STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

WILLIAM H. AND BETSY K. LANIER )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-3112

)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )

REHABILITATIVE SERVICES )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

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

APPEARANCES

FOR PETITIONERS: Betsy K. Lanier pro se

P.O. Box 238

Old Town, FL 32680

FOR RESPONDENT: Frances S. Childers, Esquire

Assistant District III Legal Counsel

Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 326$9

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue for consideration in this case concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit authorizing the installation of an OSDS on property which they own near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with the permitting requirements of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This cause arose upon the application by the above- named Petitioners for an OSDS permit so as to enable them to install a private sewage treatment and disposal system on their lot located in Dixie County, Florida, near the Suwannee River, in High Point Suwannee Riverfront Estates. The application was filed on February 21, 1990. The application, which proposed such a system for a proposed single-family residence which the Petitioners intend to build on the lot, was reviewed by the Respondent in accordance with the above-cited statute and rules and was ultimately denied in April of 1990 by the Respondent in a letter to the Petitioners to that effect. On April 24, 1990, the Respondent, by letter,

advised the Petitioners that they should pursue a formal administrative hearing with regard to the matter and indicated to them that it was useless to apply for a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, because the subject property, in the view of the Respondent, was located within the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River; and as the Respondent deemed the Governor's Executive Order NO. 90-14 to mandate, the Respondent could not issue a permit or variance for property so located. The Petitioners thereupon timely sought to contest this denial in a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, and the cause was ultimately transmitted to the undersigned Hearing Officer for further proceeding

The cause came on for hearing as noticed. The Petitioners at the hearing presented the testimony of Betsy K. Lanier. Petitioners' Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of James Fross, who made the site evaluation of the Petitioners' property with regard to the subject application, Dr. Richard Hunter and David Fisk. Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted into evidence. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the parties elected to order a transcript thereof and were accorded the right to file proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact. The Respondent agency timely filed a Proposed Recommended Order, and the proposed findings of fact contained therein are treated in this Recommended Order and specifically ruled upon in the Appendix attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The Petitioners filed no Proposed Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioners are the owners of certain real property located in Dixie County, Florida, in the proximity of the Suwannee River. The property is described as Lot 38, Highpoint Suwannee Riverfront Estates. The lot in question is 82 feet by 141 feet in size and was purchased in April, 1988 for approximately $5000.00. The lot, and the subdivision it is in, was platted in 1983.

   
   

2. On February 21, 1990, the Petitioners made application for an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit, seeking to install such a system on this lot in order to be able to construct a vacation cottage on the lot The proposed cottage would contain one bedroom and would have a heated and cooled area of approximately 500 square feet.

   
   

3. Upon reviewing the application, the, Respondent informed the Petitioners that they would need to have a surveyor establish the elevation of their lot, and particularly the site of the proposed OSDS installation, as well as to establish, through contact with the Suwannee River Water Management District, the ten-year flood elevation for the property. Accordingly, the Petitioners obtained a survey by `Mr. Herbert Raker, a registered land surveyor of Cross City, Florida. That survey shows a benchmark elevation of 13.09 feet above mean sea level ("MSL") That benchmark elevation is six inches above the actual grade surface of the lot so that the elevation at the proposed OSDS installation site is 12.59 feet above MSL. The ten-year flood elevation for the property is 15 feet above MSL, as established by data from the Suwannee River Water Management District contained in a report which is in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. That flood elevation data was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioners with the application for the OSDS permit. The property in question is located within the ten- year flood plain of the Suwannee River, and it is also located within the regulatory floodway of the River. On April 24, 1990, after advising the Petitioners of the denial of the OSDS permit application, the Respondent, by letter, advised the Petitioners that they should

   pursue a formal administrative proceeding rather than file an informal variance application before the Respondent's own Variance Board. The Respondent took the position that a variance could not be granted from the requirements of Rule 10D- 6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code, because the subject property was located within the ten-year flood plain of the Suwannee River and because of the Respondent's interpretation of the affect of the Governor's Executive Order 90- 14, which adopted by reference the Suwannee River Task Force recommendation that all such systems be prohibited within the ten-year flood plain. The Respondent thus declined to exercise its discretion, accorded it in the statute and rule cited hereinbelow, to entertain and consider a variance application.

   
   

4. Finally, it is established that the lot in question is not subject to frequent flooding; but because the surface grade is beneath the ten-year flood elevation, the bottom of the drain field trenches absorption bed to be installed would also be beneath the ten-year flood elevation. In other respects, the property is a amenable to the installation of an effective OSDS because the wet season water table is 48 inches beneath the surface grade and would be more than

   24 inches beneath the proposed drain field. The normal water table is approximately 60 inches beneath the surface grade. Appropriate limited soils are present beneath the first six inches of soil below the surface and consist of fine sand, light brown and brown fine sand, down to 60 inches, which is appropriate for effective subterranean treatment and disposal of sewage effluent.

   
   

5. The Petitioners established a definite hardship on their part by the fact that they have paid a substantial sum for the lot and are now unable to develop it unless they receive entitlement to an OSDS or some reasonable alternative. In that regard, no sufficient proof of truly effective, reasonable alternatives was established by the Petitioners. However, they did establish that an anaerobic septic tank and drain field disposal system might be an effective alternative treatment and disposal method for the property in question. An aerobic system involves the injection of air into the attendant septic tank to support aerobic bacteria which break down and treat sewage at a faster, more effective rate than does the normal anaerobic bacteria-based system. The resulting effluent is substantially lower in BOD and suspended solids than is the effluent from the normal subterranean and anaerobic septic tank and drain field disposal system. The problem with such an aerobic system is that it involves mechanical equipment, especially, an external electric motor and pump to force air into the system. This is disadvantageous in that, if the equipment suffers a breakdown, then treatment and appropriate disposal of the effluent stops. The untreated sewage can then rise to the surface of the property or otherwise pollute ground or surface waters and potentially cause a public health hazard. Thus, such systems would require inspection periodically to insure that they are in adequate working order because if the mechanical system malfunctions, the system will continue to put effluent through its drain field without adequate treatment. In this circumstance, the occupants of the dwelling served by the system might not notice for long periods of time that it is inoperative because the system will continue to dispose of effluent, but just of an untreated nature. Accordingly, when the motor and air pump system becomes inoperative, there is less incentive for the owner to repair it. Thus, it is likely that if such a system were installed, some means would have to be found to insure that the owner keeps the system in good repair and working order. The means by which such an arrangement for insuring that such an aerobic system works properly at all times was not established in this record, however. Consequently, the Petitioners failed to establish that reasonable alternatives to the proposed conventional system exist and what they might consist of.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

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

   
   

7. The Petitioners seeks to obtain an OSDS permit for property located in Dixie County, Florida. The Petitioners seeks to change the status quo and, therefore, have the burden to establish the proof necessary to demonstrate entitlement to the OSDS permit. See, Florida Department of Transportation v.

   J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The Petitioners did not file an application for a variance because of representations made by the Respondent's personnel that such an application would be futile in light of the Respondent's interpretation of the applicability of the Governor's Executive Order, referenced herein. The Petitioners' proof established no potential alternative sewage disposal systems and methods for the property in question, which might safely and effectively treat the effluent without causing degradation of ground or surface waters or health hazards. Therefore, no substantial effort was made to comply with the permitting statutes and rules, themselves, through demonstration of effective alternative sewage disposal and treatment systems in the face of the fact that the property at issue lies below the ten-year flood elevation.

   
   

8. Likewise, no proof was offered supportive of the grant of a variance (due to hardship) from the permitting statutes and rules in terms of the three variance criteria enunciated in Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, and the related rule. That is, no substantial proof was offered that no reasonable alternative to a conventional septic-tank-drain-field-type disposal system was offered by the Petitioners, nor was it established that the effluent from the system proposed to be installed would not adversely affect the health of the Petitioners or the general public nor that it would not adversely affect the quality of the surface or ground waters involved at the site. Thus, had a variance been applied for, it could not be granted based upon the quality of proof offered by the Petitioners

   
   

9. The basic requirements for an OSDS permit are contained in Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows:

   
   

   1. where a publicly owned or investor owned sewage system is not available, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services may issue permits for construction or installation of on-site sewage disposal systems under conditions as described in this section.

   2. Subdivisions and lots in which each lot has a minimum of at least one-half acre and either a minimum dimension of 1OO feet or a main of at least 100 feet on the side bordering the street and the distance formed by a line parallel to the side bordering the street drawn between the two most distant points of the remainder of the lot may be developed with a private potable well and on- site sewage disposal system, provided the projected domestic sewage flow does not exceed an average of 1500 gallons per acre

      per day, and provided satisfactory drinking water can be obtained and all distance and set back, soil conditions, water table elevation, and other requirements of this section and rules promulgated hereunder 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 provided all distance and set back, soil conditions, water table elevation and other related requirements which are generally applicable to the use of on-site sewage disposal systems are met.

      
      

10. The specific requirement for OSDS's for lots platted before 1972, set forth in Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, does not pertain to the property in question because the property was platted in 1983.

    
    

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

    
    

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

    
    

13. Rule 10D-6.046, Florida Administrative Code, describes the requirement for location and installation of an OSDS and Rule 10D-6.046(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that each lot upon which an OSDS is installed shall have a minimum area of one-half acre. There is no dispute concerning the size of the lot.

    
    

14. Rule 6D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, states that:

    
    

    (6) The final lot elevation of the site of the proposed system installation and the additional unobstructed land referred to in Rule 10D-6.046(4) is not subject to frequent flooding. In addition, the bottom surface of the drain field trench or absorption bed shall not be subject to flooding based on ten year flood elevations. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation service soil maps, state of Florida Water Management District's data, and federal emergency management agency flood insurance maps are resources that can be used to identify the flood prone areas. Mound systems, sand filters or other systems which require the placement of fill material or construction of above grade structures, will not be authorized within a regulatory floodway unless certified by an engineer registered

    within the state of Florida that the placement of such fill or structures will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood. The certification of such systems shall be substantiated by data and method of calculation provided by the engineer and shall be subject to review and approval by the County Public Health Unit.

    
    

15. It should be noted that this particular property is within the regulatory floodway. Therefore, the engineering certification, calculation and data would be required preparatory to authorization and permitting of a mounded system, consisting of fill material or construction above the grade of the property at the installation site. No such engineering proof has been adduced in this proceeding, however. When pursuing a permit application, the applicant must demonstrate entitlement to the OSDS permit based upon demonstrated compliance with the criteria contained in the statute and rules cited herein. This application gas denied specifically because the site of the proposed drain- field system is within the ten-year flood elevation parameter for the Suwannee River. The Petitioners failed to prove that the property is above the ten-year flood elevation so as to entitle Petitioners to an OSDS permit, in accordance with the rule cited last above. That was the sole basis for the Respondent's denial of the permit application, as shown by the denial letter and testimony of record. In fact, the evidence affirmatively establishes that the property and proposed installation site lies below the ten-year flood elevation. Parenthetically, it should be noted that it was established that the appropriate types of soil extend 42 inches or more below the bottom surface of the proposed drain-field trench or absorption bed, in accordance with Rule 10D-6.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, and that the water table elevation at the wettest season of the year is more than 24 inches below the bottom surface of the proposed drain-field trench or absorption bed. In fact, it was shown that the wet season water table is 48 inches beneath the surface grade and the property is not subject to frequent flooding. Thus, the installation site is appropriate for proper installation and operation of an OSDS. However, since the installation site is not in compliance with the ten-year flood elevation standard in paragraph (6) of Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, the sole basis for denial of the permit, expressed in the denial letter initiating this proceeding, that is a sufficient basis for denial.

    
    

16. As alluded to above, the Petitioners' proof does not support entitlement to a variance from the above-cited permitting statute and rules. The Petitioners did not demonstrate that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage in question and did not demonstrate that the discharge from the sewage disposal system proposed would not adversely affect the health of the applicants, members of the public, or would not significantly

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

17. In that connection, on January 17, 1990 Governor Martinez issued Executive Order 90-14 regarding the Suwannee River basin. In section 1 of that Order, the Governor directed the Respondent to implement the Suwannee River Task Force recommendation that OSDS's should be prohibited within the ten-year flood plain and should otherwise be in compliance with applicable rules and regulations concerning such systems and their installation. The Respondent has taken the position, therefore, that the Governor's Executive Order, in effect, indicates that OSDS's are sources of pollution in the Suwannee River, and that regulations prohibiting the installation of them within the ten-year flood elevation are, ipso facto, designed to protect public health and prevent significant degradation of ground or surface waters. In effect, the Respondent conclusively presumes that if such systems are installed within the ten-year flood elevation, then they cause degradation or adverse effect on public health and ground or surface waters. The Respondent, thus, has conclusively presumed that no such variance applications can be granted, nor can permits be granted based upon alternative systems and approaches to treatment and disposal of sewage effluent on-site if the installation site in question is at or beneath the ten-year flood elevation.

    
    

18. Section 381.272(8), Florida Statates, authorizes, along with the related rules enacted pursuant to it, that the Respondent may grant variances from the statutory and rule- embodied permitting requirements for OSDS's. That statutory mandate under which the related rules were enacted, constitutes authority emanating from the Florida Legislature directing the Respondent to allow a procedure whereby variances from strict application of the permitting requirements can be granted, in proper cases, so as to authorize them in cases of unavoidable hardship, balanced with the small likelihood of environmental damage, as enunciated in the statutory provision and rules cited above. Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, and the rules enacted under it clothe the Respondent with discretion in this area and mandate that such a variance procedure be inaugurated and followed for the benefit of the members of the public who seek OSDS permits, have them denied, and, therefore, need an opportunity to demonstrate a hardship entitlement to a variance from the permitting rules, if the above-cited three requirements for proof of entitlement to a variance can be met. This is not an unbridled discretion, and the consideration of Variance applications must conform to the three requirement's set forth in the statutory section cited last above and repeated in Rule 10D- 6.045(3), Florida Administrative Code. This statutory and regulatory scheme sets up a discreet variance procedure which affords the affected public the opportunity to show the Respondent a hardship basis for avoiding the stricture of a permit denial for noncompliance with the statute and rules pertaining to permitting, itself. If the Respondent persisted in its present interpretation of the effect of, the Governor's Executive Order, it would, in effect, create a conclusive presumption against the grant of any variances for any property and OSDS installation sites owned by an applicant which happened to lie beneath the ten-year flood elevation for the Suwannee River. The Governor's Executive Order, however, cannot legally obviate the mandate of the Legislature that the Respondent must exercise discretionary authority in this area, within the bounds of the variance criteria enacted by the Legislature in Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, and in the above-cited rule. If the Executive Order is so interpreted by Final Order in this and other similar proceedings, it would constituite 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.

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

    
    

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

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the carndor 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 Petitioners' application for an OSDS permit.

DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida

P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1990.

APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3112

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

1-9. Accepted.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS

1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700

Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS

1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700

Betsy K. Lanier, pro se

P.O. Box 238

Old Town, FL 32680

Frances S. Childers, Esq. Assistant District III Legal

Counsel 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

WILLIAM H. and BETSY K. LANIER,

Petitioners,

vs. CASE NO.: 90-3112

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

This cause came on before me for the purpose of issuing a final agency order. The Hearing Officer assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) in the above-styled case submitted a Recommended Order to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). A copy of that Recommended Order is attached hereto.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order except where inconsistent with the following:

In Executive Order 90-14 the Governor concluded that the greatest threat to the Suwannee River is potential development along the river and that only those land uses compatible with maintaining the natural resource values of the Suwannee River basin should be allowed.

The problems with use of septic tanks in the Suwannee floodplain were addressed in the report of the task force adopted in Executive Order 90-14. The extent of the problem can be seen from the following exerpts from page 14 and 19 of the report:

.... there are an estimated

20,000 - 25,000 small tract platted lots in the Suwannee basin, most of which are currently undeveloped.

Septic tanks along the Suwannee River have been implicated in

contributing to the high levels of fecal coliform bacteria that have resulted in the closing and restricting of shellfishing in a large portion of Suwannee Sound. ...

Executive Order 90-14 (adopting recommendation 36 of the Task Force Report) prohibits septic tanks (on-site sewage disposal systems) within the 10 year floodplain of the Suwannee River. The Hearing Officer expressed concern about the constitutionality of such a prohibition and suggested that Executive Order 90-14 be considered as advisory only. The Courts have held that administrative agencies lack the authority to adjudicate constitutional issues. Key Haven vs. Board of Trustees, 427 So2d 153 (Fla. 1982), State Department of Transportation vs. Hendry, 500 So2d 218, 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) Carrollwood State Bank vs.

Lewis, 362 So2d 110, 113 - 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Thus, I conclude that the department should continue to enforce the ban on on-site sewage disposal systems within the 10 year floodplain of the Suwannee River.

Based upon the foregoing, it is

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

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of February 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.

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

by 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:

Betsy K. Lanier, pro se Post Office Box 238

Old Town, FL 32680

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 22 day of Feb, 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: 90-003112

Orders for Case No: 90-003112