STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SPENCER B. MILLER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-3113

)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )

REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this cause came on for hearing in Cross City, Dixie County, Florida, on August 20, 1990, before P. Michael Ruff, duly-designated Hearing Officer. The appearances were as follows:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Spencer B. Miller

Post Office Box 519 Bronson, Florida 32621

For Respondent: Frances S. Childers, Esquire

Asst. District III Legal Counsel 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system permit ("OSDS") or the grant of a variance for installation of such a system on property the Petitioner owns on the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with the provisions of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This cause arose upon the Petitioner, Spencer Miller, filing an application for an OSDS permit so as to become entitled to install an OSDS on his property in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as Lot 2, Block A, Riverbend Estates, near the Suwannee River. The property is approximately 1.61 acres in size and was purchased in 1973. The lot was platted in 1974.

The Petitioner made application for the OSDS permit on March 19, 1990. He obtained a benchmark elevation of the property through the services of a registered land surveyor, as well as the ten-year flood elevation for the riven mile to which this property corresponds and supplied that information to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("Department"). The Department

made an on-site evaluation of the property with a view toward whether the OSDS permitting rules and statute would be complied with by the installation of such a system. After determining the general nature of the sited its susceptibility to flooding, the depth of the water table, both for wet and dry seasons, and the prevailing soil types, the Department elected to deny the permit application.

The Petitioner, thereafter, did not actually file an application for a variance from the permitting rules and statutes by which the denial was entered on advice by the Department. The Department advised the Petitioner that it would be pointless to seek a variance through the Department's informal variance board procedure since the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, in the Department's view, precluded it from exercising its discretion to grant any such variances for properties lying beneath the ten-year flood elevation. Accordingly, the Department advised the Petitioner merely to seek a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings concerning his request for entitlement to install an OSDS. The Petitioner availed himself of that opportunity.

The cause was duly transmitted to the Hearing Officer and came on for hearing as noticed. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Spencer B. Miller himself. Petitioner's exhibits 1 through 3 were admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of Mr. James Fross, the Department representative who made the on-site evaluation and evaluated the permit application. Respondent also introduced and had admitted its exhibits 1 and 2. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the agency ordered a transcript thereof and timely availed itself of the right to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in a proposed recommended order. The Petitioner filed no proposed recommended order. The Respondent's proposed findings of facts are treated in this recommended order and again specifically in the appendix attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner, Spencer B. Miller, owns real property in Dixie County, Florida, more ill described as Lot 2, Block A, Riverbend Estates. The lot in question is approximately 1.61 acres in size and was purchased in 1973, but was not platted until 1974. On March 19, 1990, the Petitioner applied for an OSDS permit in order to become entitled to install an on-site sewage disposal septic tank and drain-field system on the subject lot for purposes of serving a single- family dwelling. There is no existing OSDS on the lot.

   
   

2. Upon receiving the application, the Department's local public health official informed the Petitioner that he would have to obtain a benchmark elevation for the surface of his property and also establish the ten-year flood plain elevation for the property. Accordingly, the Petitioner obtained the services of Daniel M. Kroft, a registered land surveyor, who established a benchmark elevation for the subject lot of 11.34 feet above mean sea level (MSL). That benchmark is twelve inches above the actual grade level elevation of the lot, which is, therefore, 10.34 feet above MSL at the site of the proposed OSDS installation. The groundwater table cat the time of the evaluation was 36 inches below the surface of the, existing grade of the lot. Due to "mottling" coloration found in the soil, it was established that the wet season water table was 18 inches below the surface of the grade of the lot. Thus, the clearances between the water table levels and the surface of the lot are not sufficient so that the installation of drain field trenches or absorption beds into the original grade surface of the lot would leave a sufficient clearance, required by the rules cited below, between the bottom of the drain field and the water table in order for adequate treatment of the disposed effluent to occur before it communicates with the groundwater. In this

   connection, at some time in the past, a mound has been installed on the lot in question of approximately 36 inches elevation. On the site of the mound, it has been shown that the water' table level shown by mottling in the soil is approximately 66 inches below the surface of the mound. Thus, if the septic tank and drain field system proposed were installed in that mound, the required clearances between the bottom of the drain field trenches and the water table level could be met. However, even with the mound elevating the surface of the lot from 36 to 48 inches, the property would still be a maximum of 14.34 feet above MSL on the surface of the mound, which is beneath the ten-year flood elevation, which was established in this record to be 15 feet above MSL. Further, if the drain field trench was installed beneath the surface of the mound, the bottom of the drain field trench would be substantially less than

   14.34 feet above MSL; and, thus, a significantly greater distance below the 15- foot, ten-year flood elevation.

   
   

3. In addition to lying beneath the `ten-year flood elevation even at the top of the mound, the property lies within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. This means that any mounding in order to install a system above the ten-year flood elevation would have to be certified by a registered engineer to be of such a nature that the installation of the required volume of fill dirt would not cause an elevation of the "base flood". No such engineering testimony or evidence has been adduced in this case; however, and, thus, this portion of Rule 10D-6.047(6) has not been complied with.

   
   

4. In 1987, the Petitioner was granted a variance for the installation of the OSDS in question on Lot 2. The variance was granted for a period of one year, but was allowed to expire by the Petitioner without ever installing such a system. Thus, there is no variance applicable to the subject lot at the present time. In fact, the Petitioner has not actually formerly applied for a variance in this case, although the Department referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings with a view toward such issues being raised in a formal proceeding, along with the issues concerning the permit denial itself. In this connection, the Petitioner did not establish any proof that any hardship suffered by being unable to install the OSDS could not be alleviated by the installation of reasonable alternative systems or methods of treatment and disposal. Petitioner adduced no such evidence to describe such a reasonable, alternative system, however, and failed to show, in light of the variance criteria enumerated in the statute and rules cited below, that there were no alternative systems available for adequate and safe treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent to be expected. Further, in terms of establishing entitlement to a variance, or to a permit for that matter, he did not establish that the installation of a conventional subterranean septic tank and drain field disposal and treatment system would not pose a threat to public health or an adverse impact on the quality of service and groundwaters in the vicinity of the subject property. That being the case, and the Petitioner not having demonstrated that the bottom of the drain field trenches involved, as proposed, would not be above the ten-year flood elevation, there has been no sufficient proof to establish entitlement to either an OSDS permit itself or a variance from the statutes and rules containing the permitting standards and requirements cited below.

   
   

5. The Petitioner was not accorded the opportunity to avail himself of the Department's informal variance procedure because of the Department's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, which was entered January 17, 1990. The Department takes the position that that executive order precludes it from exercising its discretion to grant any such variances for properties which lie beneath the ten-year flood elevation. This led to its

   advising the Petitioner that to apply for a variance in this instance would be futile. The Governor's Executive Order entered January 17, 1990 incorporated "recommendation 36" of the "Suwannee River Task Force", which urged the prohibition of OSDA installations beneath the ten-year flood elevation. That Executive Order, incorporating the recommendation, has been interpreted by the Department to absolutely prohibit the installation of OSDS's within the ten-year flood plain. Thus, the Department has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to hear and grant or deny any variance applications for property so situated.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

6. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1989).

   
   

7. The Petitioner seeks to change the status quo and, therefore, has the burden to establish the proof necessary to demonstrate entitlement to the OSDS permit. See, Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

   
   

8. The Petitioner did not file an application for a variance because of representations made by the Respondent's personnel that such an application would be futile in light of the Respondent's interpretation of the applicability of the Governor's Executive Order, referenced herein. The Petitioner's proof neither spoke to 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 ,hazard because of that same representation concerning the Respondent's belief as to the effect of the Governor's Executive Order. No proof supportive of the existence of available alternative sewage disposal systems, which might be effective in treating the sewage effluent contemplated for the property in question, was offered. Therefore, no effort was made to comply with the permitting statutes and rules, themselves, through demonstration of effective alternative sewage disposal and treatment systems. Likewise, no proof was offered supportive of the grant of a variance from the permitting statutes and rules, in terms of the three variance criteria enunciated in Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, and the related rule. That is, no proof was offered that no reasonable alternative to a conventional septic-tank- drain-field-type disposal system was offered by the Petitioner, nor was it established that the effluent from the system proposed to be installed would not adversely affect the health of the Petitioner or the general public nor that it would not adversely affect the quality of the surface or ground waters involved at the site. Thus, had a variance been applied for, it could not be granted based upon the quality of proof offered by the Petitioner.

   
   

9. The basic requirements for an OSDS permit 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.

   1. 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 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.

   2. 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 arc generally applicable to the use of on-site sewage disposal systems are met."

      
      

10. 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 the lot was platted in 1974.

    
    

11. 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.

    
    

12. 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.

    
    

13. Rule 10D-6.046, Florida Administrative Code describes the requirement for location and installation of an on-site sewage disposal system and Rule 10D6.046(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that each-lot upon which an OSDS his installed shall have a minimum area of one-half acre. This lot meets the minimum size requirement.

14. Rule 6D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code states that: "(6) The final lot elevation 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 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."

    
    

15. It should be noted that this property is within the regulatory floodway. Therefore, the engineering certification, calculation and data, mandated by the above rule, would be required preparatory to authorization and permitting of a mounded system, consisting of fill material or construction above the grade of the property at the installation site. No such engineering proof has been adduced in this proceeding, however.

    
    

16. When pursuing a permit application, the applicant must demonstrate entitlement to the OSDS permit based upon demonstrated compliance with the criteria contained in the statutes and rules cited herein. This 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. It is below that elevation. The Petitioner failed to prove that the property is located above the ten-year flood elevation so as to entitle Petitioner to an OSDS permit, in accordance with the rule cited last above. That was the sole basis for the Respondent's denial of the permit application, as shown by the denial letter and testimony of record. Parenthetically, it should be noted that although the Respondent's Exhibit 2 shows that approximately 60 inches of appropriate soil exists below the surface of the proposed mound installation site and above the water table at that site, thus, affording sufficient treating space below the proposed drain field so as to comport with Rule 10D-6.047(1) Florida Administrative Code, and assuming that the mound is of appropriate size and area, with sufficient unobstructed base area to comport with permitting rules, which was not proven, the fact remains that even that installation site is not in compliance with the ten-year flood elevation standard in paragraph (6) of Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code. This the sole basis for denial of the permit, expressed in the denial letter initiating this proceeding, and is a sufficient basis for denial.

    
    

17. As alluded to above, the applicant's proof does not support entitlement to a variance from the above-cited permitting statutes and rules. The applicant did not demonstrate that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage in question, other than a conventional OSDS, and did not demonstrate that the discharge from the individual sewage disposal system proposed would not adversely affect the health of -`the applicant, members of the public, or would not significantly degrade the ground or surface waters

    involved. It was not demonstrated that the lot in question was platted prior to 1972, as that relates to special considerations which can be given under Statute 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, concerning variances. In fairness to the Petitioner, it should be pointed out that the Petitioner did not come to hearing seeking to prove entitlement to a variance, apparently because the Respondent had instructed the Petitioner as to the futility of seeking to prosecute a variance proceeding through its informal variance board process. This was because of the Respondent's belief regarding the applicability of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, as precluding any consideration of variance requests.

    
    

18. In that connection, on January 17, 1990 Governor Martinez issued Executive Order 90-14 regarding the Suwannee River basin. In that Order, the Governor directed the Respondent to implement the Suwannee River Task Force recommendation that OSDS's be prohibited within the ten-year flood plain and should otherwise be in compliance with applicable rules and regulations concerning such systems and their installation. The Respondent has taken the position, therefore, that the Governor's Executive Order indicates that OSDS's are sources of pollution in the Suwannee River and that regulations prohibiting the installation of them within the ten-year flood elevation are, ipso facto designed to protect public health and prevent significant degradation of ground or surface waters. In effect, the Respondent conclusively presumes that if such systems are installed within the ten-year flood elevation, they cause degradation or adverse effect on public health and ground or surface waters.

    The Respondent, thus, has conclusively presumed that no such variance applications can be granted, nor can permits be granted, based upon alternative systems and approaches to treatment and disposal of sewage effluent on site, if the installation site in question is at or beneath the ten-year flood elevation. Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, authorizes, along with the related rules enacted pursuant to it, that the Respondent may grant variances from the statutory and rule- embodied permitting requirements for OSDS's. That statutory mandate, under which the related rules were enacted, constitutes authority emanating from the Florida Legislature directing the Respondent to allow a procedure whereby variances from strict application of the permitting requirements can be granted, in proper cases of unavoidable hardship, balanced with the small likelihood of environmental damage, as enunciated in the statutory provision and rules cited above.

    
    

19. Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, and the rules enacted under it clothe the Respondent with discretion in this area and 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 from the permitting rules, if the above-cited three requirements for proof of entitlement to a variance can be met. This 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 repeated in Rule 10D- 6.045(3), Florida Administrative Code. This statutory and regulatory scheme sets up a discreet variance procedure which affords the affected public the opportunity to show the Respondent a hardship basis for avoiding the stricture of a permit denial for noncompliance with the statute and rules pertaining to permitting, itself. If the Respondent persisted in its present 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 for the Suwannee River. The Governor' s Executive Order, however, cannot legally obviate the mandate of the Legislature that the Respondent must exercise discretionary authority in this area, within the bounds

    of the variance criteria enacted by the Legislature in Section 381.272(8), Florida Statute, and in the above-cited rule. If the Executive Order is so interpreted by Final Order in this and other similar proceedings, 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 of government by the executive.

    
    

20. Rather, at most, the Governor's Executive Order, incorporating Recommendation NO. 36 of the Suwannee River Task Force Report, can only serve as guidance to the Respondent in considering variance applications under tee legislatively- mandated variance criteria referenced above, as for instance, a policy basis for determining the materiality of deviations from the technical permitting standards for such, installations concerning the overall issue, in variance proceedings, regarding whether the discharge will adversely affect health or significantly degrade ground or surface waters. The Governor's Executive Order cannot, however, appropriately be used as raising conclusive presumption having universal a application to all such proceedings, dictating that all variances be denied simply because the property or sites to which they related below the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River. All opportunity to show lack of adverse health effects or lack of degradation of ground or surface waters or that no reasonable alternatives exist for the treatment of the sewage effluent in water, as that relates to demonstration of sufficient hardship justifying the grant of a variance, cannot, thus, be automatically and arbitrarily foreclosed. Since the variance' statute in question and the rules enacted pursuant to it constitute a Legislative mandate that that variance procedure be inaugurated and followed by the Respondent in situations where permits are initially denied, that scheme must be employed and followed `until repealed or amended.

    
    

21. Although the subject OSDS entitlement has not been proven by the Petitioner because of the ten-year flood plain consideration discussed herein, that does not mean that the Petitioner should not be accorded the opportunity to establish entitlement to a variance. Likewise, if the Petitioner, by later application, can demonstrate changed factual circumstances as, for instance, that alternative treatment and disposal systems or methods are available and feasible (which was not done in this case), then a later permit application itself, encompassing demonstration of such changed circumstances, could be entertained.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the evidence of record, it is, therefore

RECOMMENDED:

That a Final Order be entered denying the application of Spencer B. Miller for an OSDS permit.

DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, 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 20th day of December, 1990.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3113

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact:

1-8. Accepted.

9. Rejected, as immaterial in this de novo proceeding. 10-11. Accepted.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700

Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

1323 Winewood Blvd.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700

Spencer B. Miller Post Office Box 519 Bronson, FL 32621

Frances S. Childers, Esquire Asst. District III Legal Counsel 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions

to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

SPENCER B. MILLER,

Petitioner, CASE NO. 90-3113

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 of 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:

Spencer B. Miller, pro se Post Office Box 519 Bronson, FL 32621

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 22nd 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

Docket for Case No: 90-003113

Orders for Case No: 90-003113