the Suwannee floodplain were addressed in the report of the task force adopted in Executive Order 90-14. The extent of the problem can be seen from the following exerpts from page 14 and 19 of the report:
.... there are an estimated
20,000 - 25,000 small tract platted lots in the Suwannee basin, most of which are currently undeveloped....
Septic tanks along the Suwannee River have been implicated in contributing to the high levels of fecal coliform bacteria that have resulted in the closing and restricting of shellfishing in a large portion of Suwannee Sound....
Executive Order 90-14 (adopting recommendation 36 of the Task Force Report) prohibits septic tanks (on-site sewage disposal systems) within the 10 year floodplain of the Suwannee River. The Hearing Officer expressed concern about the constitutionality of such a prohibition and suggested that Executive Order 90-14 be considered as advisory only. The Courts have held that administrative agencies lack the authority to adjudicate constitutional issues. Key Haven vs. Board of Trustees, 427 So2d 153 (Fla. 1982), State Department of Transportation vs. Hendry, 500 So2d 218, 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), Carrollwood State Bank vs.
Lewis, 362 So2d 110, 113 - 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Thus, I conclude that the department should continue to enforce the ban on on-site sewage disposal systems within the 10 year floodplain f the Suwannee River.
Based upon the foregoing, it is
ADJUDGED, that petitioner's application seeking a permit for an on-site sewage disposal system be DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.
Robert B. Williams Acting Secretary Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services
by
for Deputy Secretary for Health
A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF HRS, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.
Copies furnished to:
John K. McPherson, Esquire
22 South Main Street Gainesville, FL 32601
Frances S. Childers, Esquire District 3 Legal Office
1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
P. Michael Ruff Hearing Officer
DOAH, The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Eanix Poole (HSEH)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was sent to
the above-named people by U.S. Mail this 22th day of February, 1991.
R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 904/488-2381
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 21, 1990 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 15, 1991 | Agency Final Order | |
| Dec. 21, 1990 | Recommended Order | Property at septic tank site below 10year flood plain permit and variance rules not net;Govenor's executive order can't obviate legislative mandate that HRS use discretion |
