STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DIANE MILLER AND CHARLES MILLER, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 90-1204
) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Following the provision of notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on May 7, 1990 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 224 South Jefferson Street, Perry, Florida. Authority for the conduct of the hearing is set forth in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Charles C. Adams was the Hearing Officer.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: Michael Smith, Esquire
Post Office Drawer 579 Perry, Florida 32347
For Respondent: Frances S. Childers, Esquire
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issues in this case concern the entitlement of Petitioners to the grant of a variance for the purpose of installation of an onsite sewage disposal system on property located in Dixie County, Florida. See Section 381.272, Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Respondent moved to dismiss the petition. That motion was heard at the commencement of the final hearing. The basis of the motion was to the effect that in view of the State of Florida, Office of the Governor, Executive Order No. 90-14, in particular as it reflects opposition to the installation of onsite sewage disposal systems in the ten year floodplain and given that the Petitioner's proposed system is allegedly not in compliance with Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, concerning the ten year floodplain requirements, Petitioners are not entitled to the variance they have requested. Having heard oral argument on the motion and being persuaded that the executive order cannot
and does not prohibit consideration of the case on its merits the motion was denied. The executive order was seen to give guidance to Respondent in performing its regulatory function. It was not perceived as allowing the Respondent to forego its responsibilities in examining this request for variance in accordance with statutes and rules.
Petitioners attempted to amend instanter the petition requesting a hearing to include a consideration of the entitlement to the original permit that had been sought by the Petitioners. This motion was opposed and denied.
At hearing Petitioners presented the testimony of Virginia Sessions and Alma Walker. Petitioners' eight exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Respondent did not present a case.
Petitioners moved to extend the time for filing proposed recommended orders from May 17 until May 22, 1990. That motion was granted. Accordingly, both parties made a timely submission of proposed recommended orders. Those matters have been considered together with the exhibits and testimony. The proposed fact finding is addressed in an Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On April 27, 1989, the property which is at issue was deeded over to Diane H. and Charles A. Miller. The property is located in Dixie County, Florida, and contains 0.377 acres. On Nay 23, 1989, Petitioners were granted an easement for purposes of ingress and egress to and from the property.
On May 4, 1989, under the signature of Diane H. Miller, a Petitioner in this case, an application was made for onsite sewage disposal at the aforementioned property. A copy of that application form may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. It states that this application is for a new system at lot No. 2, southwest corner, New Pine Landing Subdivision. Reference is also made to the directions to the property and suggestion that the property is located behind Nevin Kean Public Park [sic].
The warranty deed, a copy of which may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence, describes the fact that the property is adjacent to Nevin Keen Public Park.
The application form points out that this is a new system which is by type of residence "MH." It would contain two bedrooms and a heated or cooled area which is 12 feet by 60 feet.
Also attached in Petitioners' exhibit No. 1 is a paper which purports to establish the benchmark elevation of the property as part of what that paper describes as the unrecorded subdivision at New Pine Landing. It speaks in terms of an elevation of 11.36 feet as allegedly surveyed by Herbert H. Raker. That information is hearsay and may not be used for purposes of fact finding in establishing the true elevation in an instance where Herbert H. Raker has not provided this explanation. See Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. As a consequence, there being no other explanation of the elevation, it is unknown.
To the extent that it is accepted that there exists a New Pine Landing Subdivision, of which the Miller property is a part, evidence was not presented at the hearing which would establish the date upon which it was platted. Copies of the warranty deed and easement which were admitted into evidence do not indicate that the property is in New Pine Landing Subdivision, nor do they describe the date upon which the subdivision was platted, if ever. From the
proof submitted, especially the warranty deed and easement, it does not appear that the parcel in question is part of a recorded subdivision. This coincides with representations by Ms. Virginia Sessions, whose daughter is Diane Miller. Ms. Sessions speaks in terms of this being an unrecorded subdivision and Petitioners' exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence directed to Jermone Blake of the Dixie Public Health Unit on stationery of Suwannee River Water Management District refers to this location as New Pine Landing. Under the circumstances it is accepted that this parcel lies within an unrecorded subdivision known as New Pine Landing.
There was a period of time during which the applicants did not receive a response from Respondent concerning the request for a permit to install the onsite sewage disposal system. Ms. Sessions testified that her daughter made a phone call to the Respondent to determine the status of the application and that the daughter reported that someone affiliated with Respondent said that Respondent would be getting back in touch with the applicants. This report by Mrs. Sessions of her daughter's remarks concerning a purported conversation between the daughter and the Respondent's employee is hearsay and may not be used to decide whether in fact there was a communication between the daughter and the Respondent. See Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. In any event, Mr. Blake communicated with Mrs. Sessions and informed Mrs. Sessions that the Petitioners would not be given a permit for installation of an onsite sewage disposal system and would need to file a request for variance from the requirements to obtain permission to install the onsite sewage disposal system.
In furtherance of that instruction, the appropriate fee was paid and a form executed by Mrs. Sessions requesting a variance. A copy of that variance request may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. The date of that application was July 13, 1989.
The form makes reference to the authority of the agency to examine the request for variance as being set forth in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. The form points out to the applicants that the variance may not be granted unless:
The Department is satisfied the stated hardship was not caused intentionally by the applicant.
A reasonable alternative sewage treatment method is not available
The sewage discharge will not adversely affect public health and/or significantly degrade ground or surface water quality.
The application for variance makes reference to the New Pine Landing Subdivision. It states that the parcel in question is lot No. 2, and makes reference to a book and page number and a plat number and purported page number associated with the plat number allegedly pertaining to the subdivision. Competent evidence was not presented to establish that these references found on the application were correct portrayals of the recordation of the subdivision and plat number. See Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. Again, this leaves the record incomplete as to any recordation of the existence of the subdivision and a plat number associated with that subdivision.
The application describes the reason for requesting a variance as related to the fact that the lot is in a flood area where more than 36 inches of fill dirt may not be added. Proof was not submitted at hearing concerning the
exact nature of the property in question; however, Mrs. Sessions as the person who had applied for the variance and has a layperson's knowledge of the property in question, is entitled to depict the general nature of the property and her explanation that it is flood prone is accepted. How much fill dirt may be added to the property was not established by competent evidence.
Under the instructions for the owner associated with the application for the variance, the applicants are told that they should provide any supportive material and documents to the County Health Unit in Dixie County, Florida. This entails submission of a site plan, site location and reference map. These details were not submitted with the application as far as the record reveals. More importantly they were not provided at hearing.
The instructions call upon the applicants to satisfy the terms of Section 381.272(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, and to state the reasons for requesting the variance under the requirements of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. The applicants were told to explain why variance from the requirements would relieve or prevent excessive hardship and to provide technical documentation to support the supposition that a variance would not likely result in pollution or impairment to public health. Written on the form submitted is the suggestion that this project is a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, related to the
10 year flood event.
The application points out the size of the parcel as being approximately .38 acres and the sewage flow anticipated is 250GPD. It points out that the drinking water supply is a private source. It points out that the type of residence is a single-family retreat that has two bedrooms. It describes the proximity to sanitary sewer as 13 miles and to public water supply as 7,500 feet. The distance to private wells is said to be 775 feet and to a stream 7,400 feet. The proposed system that the applicant has in mind is a septic tank and drain field that is mounded. The system is referred to as a subsurface septic tank and drain field with six inches of fill sand.
Although the application describes that the water table during the wettest season of the year is below the ground surface by 36 inches and at the time testing was done that the water table was below the ground surface and "not found 72 inches," competent proof of these assertions was not presented in the course of the hearing.
The description of the type of soil as being sand is accepted. Nothing more was revealed about the soil characteristics.
The application points out that the 10 year MSL flood elevation is 14 feet and that the property elevation MSL is 11 feet. Competent evidence of those facts was not presented at hearing. Nor was there competent evidence of the adequacy of the surface water drainage at the property site.
The application form points out that the Dixie County Health Unit recommended approval of the variance on July 13, 1989. That says that the property is in the Suwannee River floodway where maximum fill allowed is 36 inches and that mounds are subject to erosion and moving water. It is accepted that the property is in the area of the Suwannee River. The other facts that are suggested in these summary remarks were not established by competent evidence.
The form reminds the county health unit that procedures associated with the variance requests must comply with Section 120.60, Florida Statutes. The county staff is instructed to list additional details in terms of the site evaluation and tell why standards cannot be met if that is the opinion held. It reminds them to reference the specific sections within Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, that are involved with the variance request and state reasons why a recommendation of approval or disapproval is being made. The completed form is then submitted to the Environmental Health Program ten days prior to any scheduled Variance Review Board meeting date. Substantiating documents must be submitted in place of or in addition to the data just described to include the application for septic tank permit, denial letter and engineering report and USDA Soil Conservation Service reports. Based upon this record an engineer's report has never been submitted. More particularly, an engineer or acceptable substitute did not present evidence supporting the variance.
Mrs. Sessions received an August 18, 1989 letter from Richard G. Hunter, PHD, Assistant Health Officer for Environmental Health. A copy of this may be found as Petitioners' exhibit number 5 admitted into evidence. It requests that additional information be provided to the Dixie County Public Health Unit associated with the date that the lot was subdivided from lot 2, if it was subdivided at one time. Mrs. Sessions testified that she responded to this request. The exact information that she provided was not presented at the hearing. Consequently, it is not clear whether the information that was presented satisfied that review group. Within the correspondence of August 18, 1989, is mention of the fact that the review group will consider the variance request at a September 7, 1989 meeting in Tampa, Florida, assuming that the information that had been requested was provided by August 28, 1989.
On November 29, 1989, Kevin M. Sherman, PHD, M.P.H., Environmental Administrator, Environmental Health Programs wrote to Mrs. Sessions to advise her that the application for variance had been placed on a meeting agenda for December 7, 1989 in Sarasota, Florida. A copy of this may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. This is seen as an acceptance of the application for purposes of making a decision on the merits.
Neither Petitioners nor someone representing their interests attended the December 7, 1989 meeting in Sarasota, Florida. On December 13, 1989, Dr. Hunter wrote to Mrs. Sessions to advise her that the request for variance had been rejected. A copy of this letter of rejection may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. It reminds the applicants that the purpose of the grant of a variance is for relieving or preventing excessive hardships where it can clearly be shown that the public health will not be impaired and where pollution of groundwater or surface water will not result. The basis of rejection was that the request was not considered to be a minor deviation from minimum requirements specified in Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. The letter of rejection advised Petitioners of their right to a hearing. That request for hearing was made on January 11, 1990, within the
30 days allowed for making such requests.
Testimony presented by Alma Walker did not establish the nature of the New Pine Landing Subdivision and whether it had been recorded or not and the date that the property may have been platted.
Mrs. Walker talked with a person within the Dixie County Health Unit whose name is Frost. This gentleman told Mrs. Walker that the case had been referred for a hearing and that the applicants should continue to pursue that matter. His secretary made some remark to Mrs. Walker concerning the impression that six inches of fill is less than allowed for septic tanks. This representation is not considered to be competent evidence as to the amount of acceptable fill.
Mrs. Walker's comments concerning the applicants seeking a new benchmark from a surveyor and the suggestion that the surveyor gave this information to Mr. Frost is hearsay and does not establish the fact that a surveyor presented a new benchmark for the property to Mr. Frost. Nonetheless, following this circumstance Mrs. Walker spoke to Mr. Frost about the survey to establish benchmark and was told by Mr. Frost that the applicant still could not get a permit because of not meeting the requirements of the 10 year floodplain.
Petitioners' exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence attempts to describe the impression of the application for a variance as held by the Suwannee River Water Management District. It is hearsay and may not be used to find facts in that competent evidence about the opinion of the Suwannee River Water Management District as to the acceptability of the variance request was not presented at hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Petitioners bore the burden in establishing proof necessary to demonstrate the entitlement to a variance from the necessity of obtaining a permit for construction of an onsite sewage disposal system on the property in question. See Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
The basic requirements for onsite sewage disposal systems as they pertain to this case are announced in Section 381.272(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, as follows:
Subdivision and lots in which each lot has a minimum area of at least one-half acre and either a minimum dimension of 100 feet or a mean 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 onsite sewage disposal system, provided the projected daily domestic sewage flow does not exceed an average of 1,500 gallons per acre per day, and provided satisfactory drinking water can be obtained and all distance and setback, soil condition, water table elevation, and other related requirements of this section and rules promulgated hereunder can be met.
Subdivisions and lots with a public water system may utilize onsite 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 2,500 gallons per acre per day, and provided that all distance and setback, soil condition, water table elevation, and other related requirements which are generally applicable to the use of onsite sewage disposal systems are met.
The acreage in question does not meet the one-half acre minimum requirement.
While the soil in the area is found to be sand, the exact nature of the soil type is not known. Water table elevations are also unestablished. The gallons per day anticipated is 250. This is within the limits contemplated by the statutory provisions.
The specific requirements for onsite sewage disposal systems for lots platted before 1972 set forth in Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, do not pertain because it was not established that the lot in question was platted before 1972.
Rule 10D-6.043, Florida Administrative Code, describes the need to obtain a permit for onsite sewage disposal systems. Rule 10D-6.044, Florida Administrative Code, describes the application protocol to obtain the construction permit.
Rule 10D-6.046, Florida Administrative Code, describes the requirements for location and installation of an onsite sewage disposal system.
Rule 10D-6.047 describes site evaluation criteria and includes the admonition that the bottom surface of a drainfield trench or absorption bed shall not be prone to flooding based upon 10 year flood elevations. It is also describes the idea that mound systems requiring placement of fill material or construction above grade structures will not be authorized in the regulatory floodway unless there is certification by a registered engineer that the placement of fill or the structure would not increase water surface elevation of the base flood. That certification must be substantiated by data and a method of calculation provided by the engineer and is subject to review and approval by the county public health unit.
The exact details of why Petitioners abandoned the request for a permit in favor of a request for variance from permit requirements are not well described in this record. It suffices that the Petitioners were convinced that this was a choice that should be pursued leading to the hearing to consider the matter of Petitioners' entitlement to the variance.
This case does not call upon the fact-finder to decide whether all requirements for permitting are met. However, if a permit application was being pursued, the applicants must demonstrate entitlement and the information presented does not approach the quality of proof contemplated by that process. Although no decision is made on the issue of the entitlement to a permit to construct an onsite sewage disposal system, Petitioners would appear to have difficulty in meeting the size requirements of no less than one-half acre and
are confronted with the possibility that the property lies within the 10-year floodplain. Neither, does the proof support the entitlement to a variance. In either case, be it an application for permit or request for variance, the burden of proof resides with the applicants and they have failed to prove anything about their project beyond a basic description of the property and its location and a general comment about the type of system they wish to install.
Having sought a variance the Petitioners must pursue this request in accordance with Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, which states:
(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:
The hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant;
No reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage; and
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 elevation, and setback provisions are determined by the department to be satisfactory, special consideration shall be given to those lots platted prior to 1972.
(b) The department shall appoint an Advisory Review Variance Board which shall meet monthly to recommend agency action on variance requests. The board shall be comprised of the following:
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services or his designee.
A representative from the county health units.
A representative from the home building industry.
A representative from the septic tank industry.
A representative from the Department of Environmental Regulation.
Review group members shall be appointed for a period of 3 years with such appointments being staggered so that the terms of no more than two members expire in any one year.
Rule 10D-6.045, Florida Administrative Code, also describes the process of seeking a variance. It says:
The Staff Director, Health Program Office, shall appoint an advisory review variance board, with each board member having an alternative, to review applications for variance and to recommend proper action in each case. The board shall be comprised of a representative from each of the following entities: one from the Department Health Program Office, one from a county public health unit, one from the home building industry, one from the septic tank industry and one from the Department of Environmental Regulation. Review group members shall be appointed for a period of three years with such appointments being staggered so that no more than two members' terms expire during any one year.
Applications for variance shall be submitted through the county public health unit utilizing HRS-H Form 4057. Each application shall be accompanied by supportive materials and documents such as a copy of the property deed, site evaluation data, plans and specifications for the proposed system, a statement regarding the existence of a hardship, information regarding adjacent property and any other information necessary for rendering a decision. A separate application must be filed for each site considered for a variance. The burden of presenting pertinent and supportive facts shall be the responsibility of the applicant. A completed application form must be received by the Department Health Program Office by the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month in order to be included on that month's public variance meeting agency. However, if the 15th falls on a legal holiday or a weekend, applications shall be accepted until close of business the next day following the holiday or the weekend. Variance meetings are normally conducted on the last Thursday of each month and shall be held in a convenient Florida location.
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 maybe 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 were 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.
The materials that were submitted with the application in support of the request for variance may or may not have been perceived as adequate by the Advisory Review Variance Board. What is of utmost importance is the fact that the Petitioners failed to prove their entitlement at the hearing. They made no presentation through competent proof about the property concerning site elevation and specific details about the soil type, together with a meaningful explanation of the system which is to be employed in responding to sewage disposal onsite. The record is devoid of any technical explanation of the project by a qualified professional engineer or an equivalent person. This proof was incumbent upon the Petitioners in view of the denial of the request for variance for a specified reason, that reason being that the request was not considered to be a minor deviation from the requirements related to the 10-year floodplain announced in Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. In addition, the lot size is below the minimum. Having failed to present any detailed information about the property or proximity to the 10-year floodplain, the treatment system to be employed and in view of the substandard acreage size, Petitioners have not demonstrated that any hardship with which they are confronted related to the inability to obtain a permit as a part of the permit application process is not caused by the intentional action of the applicants. They have failed to prove that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage. They have failed to prove that the discharge from the individual sewage disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicants or other members of the public or significantly degrade the ground or surface waters. Thus, Petitioners are not entitled to the variance.
Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law, it is,
RECOMMENDED:
That a Final Order be entered which denies Petitioners request for a variance from the requirements to obtain a permit for onsite sewage disposal.
DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 8th day of June, 1990.
APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-1204
The following discussion is made of the fact finding suggested by the parties.
Petitioners' Facts
Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found.
Paragraph 2 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of suggestion that a benchmark elevation was determined. No competent evidence was presented to establish the benchmark elevation.
Paragraph 3 is subordinate to facts found in the sense that it is acknowledged that an application for onsite sewage disposal system permit was made. Proof was not established that all necessary information required by law was presented with the application.
Paragraph 4 with its discussion of the significance of information provided by the Suwannee River Water Management District is not accepted to the extent that it attempts to describe the entitlement to a permit based upon remarks made by the Suwannee River Water Management District. The issue of whether adequate reasons were given for denying the permit application was not noticed for consideration at the final hearing and to the extent that that issue has any relevance in considering the variance request Petitioner's have failed to demonstrate any prejudice to their cause in pursuing the variance request.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 are subordinate to facts found.
The indication in paragraph 7 that Petitioners were having to reapply for a variance does not coincide with the understanding of this process in which the facts tend to establish that the initial variance request was processed to conclusion.
In Paragraph 8 the idea of reapplication is rejected as is the contention that there was a failure in the explanation as to the reasons why the variance was denied. The explanation was adequate to notice the Petitioners of the reasons which the agency had in mind in denying the variance application.
Respondent's Facts
Paragraphs 1-7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 constitutes a conclusion of law.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Sam Power, Department Clerk Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Frances S. Childers, Esquire Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601
Michael Smith, Esquire Post Office Drawer 579 Perry, FL 32347
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
DIANE MILLER and CHARLES MILLER,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO.: 90-1204
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 as follows:
The Hearing Officer's suggestion in his preliminary statement, that Executive Order 90-14 is only advisory is rejected.
Based upon the foregoing, it is
ADJUDGED, that the variance sought by petitioners, Diane Miller and Charles Miller, be DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.
Gregory L. Coler 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:
Michael Smith, Esquire Post Office Drawer 579 Perry, FL 32347
Frances S. Childers, Esquire District 3 Legal Office
1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
Charles C. Adams Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
John Lloyd, Director
Dixie County Public Health Unit Post Office Box 446
Cross City, FL 32628
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was sent to the above-named people by U.S. Mail this 2nd day of August, 1990.
R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 904/488-2381
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jun. 08, 1990 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jul. 27, 1990 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 08, 1990 | Recommended Order | Denied request for variance from requirment to obtain a permit for onsite sewage disposal. Rejected HRS claim that executive order prohibited review. |
