STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ARNOLD G. AND MAUDE D. PARKER, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-3695

)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )

REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this cause came on for hearing before P. Michael Ruff, duly-designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on August 20, 1990, in Cross City, Dixie County, Florida.

APPEARANCES

FOR PETITIONERS: Arnold G. Parker, pro se

P.O. Box 467

Chiefland, Florida 32626

FOR RESPONDENT: Frances S. Childers, Esquire

Assistant District III Legal Counsel

Department of HRS

1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit in consideration of the statutes and rules relating to approval of permits cited and discussed herein, or whether they are entitled to a variance from the strict requirements of those statutes and rules so as to allow the installation of the OSDS on their property near the Suwannee River. See Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This cause arose upon the application for an OSDS permit by the Petitioners. They seek to install a septic tank and drain-field sewage disposal and treatment system on their property, which they own at "Fowlers Bluff", an unincorporated community on the Levy County side of the Suwannee River, at River Mile 17, above the confluence of the river with the Gulf of Mexico. The Petitioners filed the application for the permit; and in due course, it was denied by the Respondent' based upon Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, which states that, in effect, such installation shall not be permitted if

the bottom of the drain-field trench or absorption bed involved is prone to flooding, based upon the ten-year flood elevation. Upon receiving the initial denial from the Respondent, the Petitioners timely requested a formal proceeding to contest that denial. No actual variance application was filed in this case.

The cause came on for hearing as notice, at which the Petitioners presented the testimony of Arnold G. Parker and Maude D. Parker, his wife. The Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1 was admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of Donald May, the HRS employee who performed the relevant site evaluation pertaining to the Parkers' application. The Respondent presented three exhibits, which were admitted into evidence. At the conclusion of the proceeding, a transcript thereof was ordered; and the parties were accorded the opportunity to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of Proposed Recommended Orders. The Respondent filed a Proposed Recommended Order, which is treated in this Recommended Order and which proposed findings of fact are specifically ruled upon in the Appendix attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioners purchased real property located in Levy County, Florida, in 1967. That property is located in the unincorporated community of "Fowlers Bluff" on the east bank of the Suwannee River. The property is more particularly described as the west one-half of Lot 13, and the east three- quarters of Lot 14, Treasure Camp Addition, Unit 3. The lot in question is approximately 100 feet by 125 feet by 197 feet in size. There is adequate unobstructed area available for the subject system's installation, according to Respondent's Exhibit NO. 1 in evidence. The lot is part of a subdivision which was platted prior to 1956. The subject lot has available a potable water source from the public water system. Consequently, the lot is of sufficient size to meet the quarter-acre minimum requirement for the installation of septic tank and drain-field systems in situations where lots have potable water available from a public water system, which is the case in this circumstance. The effective soil depth at the drain-field installation site is greater than 42 inches below the bottom surface of the proposed drain-field trench or absorption bed location. That is, 72 inches of sand, which is a "slight limited soil" and appropriate for such installations, exist at the site. The wet season water table was shown to exist at 26 inches below the grade level. The wet season water table, pursuant to Rule 10D-6.047(2) Florida Administrative Code, must be at least 24 inches below the bottom surface of the drain-field trench or absorption bed. Consequently, the wet season water table in this situation is not sufficient in depth for the proposed installation to meet this provision of the Respondent's rules.

   
   

2. The Petitioners seek to gain approval for a system to serve a single- family residence of approximately 2,000 heated and cooled square feet, with a "standard" 350 gallons per day sewage flow. The residence would contain three bedrooms, as presently envisioned. The Petitioners' Exhibit NO. 1 establishes a benchmark elevation for the grade level of the proposed OSDS installation site of 7.48 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The actual grade elevation is 0.8 feet below that benchmark elevation. That is, the elevation of the grade of the property is 6.72 feet above MSL at the proposed installation site., The ten-year flood elevation for the proposed installation site, however, is 9 feet above MSL, as verified by a report prepared by the Suwannee River Water Management District, admitted into evidence and which was submitted to the Respondent by

   the Petitioners in the application process. The property also lies within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee R for purposes of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code.

   
   

3. Testimony by Mr. Parker, as well as the Respondent's evidence through Mr. May, establishes that the property in the past has had approximately 30 inches of fill placed on it. Because of this, the grade level elevation is in fairly-close proximity to the ten-year flood elevation and because of the prevailing slight limited soil type down to a depth of six feet, the property was shown to be generally amenable to installation of a mounded septic tank and drain-field disposal system, which mounding could raise the property so that the bottom of the drain-field trench or absorption bed would not be within the ten- year flood elevation. As Mr. May indicated by letter dated March 1, 1990 to Mr. Parker, the lot could be filled utilizing slight limited soil so that a mound to contain the septic tank and drain field of no more than the required 36 inches, pursuant to Rule 10D-06.0493(b), Florida Administrative Code, might be utilized. That letter, in evidence, also indicates that if the lot, or a portion of it, is filled, the fill shall extend a minimum of 20 feet in all directions beyond the perimeter of the mound base. The lot was shown to be of sufficient size to accommodate such a perimeter area of fill. In that same letter, Mr. May advised Mr. Parker that he had the right to request a variance from the provisions of Chapter 10D-6 Florida Administrative Code, since his property, in Mr. May's view, did not meet the criteria in that regulatory chapter for the issuance of an actual permit. The record does not reflect that an actual variance application had been filed, however. It would thus seem that this property is amenable to a reasonable alternative solution to a conventional, subterranean septic tank and drain-field system by the use of the "mounding process". That alternative, however, pursuant to Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, would require the certification of a registered professional engineer to the effect that the installation of such a mound could be done ,in such a way as not to raise the "base flood" level. This is because the property lies within the regulatory floodway of the ,Suwannee River; and under the rule section cited last above, a `certification must be made that the base flood level will not be raised by such a mounded system installation for property lying in the regulatory floodway. The Petitioners adduced no such engineering testimony or evidence to establish that if the system were installed with the mounding process, the base flood level would not be raised.

   
   

4. In addition to the evidence culminating in the above Findings of Fact, the Petitioners offered general testimony to the effect that they had purchased the property in question for purposes of both having a "retirement rest egg" and a place to live should they choose to live on the property. The Petitioners established that they, like numerous other OSDS permit applicants in similar proceedings, are undergoing a hardship because they purchased the property for residential purposes or for re-sale for residential purposes and cannot construct a residence and live on the property or sell it for that purpose because of the inability to obtain a permit. The Petitioners' proof, in terms of the variance criteria noted below, is inadequate to show that there are no alternative systems available which will adequately dispose of and treat the sewage to be expected, nor did the Petitioners establish that installation of the system presently proposed would only constitute a minor deviation from the requirements of the Respondent's OSDS permitting rules, in terms of having no adverse effect on the health of the Petitioners, the general public, or upon the surface or ground waters involved in the vicinity of the site. Although the Petitioners did not formally apply for a variance, no adequate proof in these two particulars was offered so as to justify the grant of a variance; however,

   it was established that the property was platted prior to 1972 for purposes of the relaxed consideration embodied in the variance rule and statute for this circumstance.

   
   

5. The Respondent now asserts, however, that the Petitioners should not be accorded the opportunity to avail themselves of the variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances or permits for OSDS's within the ten-year flood elevation. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwannee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such systems beneath the ten- year flood elevation, was entered on January 17, 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications.

   
   

   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). The Petitioners seek to obtain an OSDS permit for property located in Dixie County, Florida. The Petitioners seek to change the status quo and, therefore, have 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).

   
   

7. No sufficient 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, although "mounding" of the system would appear to have the possibility of meeting relevant standards, because of the appropriate depth of slight limited soils and sufficient land area being available, if the required engineering certification and proof had been offered, which was not done. 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 alternatives to a conventional underground septic-tank-drain-field- type disposal system exist nor was it established that the effluent from the system proposed to be installed would not adversely affect the health of the Petitioners 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 Petitioners. 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 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, cater 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."

      
      

8. 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 Respondent.

   
   

9. 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.

   
   

10. 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)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides that each lot upon which an OSDS is installed shall have a minimum area of one-quarter acre, where a public water supply is available, as is the case here. The property meets that standard, although, because it was platted before 1972, in reality, it is exempt from the size standard.

11. 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 and 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."

    
    

12. It should be noted that this particular property is within the regulatory floodway. Therefore, the engineering certification calculation and data 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.

    
    

13. When pursuing a permit application, the applicant must demonstrate entitlement to the OSDS permit based upon demonstrated compliance with the criteria contained in the statute 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. The Petitioners failed to prove that the property is located above the ten-year flood elevation so as to entitle Petitioners 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. In fact, the evidence affirmatively establishes that the aforesaid property and septic tank and drain field site lies below the ten-year flood elevation. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the Petitioners did not establish that, in accordance with Rule 10D-6.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, the water table elevation at the wettest season of the year is at least 24 inches below the bottom surface of the proposed drain-field trench or absorption bed. The failure to show compliance with this additional standard for OSDS permitting would constitute an independent basis for denial of the permit. However, the installation site not being in compliance with the ten-year flood elevation standard in paragraph (6) of Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, was the sole basis for denial of the permit expressed in the denial letter initiating this proceeding and is a sufficient basis for denial.

    
    

14. As referenced above, the Petitioners' proof does not support entitlement to a variance from the above-cited permitting statute and rules. The Petitioners, for instance, did not demonstrate that no reasonable alternative to a conventional subterranean system 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 Petitioners, members of the public, or would not significantly degrade the ground or surface waters involved. In fairness to the Petitioners, it should be pointed out that the Petitioners did not come to hearing seeking to prove entitlement to a variance, apparently in reliance on the Respondent's perception regarding the applicability of the Governor's Executive Order NO. 90- 14, as precluding any consideration of variance requests.

15. In that connection, on January 17, 1990, Governor Martinez issued Executive Order NO. 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 should 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 report, as incorporated in 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, then they cause degradation or adverse effect on public health in 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.

    
    

16. 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, so as to authorize them in cases of unavoidable hardship, balanced with the small likelihood of environmental damage, as enunciated in the statutory provision and rules cited above. 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 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 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.

    
    

17. 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 Statutes, 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.

18. Rather, at most, the Governor's Executive Order can only serve as guidance to the Respondent in considering variance applications under the 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 a conclusive presumption having universal application to all such proceedings, dictating that all variances be denied simply because the property or sites to which they relate lie below the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River. All opportunity to show lack of adverse health effects, lack of degradation of ground or surface waters or that no reasonable alternatives exist for the treatment of the sewage effluent in question, 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.

    
    

19. Although the subject OSDS permit entitlement has not been proven by the Petitioners because of the insufficient proof considerations discussed herein, that does not mean that the Petitioners should not be accorded the opportunity to establish entitlement to a variance. Likewise, if the Petitioners, 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 circumstance, could be entertained.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, 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 application for the subject permit, without prejudice to a later application for a variance or a later application for an OSDS permit based upon additional and changed facts and circumstances.

DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day 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 20th day of December, 1990.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3695

The Petitioners submitted no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact:

1-8. Accepted.

9. Rejected, as immaterial. 10-11. Accepted.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS

1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS

1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

Arnold G. Parker

P.O. Box 467

Chiefland, Florida 32626

Frances S. Childers, Esquire Assistant District III Legal

Counsel Department of HRS

1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 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

ARNOLD G. and MAUDE D. PARKER,

Petitioners, CASE NO. 90-3695

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 3rd 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:

Arnold G. Parker, pro se Post Office Box 467 Chiefland, FL 32626

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 8th 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: 90-003695

Orders for Case No: 90-003695