STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JOHN GARY WILSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-4989

) 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 in the Dixie County Courthouse in Cross City, Florida.

APPEARANCES

FOR PETITIONER: John Gary Wilson, pro se

Post Office Box 2061

Lake City, Florida 32055

FOR RESPONDENT: Frances S. Childers, Esquire

Assistant District 3 Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue for consideration in the proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system permit ("OSDS") authorizing installation of an on-site sewage disposal system for property the Petitioner owns near the Suwannee River in Gilchrist County, Florida, in consideration of the relevant provisions of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, and whether the Petitioner should be entitled to pursue a variance from the permitting statute and rules embodied in that chapter of the code.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This cause concerns an application for an OSDS permit filed by John Gary Wilson with the Respondent agency. A representative of the Respondent agency processed the permit. An inspector went to the lot in question, which is the installation site for the proposed OSDS, (conventional septic tank and drain- field system). While at the site, the inspector for the Department noted the water table depth below the surface grade, the elevation of the surface grade and he learned, in the application process, that the property was beneath the ten-year flood elevation for the Suwannee River. Consequently, in view of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, the Department denied the OSDS permit

application. Instead of allowing the Petitioner to proceed with the Department's internal variance procedure by which he might get authorization to install the septic tank and drain-field system even though not able to comply with the permitting statutes and rules, the Department advised him that no such variances could be granted because of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14 entered in January of 1990, which the Department interpreted to have the effect of absolutely prohibiting any OSDS's beneath the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River. Consequently, the Petitioner did not actually formally apply for a variance from the permitting statute and rules, but rather sought a formal proceeding based upon the denial of the OSDS permit application itself, which is the means by which this cause came before the undersigned Hearing Officer.

The cause came on for hearing as noticed. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented four (4) exhibits, which were admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of Devlet Mark Natirboff. Additionally, the Respondent presented three (3) exhibits, which were admitted into evidence. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the parties requested that a transcript be prepared and were given an opportunity to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of Proposed Recommended Orders. The Proposed Recommended Order submitted has been considered in the rendition of this Recommended Order and the proposed findings therein have been addressed specifically in the Appendix attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner owns certain real property located in Gilchrist County, Florida on the east bank of the Suwannee River, adjoining the river. The property is more particularly described as Lot 9, Block B, Two River Estates. The property was purchased on January 3, 1985 and was platted as a subdivision on January 5, 1959. The lot in question upon which the OSDS would be installed should a permit be granted, is approximately one acre in size.

   
   

2. On April 30, 1990, the Petitioner made application for an OSDS seeking authorization to install such a conventional septic tank and drain-field system for disposing and treating household sewage effluent on the subject property. The system would be designed to serve a single-family residence, containing approximately two bedrooms, and approximately 1,200 heated and cooled square feet of living space.

   
   

3. Upon making application, the Petitioner was informed that he would have to obtain a surveyed elevation of his property, as well as the ten-year flood elevation for his property for the river mile of the Suwannee River at which his property is located. The Petitioner consequently retained Herbert H. Raker, a registered land surveyor, who surveyed the elevation for his property. Mr. Raker established a bench mark elevation of 29.24 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The site of the proposed OSDS installation on that lot has an elevation at the surface grade of 28.5 feet. The subsurface of the lot at the installation site is characterized by appropriate, "slight-limited" soil extending 72 inches below the surface grade of the lot. The wet season water table is 68 inches below the surface grade of the lot. Consequently, there is more than adequate slight-limited soil to handle disposal and treatment of the sewage effluent from a single-family residence, such as is proposed, since the wet season water table is 68 inches below the surface of the property. Thus, a more than adequate treatment space and appropriate soil beneath the bottom surface of any proposed drain field to be installed at the site would exist so as to comply with the pertinent rules cited herein.

4. The problem with a grant of the subject permit consists only of the fact that the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation, that is, it is approximately 1.5 feet beneath that elevation. The Suwannee River Water Management District report submitted to the Respondent agency by the Petitioner in the application process for the OSDS permit (in evidence) reveals that the ten-year flood elevation for the property in question is 30 feet above MSL. The soils prevailing at the proposed installation site, the great depth of the wet season water table, and the fact that the lot is approximately one acre in size and above the minimum size requirements for the installation of an OSDS, all militate in favor of a grant of the permit, except for the basis for its denial initially, that is, that it is simply beneath the ten-year flood elevation for purposes of the prohibition contained in Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code.

   
   

5. Although located within the ten-year flood elevation, the site is not located within the regulatory flood way so that if a mounded system or other raised OSDS alternative system were proposed and installed, an engineer's certification would not be required regarding the issue of raising the base flood level by the deposition of fill at the installation site for purposes of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. There is no central water system available to the property; however, although there was conflicting testimony about the distance the proposed installation site would be from a neighbor's potable water well, the testimony of the Petitioner is accepted as being most certain in establishing that more than the required distance from that potable water well exists between it and the proposed septic tank and drain-field installation site, since the Petitioner established that approximately 110 feet is the actual separation distance.

   
   

6. The Petitioner purchased the property to construct a single-family residence for himself and his family. He expended a substantial sum of money for the property and is unable to use it for its intended purpose without the subject permit or at least a variance so as to authorize him to install an OSDS.

   
   

7. The Petitioner offered no concrete proposals or plans for an alternative system which might reasonably accomplish treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent in question without harm to ground or surface waters or the public health. No substantial proof was offered of a system which would either dispose of and treat the effluent at a location above the ten-year flood elevation or, if still below it, would adequately treat and dispose of the effluent sewage to safeguard the public health and the ground or surface waters involved, such that its existence slightly beneath the ten-year flood elevation would only be a "minor deviation" from that portion of the permitting rules. In point of fact, it would seem that a mounded system would be feasible on a lot this size, especially in view of the fact that the bottom surface of the proposed drain-field trenches or absorption beds would only have to be raised slightly over 1.5 feet from the surface grade of the subject lot and installation site in order to comply with the ten-year flood elevation parameter, which was the only basis for denial of this permit application. No proof was offered concerning how such a mounded system would be designed, installed and otherwise accomplished, however.

   
   

8. Upon denying the initial application for the OSDS permit, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that he should pursue a formal administrative hearing process rather than make application for a variance and proceed through the internal variance board mechanism operated by the department in order to obtain a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D-06.47(6), Florida

   Administrative Code. The Respondent advised the Petitioner of this because the subject property was located within the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River; and as the Respondent interpreted the Governor's Executive Order Number 90-14, which incorporated by reference the "Suwannee River Task Force Report" commissioned by the Governor, the Order absolutely prohibited the granting of any variances authorizing installation of OSDS's beneath the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River or the granting of any OSDS permits themselves authorizing such installations.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

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

   
   

10. The Petitioner seeks to obtain an OSDS Permit for a proposed on-site sewage disposal system to be located on the above-described lot in Gilchrist County, Florida. The Petitioner seeks to change the status quo by the institution of this proceeding and, thus, has the burden to establish proof necessary to demonstrate entitlement to an OSDS permit or variance from the necessity of meeting the statutory requirements to obtain a permit for construction of an OSDS on the property in question. See Florida Department of Transportation vs. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

    
    

11. The basic requirements for on-site sewage disposal system permits are set forth in Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, 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.

    2. Subdivisions and lots in which each lot has a minimum of at least one-half acre and either a minimum dimension of one hundred feet or a mean of at least one hundred 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 distance points of the remainder of the lot may be developed with a private potable well and on-site sewage disposal system, provided the projected daily 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 condition, water table elevation and other requirements of this section and rules promulgated herein can be met.

    3. 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 provide at all distance and set back, soil condition, water table elevation and other related requirements which are generally acceptable to the use of on-site sewage disposal systems are met.

       
       

12. Rule 10D-6.046(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that each lot upon which an on-site sewage disposal system is installed have a minimum area of 1/2 acre. The lot in question meets that minimum size requirement.

    
    

13. The specific requirements for OSDS's for lots platted before 1972 are set forth in Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and they pertain to the property in question because the lot was platted on January 5, 1959.

    
    

14. Rule 10D-6.043(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that no OSDS shall be installed without a permit obtained from the Department.

    
    

15. 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 prevailing at the site, and soil drainage and site topography characteristics. As stated above, the lot in question meets the acreage limitations.

    
    

16. The soil and water table characteristics prevailing on this lot at the installation site more than meet the minimum statutory requirements for soil type and water table elevation. The soil type is fine sand, which is an appropriate, slight-limited soil; and the water table elevation at the time of inspection was more than 72 inches beneath the surface grade of the property. The wet season water table was shown, by mottling present in the soil which indicates moisture, to be 68 inches below the surface of the lot at the installation site at the time of inspection. The lot appears to be well drained and was not shown to be subject to frequent flooding. Thus, the installation site meets the requirements of Rule 10D-6.046, Florida Administrative Code, with regard to lot size, soil and water table conditions, soil drainage and site topography.

    
    

17. Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, provides:

    
    

    (6) The final lot elevation of the site of the proposed system installation and the additional unobstructed land referred to in Rule 10D-6.046(4) is not subject to frequent flooding. In addition, the bottom surface of the drain field trench or absorption bed shall not be subject to flooding based on ten-year flood elevations. U.S. Department of Agriculture soil conservation service soil maps, state of Florida water management districts 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 flood way 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.

    
    

18. When pursuing a permit application, an applicant must demonstrate entitlement based upon the statutory and regulatory criteria contained in the rules. The Petitioner failed to establish the quality of proof necessary to show that entitlement. The Petitioner failed to establish that the property in question is located above the ten-year flood elevation which would entitle him to an OSDS permit at any location on the subject lot. That was the sole basis for the denial of the permit, in view of the findings made above predicated upon the Department's original inspection and evaluation of the site to the effect that ample slight-limited soil and ample depth of water table elevations prevail at the site to justify an OSDS were not the property and the installation site proposed located beneath the ten-year flood elevation. Since the above-quoted rule requires that the installation site not be subject to inundation based upon ten-year flood elevations and since this property and installation site and any available installation site on the lot in question is not above the ten-year flood elevation, that is a sufficient basis for denial of the permit. It should be noted that because the lot in question and the installation site proposed is only 1.5 feet below the ten-year elevation, it is apparent that the surface grade of the property could be raised a sufficient amount, together with the installation of a low, filled mound, so as to comply with Rules 10D-6.047 and 10D-6.049, Florida Administrative Code, and raise the bottom surface of the proposed drain-field trenches or absorption beds above the ten-year flood elevation. Such would appear to be a feasible and appropriate alternative OSDS solution to the problem involving the elevation of the property in relation to the ten-year flood elevation. A clear reading of the two rules cited last above, considered together, would indicate this to be a reasonable alternative solution which would justify installing an OSDS thus raised above the ten-year flood elevation. Unfortunately, the Petitioner offered no proof as to his willingness or the feasibility of establishing such a mounded OSDS nor specific evidence as to how it might be accomplished, the manner of its construction and installation, and its operational characteristics. Thus, the evidence does not support a grant of the OSDS permit sought, based upon such a system as a reasonable alternative within the purview of those two rules. The proof establishing the ample amount of slight-limited soils, the ample distance between the surface grade of the property, and the wet season water table, the fact that the property is not subject to frequent flooding is, however, sufficient evidence, coupled with the relatively small differential between surface grade elevation and the ten-year flood elevation, to show that a reasonable alternative likely exists to the installation and operation of a conventional OSDS using the present elevation of the subject property. Because this modicum of evidence does show that such a reasonable alternative may exist, it militates against the grant of a variance in consideration of the variance criteria enumerated below.

    
    

19. The proof does not support entitlement to a variance. Section 381.272(a), Florida Statutes, describes the criteria which applicants must meet when seeking a variance. That section provides as follows:

    1. 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 applicants;

       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. 'Where soil conditions, water table elevations, and setback provisions are determined by the Department to be satisfactory, special considerations shall be given to those lots platted prior to 1972'.

    
    

20. Rule 10-6,045(3), Florida Administrative Code, in essence, repeats the above three criteria for the grant of a variance and also provides that a variance may be granted where those three standards are complied with only in cases involving "minor deviation" from established standards for permitting.

    The variance may not be granted the Petitioner in this case for two reasons. First, the Petitioner, as discussed above, has not established that no reasonable alternative to the grant of a variance due to hardship exists.

    Indeed, although the proof was not sufficiently developed to justify a grant of a permit based upon it as a reasonable alternative, a mounded system would quite likely constitute a reasonable alternative to installation of a conventional OSDS on the proposed site at its present elevation. Further, the Petitioner has not established that the discharge from the individual sewage disposal system presently contemplated (a conventional system) will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or other members of the public or significantly degrade the ground or surface waters. The failure to show the lack of such adverse effect regarding this third variance criteria also constitutes a failure to demonstrate that installation of a conventional system in the present elevation of the property would only be a "minor deviation" from the established OSDS permitting standards. Thus, since a reasonable alternative may exist to installation of a conventional OSDS and because the adverse effects of such a system have not been proven to be absent, adequate proof justifying the grant of a variance has not been established.

    
    

21. Finally, parenthetically, since it was not an actual basis for a denial of the permit application, it should be pointed out that, although setback requirements contained in Rule 10D-6.046 require that OSDS's be a minimum of 75 feet from a potable water well, the Department apparently is taking the position that the off-site potable water well on an adjoining lot is less than 75 feet from the proposed installation site. The Department's witness in this regard seemed somewhat confused and unsure of the exact distance from the proposed installation site to the neighbor's well. The Petitioner, on the other hand, unequivocally testified that the distance of 110 feet separates the well from the proposed installation site; and his testimony is accepted. Thus,

    the appropriate setback distances are established and should not be a basis for a permit or variance denial. 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 Department had instructed the Petitioner as to the futility of seeking a variance or prosecuting a variance proceeding through its informal variance board process. This was because of the Department's perception concerning the applicability of the Governor's Executive Order No. 90-14, as precluding any consideration of variance requests.

    
    

22. In that connection, on January 17, 1990, the Governor's Executive Order No. 90-14 regarding the Suwannee River basin was issued. In section 1 of that Order, the Governor directed the Department to implement the Suwannee River Task Force recommendation that OSDS's should be prohibited within the ten-year flood elevation and should otherwise be in compliance with applicable rules and regulations concerning such systems and their installation. The Department has taken the position, therefore, that the Governor's Executive Order provides, in effect, 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 Department 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 Department, 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.

    
    

23. Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, along with the related rules enacted pursuant to it, authorizes the Department to grant variances from the statutory and rule-embodied permitting requirements for OSDS's. That statutory mandate, under which the related rules were enacted, constitutes authority emanating from the Florida Legislature directing the Department 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 a 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 Department 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-mentioned 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 Department a hardship basis for avoiding the stricture of a permit denial for noncompliance with the statute and rules pertaining to permitting itself.

    
    

24. If the Department 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 happen 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 Department 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 Governor's 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.

    
    

25. Rather, at most, the Governor's Executive Order can only serve as guidance to the Department 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 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 the variance procedure be inaugurated and followed by the Department, in situations where permits are initially denied by the Department, that scheme must be employed and followed until repealed or amended.

    
    

26. Although the subject OSDS permit entitlement has not been proven by the Petitioner because of the ten-year flood elevation 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), 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, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore,

RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit.

DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 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 5th day of March, 1991.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

The Petitioner did not file a Proposed Recommended Order.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-10. Adopted.

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

John Gary Wilson

P.O. Box 2061

Lake City, FL 32055

Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS

1000 N.E. 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

JOHN GARY WILSON,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO.: 90-4989

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 bye 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.

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:

John Gary Wilson, pro se Post Office Box 2061 Lake City, FL 32055

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)

Docket for Case No: 90-004989

Orders for Case No: 90-004989