STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MARK MONEYHAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-4569

) 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 of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on October 2, 1990, in Cross City, Florida.

APPEARANCES

FOR PETITIONER: Mark Moneyhan, pro se

Route 3, Box 407

Perry, Florida 32347

FOR RESPONDENT: Frances S. Childers, Esq.

Department of HRS District III Legal Office

1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to the grant of a variance for the installation of an onsite sewage disposal system ("OSDS") for his property on the Santa Fe River in Gilchrist County, Florida, in accordance with Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The dispute between the parties arose upon the filing of an application for an OSDS permit by the Petitioner. That permit application was denied. Rather than filing an application for a formal proceeding to contest that denial, the Petitioner, after conversations with the Respondent's personnel, elected to file an application for a variance from the permitting requirements in the statutes and rules referenced above and elsewhere herein. Thus, the cause came on for hearing based upon the denial of that variance application, which was denied by the Respondent's letter to the Petitioner of June 13, 1990.

The Petitioner did not timely request a formal hearing concerning the denial of the OSDS permit itself, but, because of his position that apparently he had not understood his rights concerning his entitlement to seek a formal proceeding to contest the permit denial itself and that based upon alleged advice by the Respondent's personnel, he had only sought to apply for a variance from the permitting requirements, the Petitioner was allowed to put on evidence concerning entitlement to an OSDS permit itself in the event that the Petitioner's evidence developed that some agency action or inaction might have misled him into not timely seeking a formal proceeding to contest the permit denial.

The cause came on for hearing as noticed, at which the Petitioner presented six (6) exhibits, all of which were admitted into evidence, except that the Petitioner's Exhibit 5 was admitted only for a limited purpose, pursuant to Section 120.58, Florida Statutes, as corroborative hearsay. That portion of corroborative Exhibit 5 consisting of the letter of denial of the variance application of June 13, 1990, was admitted into evidence for all purposes. The Respondent presented the testimony of James Fross and Richard Hunter, as well as four (4) exhibits, which were admitted into evidence. The Petitioner presented his own testimony.

Subsequent to the hearing, a transcript of the proceeding was prepared and submitted; and the parties were given the right to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of Proposed Recommended Orders. The Respondent timely submitted a Proposed Recommended Order, and the proposed findings of fact are addressed in this Recommended Order and in the Appendix attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Gilchrist County, Florida, more particularly described as Lot 4, Unit 4, Ira Bea's Oasis, a subdivision. The evidence is not clear concerning whether the plat of the subdivision was actually recorded, although the evidence and the Petitioner's testimony indicates that the lots in the subject subdivision were subdivided in 1965. The evidence does not clearly reflect whether the subdivision was ever platted, however.

   
   

2. On April 2, 1990, the Petitioner filed an application for an OSDS permit regarding the subject property. The application was for a new OSDS on the above-described property; and the system was intended to serve a single- family residence, which the Petitioner desires to construct on the subject property for a vacation and retirement home. The proposed residence would contain three bedrooms and a heated or cooled area of approximately 1,100 square feet.

   
   

3. In the permit application process, at the Respondent's behest, the Petitioner had a survey performed by Herbert G. Parrish, registered land surveyor. That survey, in evidence as the Respondent's Exhibit 1, reveals a benchmark elevation of 21.65 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The proposed installation site is at an elevation of 22.5 feet above MSL. A report by the Suwannee River Water Management District, which is admitted into evidence and was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioner with the application for the OSDS permit, shows a ten-year flood elevation for the subject property, and River Mile 10 of the Santa Fe River, at 31 feet above MSL. Thus, the subject property is located beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Santa Fe River, as that relates to

   required engineering certification and calculations being furnished which will assure that if OSDS's are constructed employing mounding or sand filters, and like constructions, that such related fill deposited on the property within the regulatory floodway will not raise the level of the "base flood" for purposes of the rules cited hereinbelow. No evidence of such certification by an appropriately-registered engineer was offered in this proceeding concerning the installation of a mounded system and its effect on the base flood level.

   
   

4. The surface grade level of the subject property at the installation site is 9.5 feet below the ten-year flood elevation. The grade elevation of the subject property is also .5 feet below the "two-year flood elevation", and the property has been flooded once in the past three years and has been flooded approximately four times in the past 15 years. It has thus not been established in this proceeding that the property is not subject to frequent flooding.

   
   

5. On April 18, 1990, the Respondent denied the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit by letter of that date. The Petitioner did not make a timely request for a formal administrative hearing to dispute that denial. The Petitioner maintained at hearing that this was, in essence, because the Respondent's personnel informed him that he should seek a variance instead, which is what he did. The testimony of Mr. Fross reveals, however, that, indeed, he was advised of his opportunity to seek a variance but was also advised of his right to seek a formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of the permit itself. Nevertheless, either through the Petitioner's misunderstanding of his rights or because he simply elected to choose the variance remedy instead, the fact remains that he did not timely file a petition for formal proceeding to contest the denial of the OSDS permit itself.

   
   

6. Even had a timely petition for formal proceeding concerning the denial of the OSDS permit application been filed, the evidence of record does not establish the Petitioner's entitlement to such a permit. As found above, the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and, indeed, lies below the two-year flood elevation, which subjects the property to a statistical 50% chance of being flooded each year. This and the other findings referenced above indicate that the property has not been established to be free from frequent flooding; and although appropriate "slight-limited" soils are present at the proposed installation site, those soils only extend 50 inches below the surface grade. That leaves an insufficient space beneath the bottom of the drainfield trenches where they would be located so as to have a sufficient volume and distance of appropriate treatment soil available beneath the drain field, if one should be installed. Below 50 inches at the subject site is a limerock strata which is impervious and constitutes a barrier to appropriate percolation and treatment of effluent waste water. Thus, for these reasons, especially the fact that the property clearly lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and because adequate proof in support of a mounded system which might raise a septic tank and drainfield system above the ten-year flood elevation has not been adduced, entitlement to the OSDS permit itself has not been established.

   
   

7. Concerning the variance application actually at issue in this proceeding, the Petitioner has proposed, in essence, two alternative systems. The Petitioner has designed, and submitted as an exhibit, a plan for a holding- tank-type- system. By this, the Petitioner proposes a 250-gallon holding tank, with a venting pipe extending approximately three feet above the level of the ten-year flood elevation, with an attendant concrete retaining wall and concrete base to which the tank would be securely attached. The Petitioner thus postulates that flood waters would not move or otherwise disturb the holding tank and that he would insure that the holding tank was pumped out at

   appropriate intervals and the waste there from properly deposited at a treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The precise method of such disposal and its location was not disclosed in the Petitioner's evidence, however. Moreover, the testimony of Dr. Hunter establishes that the deposition of waste water and human waste into the tank, either through pumping, or by gravity line, if the residence were located at an elevation above the inlet to the tank, might well result in a hydraulic condition which would cause the untreated sewage to overflow from the vent pipe of the tank. Moreover, such systems do not insure that public health, the health of the occupants of the site, and ground or surface waters will not be degraded since it is very costly to pump such a tank out which would have to be done on a frequent basis. This leaves the possibility that the user of such a holding-tank-facility could surreptitiously drain the tank into nearby receiving waters or otherwise improperly empty the tank. Even though the Petitioner may be entirely honorable in his intentions and efforts in this regard and not violate the law and the rules of the above-cited chapter in his manner of disposal of the holding-tank effluent, there is no practical, enforceable safeguard against such illegal activity, especially if one considers that the property may later be conveyed to a different landowner and user of the system.

   
   

8. The Petitioner also proposes in his testimony and evidence the possibility of using a nondischarging, composting-toilet-type system to handle sewage involving human excreta. Such a system has been shown by the Petitioner's evidence to adequately treat human sewage so that public health and the ground and surface waters involved in and near the site could be adequately safeguarded. The problem with such a system, however, is that the "gray water", that is, waste water from bathtubs, showers, lavatories and kitchens, cannot be disposed of in the composting-toilet system. Such gray water, which also contains viruses, coliform bacteria and nutrients, must be disposed of, according to the rules at issue, in an appropriate sewage disposal system, be it in a septic tank and drain field or through pumping to an appropriate disposal and treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioner's proof does not establish how such gray water could be appropriately and safely disposed of in the environmental and public health context at issue herein. Thus, the proposed alternatives suggested by the Petitioner's proof do not constitute minor deviations from the minimum requirements for OSDS's specified in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Ironically, the composting-toilet system, coupled with a proper disposal system for household gray water, could constitute a reasonable alternative to a conventional system. Thus, the Petitioner's proof, itself, shows that a reasonable alternative may exist, which militates against the granting of the variance, although he did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished.

   
   

9. In summary, therefore, the Petitioner's proof failed to establish that no reasonable alternative exists and that the proposed system would only be a minor deviation from the minimum requirements of the Respondent's rules concerning OSDS's and their installation and operation. The Petitioner established that a reasonable alternative to a conventional OSDS might exist for purposes of granting an OSDS permit itself, had that issue been formally placed before the Hearing Officer, but did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished and operated. This proof shows, however, that such a reasonable alternative might be found operable which, thus, fails to justify the granting of a variance based upon hardship. If the Petitioner could come forward with proof to establish the feasibility of disposal and treatment of the household gray water involved in an appropriate treatment and disposal site and facility

   above the ten-year flood elevation, in conjunction with use of a composting- toilet system, a later permit application might be entertained in which could be justified the granting of an OSDS permit.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

10. 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).

    
    

11. The Petitioner seeks to establish entitlement to a variance from the OSDS permitting rules for property located in Gilchrist County, Florida. The Petitioner has the burden to establish proof necessary to demonstrate entitlement to an OSDS permit or variance from the necessity of meeting the statutory and regulatory requirements to obtain a variance so as to construct and operate an OSDS on the property in question. See, Florida Department of Transportation v. JWC Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

    
    

12. The basic requirements for OSDS permits are contained in Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, wherein is provided the basic permitting authority for the Respondent, as well as the requirements concerning lot size, setback from drinking water sources, soil conditions, water table elevations, average gallonage per day sewage flow, and other related requirements which that section of the statutes envisions and which have been incorporated in the Respondent's rules at Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

13. Rule 10D-6.046(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that each lot upon which an OSDS is installed have a minimum area of one-half acre. There is no dispute concerning the fact that this lot in question meets the minimum- size requirements for an OSDS. Rule 10D-6.043(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that no OSDS shall be installed without a permit obtained from the Respondent.

    
    

14. Rule 10D-6.044(3), Florida Administrative Code, states that suitability of the property for use of an OSDS shall be determined by evaluating lot size, anticipated hydraulic load to the system, soil and water table conditions, and soil drainage and site topography.

    
    

15. The exact nature of the soil type at the proposed site is organic fine sand, with sandy clay at approximately the 40 to 50-inch depth. The impervious limestone layer occurs at the 50- inch depth below the surface grade. Water table elevations meet minimum statutory requirements. No evidence of gallonage per day flows anticipated was presented and, therefore, it cannot be determined whether it is within the limits contemplated by the statute.

    
    

16. Rule 10D-6.046, Florida Administrative Code, describes the requirements for location and installation of an OSDS; and Rule 10D-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....

17. The remainder of Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, proceeds to describe the requirement that mounded systems requiring the placement of fill material or construction of above-grade structures will not be authorized in the regulatory floodway unless there is certification by a registered engineer that the placement of the fill and the structure would not increase water surface elevation of the "base flood". That certification must be substantiated by data and the method of calculation provided by the engineer and is subject to review and approval by the Respondent's county public health unit. The property lies within the regulatory floodway, and the Petitioner presented no evidence regarding the impact of the proposed system, or any alternative mounded system, on the base flood level.

    
    

18. Rule 10D-6.051(3), Florida Administrative Code, concerning systems for temporary use, provides that:

    
    

    The department may approve, on a temporary basis, portable toilets, privies or holding tanks for fairs, carnivals, revivals, field locations, encampments, and other locations where people congregate for short periods of time....

    
    

19. Rule 6D-6.051(3), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows:

    
    

    Holding tanks shall be watertight and have no overflow vent at an elevation lower than the overflow level of the lowest fixture served.

    Additional requirements are as follows:

    1. Unless otherwise allowed by the county public health unit, the projected daily sewage flow into a holding tank shall not exceed 150 gallons.

    2. The minimum liquid storage capacity shall be equal to the total anticipated sewage flow for a period of seven (7) days

    3. Holding tanks shall be designated and located to facilitate removal of contents by pumping.

    4. An applicant for a holding tank installation permit shall provide, to the county public health unit, a copy of a contract with a permitted septage disposal company which states the schedule tank pumping frequency.

       
       

20. Rule 10D-6.042(40), Florida Administrative Code, defines "temporary" as meaning a single period or accumulation of periods not exceeding 90 days in any 365-day period. The use of a holding tank at a residence, as proposed by the Petitioner in his application for variance, is not the type of use countenanced by the code provisions for such temporary systems. Moreover, such a use of the holding tank, in essence on a permanent basis does not constitute a minor deviation from the statutory requirements and from Rule 10D-6.051, Florida Administrative Code, for purposes of entitlement to a permit or a variance. In view of the findings of fact based upon the testimony of Dr. Hunter, concerning the various risks and deficiencies attendant to operating such a system on a permanent basis, as it relates to the failure to show that such a system would

    adequately insure protection of the public health, and the ground or surface waters involved, it cannot be deemed to be merely a minor deviation from the rule requirements so as to justify a variance.

    
    

21. The same considerations embodied in the above Findings of Fact hold true regarding the Petitioner's suggested alternative of using a composting- toilet system for sewage waste and depositing the household gray water into such a holding tank. This is true because the Respondent's rules embodied in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, require the same treatment and disposal standards, methods and safeguards for gray water generated by the occupants of a residence. Therefore, the deposition of such gray water effluent into a holding tank would pose the same public health risks to ground or surface waters such that using a holding-tank-system, together with composting toilet as an alternative to the systems which are permitted above the ten-year flood elevation would not constitute a mere minor deviation from the statutory and regulatory permitting or variance requirements either. Although evidence adduced by the Petitioner indicates that if gray water were disposed of ire a manner according to the treatment and disposal system requirements and rules embodied in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, at some location and facility above the ten-year flood elevation, that the use of a composting toilet under such an arrangement might be a reasonable alternative, the Petitioner's proof failed to establish how this could be accomplished feasibly.

    
    

22. Thus, the Petitioner's proof does not approach the quality of proof required in a proceeding such as this, because he has failed to prove that the property involved is located above the ten-year flood elevation, which would have entitled him to an OSDS permit in the first place and which would have precluded the necessity for applying for and seeking a variance. Neither does the quality of the Petitioner's proof establish that the proposed use of composting toilets or holding tanks constitutes a minor deviation from the statutory requirements of Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D- 6.045(3), Florida Administrative Code, for purposes of proving entitlement to a variance.

    
    

23. The applicant bears the burden of proving entitlement to a variance, pursuant to Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, which describes a criteria for establishing entitlement to a variance as follows:

    
    

    (8)(a) The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services may grant variances in hardship cases which may be less restrictive than the provisions specified in this section. A variance may not be granted pursuant to this section until the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is satisfied that:

    1. the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant;

    2. no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage; and

    3. the discharge from the individual sewage disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or other members of

    the public or significantly degrade the ground or surface waters....

24. Rule 10D-6.045(3), Florida Administrative Code, also describes the criteria for evaluating variance applications:

    
    

    (3) Upon consideration of the merits of each application and the recommendations of the review board, the staff director, health

    program office, has discretionary authority to either grant a variance as requested, grant a provisional variance or deny the variance request. A variance may be granted to relieve or prevent excessive hardship only in cases involving minor deviation from established standards when it is clearly shown that the hardship was not caused

    intentionally--by the action of the applicant, where no reasonable alternative exists for

    the treatment of sewage and where discharge from the onsite sewage disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or other members of the public or significantly degrade ground or surface waters. Where soil conditions, water table elevation, and setback provisions are determined by the Department to be satisfactory, special consideration shall be given to those lots platted prior to 1972.

    The decision to grant or deny a variance may be appealed through an administrative hearing. The county public health unit shall enforce variance provisions and shall take administrative action, in compliance with requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to revoke any construction permit in which the terms of a variance are not met.

    
    

25. As delineated in the above Findings of Facts, in terms of the three variance criteria quoted above, while it cannot be found that the hardship involved in the applicant's expanding a large sum for property which he cannot at present use for residential purposes because of the lack of a permit or variance for an OSDS, that hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant, other than his action in purchasing the property and attempting to construct a residence thereon when the property and installation site does not meet the requirements of the above-referenced rules. However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage to be expected. The Petitioner has produced some evidence that a composting-toilet system would properly dispose of the human waste component of the sewage, or most of it, in an environmentally-safe manner, in terms of lack of degradation of ground or surface waters or risk to public health. The Petitioner's proof does not, however, demonstrate a feasible environmentally and legally acceptable means for disposing of the household gray water component of the sewage effluent to be generated by the proposed residence at an appropriate treatment and storage facility above the ten-year flood elevation. Thus, paradoxically, the Petitioner's proof shows that such a "split system" might be a reasonable alternative for the treatment of the sewage effluent proposed; however, his proof falls short in showing how that can feasibly be accomplished. Thus, his proof provides evidence that a reasonable alternative exists; and, therefore, the requirement NO. (2) quoted above, for

entitlement to a variance has thus not been met because it has not been shown that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the proposed sewage. Neither has it been shown that such a proposed alternative would only be a minor deviation from the permitting standards from which this variance is sought.

Further, it has not been demonstrated, in terms of requirement NO. (3), quoted above, for entitlement to a variance, that the discharge from the individual sewage disposal system proposed (holding tank and/or composting toilet) will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or other members of the public or significantly degrade the ground or surface waters involved. If the Petitioner had demonstrated that a composting-toilet system, working in conjunction with an alternative system for pumping and piping gray water to a suitable disposal and treatment site above the ten-year flood elevation, existed and was feasible, then it might be possible to find that such a proposed system would only constitute a minor deviation from the statutes and rules regarding OSDS permitting such that a variance could be granted. However, the Petitioner's proof fails in this regard. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established entitlement to either an OSDS permit or a variance from the permitting statutes and rules at issue.

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 by the Respondent denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and regulatory requirements, cited above, for the issuance of permits. At such time as the Petitioner is able to show changed factual circumstances, as for instance, that a reasonable, feasible alternative system, which will adequately treat and dispose of all household waste water effluent in a manner comporting with the rules of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, a permit application should be entertained.

DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1991.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-4569

The Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact

1-16. Accepted.

17. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS

1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700

Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS

1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700

Mark Moneyhan, pro se Route 3, Box 407

Perry, FL 32347

Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS District III Legal Office

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

MARK MONEYHAN,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO.: 90-4569

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 excerpts 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 shell fishing 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.

Based upon the foregoing, it is

ADJUDGED, that petitioner's application seeking a permit for an on-site sewage disposal system or a variance be DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of March , 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.

Robert B. Williams Acting Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

by 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:

Mark Moneyhan, pro se Route 3 Box 407

Perry, FL 32347

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 28 day of Mar , 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: 90-004569

Orders for Case No: 90-004569