Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Sandra B. Frazier was a licensed real estate broker-salesman in the State of Florida, License No. 0185565, as an associate with Property Associates, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida. On July 1, 1989, Howard M. Burkholz, Leslie Burkholz, and Jacob H. Schiff entered into an Exclusive Right of Sale Agreement with Property Associates, through its agent, Frazier, for the sale of a house located in Forest Green Subdivision, at 2062 Pepperidge Way, Tallahassee, Florida. The Exclusive Right of Sale Agreement states in part: Seller further certifies and represents that the property has no latent defects except the following: septic tank is pumped monthly at Sellers request. [sic] Mr. and Mrs. Burkholz both told Frazier that the septic tank was not a problem, but Frazier had previous knowledge of septic tank problems in the vicinity and of the significance of needing septic tank pumping. Frazier sold the house across from the Burkholz's house. That house, at 2061 Pepperidge Way, was bought by Marcie Doolittle in December of 1988. The listing information and Notice to Prospective Buyers showed that, due to the composition of the soil and heavy rains, it was necessary to have the septic tank pumped. The seller offered an offset to the buyer for the cost of additional drainfield. Only after Doolittle bought the house did Frazier learn of the severity of the problems and the necessity for pump outs every two weeks. In a letter written by Frazier to Doolittle on February 9, 1989, Frazier indicated that "once a septic tank fails it does not correct itself. It then requires regular pumping." Frazier suggested that the only resolution was more drainfield or regular pumping. After Frazier listed the Burkholz house, she mentioned to Mrs. Doolittle that she could not show the Burkholz house during wet weather because the backyard, in which the septic tank and drainfield was located, was too boggy. Further, Frazier discussed with Mrs. Doolittle that the city was going to install sewer in the area because of the septic tank failures. In conformance with the Exclusive Right of Sale agreement with the Burkholzs, Frazier listed the house through the Multiple Listing Service. The data on the house was input on an input sheet. If there are defects, they can be listed on lines RE1-RE4 on the input form. Despite her knowledge about the Burkholz's septic tank and the Doolittle's septic tank, Frazier did not list this as a defect. Mary Wheatley, a sales associate with Bob Wolfe Real Estate, worked with Jesse and Susan Day to locate a house to purchase. She showed the Days the Burkholz house. Her only knowledge of that house came from the MLS listing, the brochure entitled Highlights of this Home prepared by Frazier, and from information verbally given by Frazier. Wheatley had no knowledge of the septic tank problems and Frazier did not tell her anything about the septic tank or the potential hook up to city sewer. After various offers and counteroffers, the Days and the Burkholtzs signed a contract for the sale and purchase of the house on November 24, 1989. The Contract states in paragraph 14: CONDITION OF PROPERTY: BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE HAS NOT RELIED UPON ANY REPRESENTA- TIONS MADE BY A REALTOR(S) AS TO THE CONDI- TION OF THE PREMISES. . . .SELLER warrants that the . . . septic tank . . . shall be in working order on the date of closing. SELLER agrees to repair any of the preceding items not in working order. BUYER agrees to inspect the property prior to closing to determine condition of said items; . . . If BUYER fails to make inspections as required, BUYER agrees to accept property in "as is" condition. BUYER and SELLER will diligently learn and disclose to each other prior to closing all facts affecting the value of the property. On December 26, 1989, the night before the closing, the Days, the Burkholzs, Frazier, and Wheatley did the final walk through. While Wheatley and Susan Day were in another room measuring for curtains, Mr. Day flushed a toilet and noted that it went down very slowly. He asked if there were septic tank problems. Mr. Burkholz indicated that there were, but that sewer hookup was coming and the septic tank was pumped out monthly by the city at no cost. Mr. Day asked about the costs and was told that the pumpouts were free and the sewer would cost several hundred dollars. There is a clear conflict in the testimony of the various witnesses about the sewer cost estimate given to Mr. Day, but the exact figure is of no consequence to the ultimate outcome of the case. Therefore the conflict is not resolved. The Days discussed the septic tank and sewer hookup and decided to go through with the closing. After the walk through, they signed an inspection sheet in which they accepted the premises as inspected, without any noted exceptions, and they relieved the sellers and the realtor from further warranty or responsibility for the condition of the property. According to Thomas Bryant, an engineer with the City of Tallahassee, in December, 1989, no one knew whether there would be sewer installed in Forest Green or the potential cost of sewer hookup. No one knew that even on the date of hearing. The city did enter into an agreement to charge $650 for sewer hookup in Forest Green, but there are additional charges and costs to the homeowner which are as yet undetermined. The septic tank problems constitute a latent defect which should have been disclosed to the buyers before a contract was agreed upon. The failure to disclose is not egregious since the regular pumping of the septic tank is done at no cost to the homeowner and results in no liability to the homeowner. The projected sewer hook up was too uncertain to have required such disclosure.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order and therein: Find Sandra B. Frazier guilty of one Count of concealment in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Based on the mitigating factors set forth above and on the relatively minor nature of the offense, impose a fine of $100.00 on Sandra B. Frazier. Issue a written reprimand to Sandra B. Frazier. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6189 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Sandra B. Frazier Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1). Proposed findings of fact 2-9 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801-1772 William J. Haley Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, FL 32056-1029 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a variance for a reduced setback from Petitioner's well to Respondent Allen C.D. Scott, II's (Scott) septic system should be granted by the Department of Health.
Findings Of Fact Allen C.D. Scott, II, owns property designated as Lot 13, Block 11, Vilano Beach Subdivision, 40 Viejo Street in St. Johns County, Florida. Mr. Scott's property is undeveloped, except for a drinking water well located in the northwest quadrant of his property. The well was installed within the past year. There are residential homes on the north, south, and west sides of the property. The beach is on the east of the property. The property is 50 feet wide and 125 feet deep. The property is not served by a public or private utility; thus, Mr. Scott must provide his own drinking water well and septic system. Mr. Scott purchased the property from Alexander A. Morese, Jr. Mr. Scott was Morese's attorney of record for issues concerning this property and the proposed septic tank system. The neighboring property to the north of Mr. Scott's property is owned by Petitioner, May Bobbitt. Petitioner has two wells on her property. A fairly recently-installed drinking water well and an irrigation well. The irrigation well, is located 30 feet from a site on Mr. Scott's property proposed for an on-site septic system. The location of the proposed septic tank is less than the required setback from a septic system to an irrigation well of 50 feet. The potable drinking water well is 225 feet deep, pit- cased and terminates in the Floridan aquifer. It is within 65 feet of Ms. Bobbitt's septic tank system and is located 50 feet from the proposed site of Mr. Scott's septic system. The location of the proposed septic tank is less than the required setback from a potable drinking water well to a septic system of 75 feet. The initial permit for Ms. Bobbitt's drinking water well was denied based on its proximity to her septic tank. Ms. Bobbitt challenged the denial in an informal proceeding before DOH (DOH case number 97-023H). Mr. Morese played some role in that proceeding. In the meantime, the initial septic tank permit application filed by Mr. Morese was denied by DOH based on the location of Ms. Bobbitt's drinking water well. Mr. Morese appealed the denial to the DOAH Case No. 98-3283. Sometime in late 1997, DOH granted Ms. Bobbitt a variance for a 65-foot setback distance from her drinking water well to her septic system. The variance resulted after settlement of the administrative actions involving May Bobbitt and Mr. Morese's permitting her well and Mr. Morese's septic tank. The variance was granted because the construction of the well prevents contamination of the well from the septic system. Both cases were separately terminated. On November 5, 1997, Mr. Morese applied to DOH for a variance to reduce the setback distances from Petitioner's two wells to Mr. Morese's proposed septic system. Since Mr. Morese's property was 50 feet wide and Mr. Morese desired to build a two-bedroom home on the property, there was limited area available to construct the septic system. The proposed septic system is located in the only area available for such a system and is the same location proposed by Respondent Scott. A sign was posted on Mr. Morese's property notifying Ms. Bobbitt of Mr. Morese's variance request. The variance committee recommended approval of the Morese variance with specific provisos at their December 1997, meeting. Dr. Richard Hunter, Department of Health Deputy State Health Officer, approved the variance with provisos by letter to Mr. Morese on December 17, 1997. The letter stated the approval as follows: The onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall be set back from the irrigation well on lot 14 by the maximum distance attainable but not less than 30 feet when installed. The onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall be set back from the drinking water supply well on lot 14 by the maximum distance attainable but not less than 50 feet when installed. The onsite sewage treatment and disposal system drainfield elevation shall be based on a seasonal high water table no lower than 12 inches below existing grade based on William G. Harb's report of November 13, 1997. The variance approval was not challenged by Petitioner or any other neighbor. The variance was granted for a period of one year from the date of Dr. Hunter's letter. As indicated, Allen C.D. Scott, II, purchased the property from Mr. Morese. When Mr. Scott purchased the property from Mr. Morese, the variance was transferred to Mr. Scott. After Mr. Scott purchased the property, he hired an engineer to assist him in securing a Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) coastal construction control permit. The permit was finally issued on May 13, 1999. The variance granted Mr. Morese and subsequently transferred to Mr. Scott expired December 18, 1998. Thus, by the time Mr. Scott obtained his DEP permit to put fill on his property in order to construct his septic system, the variance for reduced setbacks from Petitioner's wells had expired. On June 14, 1999, Mr. Scott applied to DOH for a variance to reduce the required setbacks from Petitioner's irrigation and drinking water wells to his proposed septic system. Mr. Scott's variance application requested the exact same setbacks that Mr. Morese had been granted in December 1997. For the same reasons the variance review committee recommended approval of the Morese the committee recommended approval of the Scott variance. Dr. Sharon Heber, Director of Environmental Health, DOH, granted the variance by letter on July 2, 1999. The letter contained the same provisions as Mr. Morese received in December 1997. The evidence demonstrated that the requested variance would not adversely impact anyone's health or degrade ground or surface waters. Moreover, the evidence showed that the variance met all other Department criteria for an onsite sewage disposal system. Don Hallman, professional engineer, testified that the pit casing of Ms. Bobbitt's well provides an additional layer of protection from contamination sources. He further explained that Petitioner's deep well was cased in a consolidated formation which furnished protection from surface and lateral contaminants. Mike Turner testified that he has permitted and/or had experience with two thousand or more wells in his job with the St. Johns Water Management District. He stated unequivocally that Ms. Bobbitt's deep, pit-cased well was in no more danger from contamination from Scott's septic system, 50 feet away, than it is from the 65-foot reduced setback distance to her own septic system. Given these facts, Respondent is entitled to a variance for his proposed septic tank system.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the variance should be granted by the Department of Health and Petitioner's challenge dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 May Bobbitt 41 Zamora Street St. Augustine, Florida 32095 Allen C. D. Scott, II, Esquire 101 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William Langue, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health Bin A00 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Respondent is registered with Petitioner for performing septic tank contracting services. In early 1991, Mr. Dennis Scott purchased a single family residence at 19169 Acorn Road in Ft. Myers. He purchased it as a rental property. About a year later, he began having problems with the septic tank system. He had the tank pumped out, but the problem returned a short time later. Mr. Scott told his maintenance man to contract with someone to fix the septic tank system. The maintenance man contacted Respondent. They agreed that Respondent would repair the system for $925. The record is silent as to specifically what the maintenance man told Respondent or what he told the maintenance man. In any event, Respondent and Mr. Scott did not converse. Respondent enlarged the existing drainfield, although the record does not indicate that he did so because he was asked to do so by the maintenance man or because Respondent thought that this repair would fix the problem. On May 28, 1992, Respondent and a team of employees appeared at the Acorn Road address to repair the septic tank system. Respondent left the site shortly after the men began work. Mr. Scott had nothing to do with the hiring of Respondent or even with paying him. Because Mr. Scott was unavailable, a friend wrote Respondent a check when the job was finished, and Mr. Scott later repaid the friend. On August 25, 1992, the system backed up again. Mr. Scott was not alarmed because of recent heavy rains. When the system backed up again a month later, Mr. Scott called Respondent, but could not get a call returned at first. Eventually, someone at Respondent's business said that he would come out and take a look at the system. In early December, 1992, the system backed up again and no one had come out to look at it from Respondent's business. At the request of Mr. Scott, another contractor visited the site and, on December 14, 1992, dug up the drainfield. The original drainfield had been installed improperly so as to run slightly uphill. This caused the system to operate inefficiently, although hydraulic pressure was evidently strong enough to draw the sewage through the drainfield. The record is unclear whether the extension installed by Respondent also ran uphill or whether Respondent improperly designed the extension. Mr. Scott and the second contractor testified that the extension ran uphill. However, one of Petitioner's inspectors inspected the drainfield addition before it was covered and certified that it was acceptable, which meant that it did not run uphill. The source of conflicting evidence, inasmuch as it comes from an employee of Petitioner, undermines Petitioner's case. The record is equally deficient to hold Respondent liable for poor design of the Acorn Road drainfield. There is no indication of what Mr. Scott wanted or, more importantly, what the maintenance man told Respondent. In any event, the evidence does not establish that Respondent installed an uphill drainfield. In early 1994, a house was listed for sale at 817 Gleason Parkway in Cape Coral. The listing agent informed the agent who had found a prospective buyer that there might be a problem with the septic tank system. The agent called Respondent's business and asked for a preclosing inspection of the septic tank system. The parties postponed the closing until the inspection could be completed and any necessary funds reserved to fix the system. The drainfield for the septic tank system at 817 Gleason Parkway was elevated due to the relatively high water table in the area. Even so, the system was poorly designed because the drainfield was too low and too small, based upon applicable requirements of law at the time of the original construction of the system and its renovation five years ago. Respondent was familiar with the system. He had reconstructed the system in 1990, although he did not redesign the new system, and had maintained the system since. He was aware that the tank had an automatic alarm that sounded when the fluid level became too high. In fact, Respondent conducted a cursory inspection due to his reliance on the automatic alarm in the tank, the imminent availability of centralized sewer service in the area, and possibly his unwillingness to disappoint a real estate agent by jeopardizing a pending sale. Among other omissions was his failure to probe the drainfield to determine its condition. Had Respondent conducted a competent inspection, he would have found that the stones in the drainfield were greasy, indicative of a failing system. Much of the time sewage water stagnated beside the drainfield mound. If pooled water were not present at the time of his inspection, the tall dollarweed growing on the mound should have alerted him to the prevailing damp conditions. Additionally, Respondent should have noticed lawnmower tracks through the typically soaked areas around the drainfield, as well as the thick grass that was uncut due to the soaked ground under it. Although water may not have been erupting from the drainfield mound at the time of Respondent's inspection, a reasonably close examination of the area would have revealed a small hole where sewage had erupted in the recent past from the mound. Instead, Respondent certified on April 4, 1994, that the "septic tank was in good working order." Respondent had been contacted to inspect the septic tank system, including the drainfield. Respondent was aware of the scope of his assignment, and his certification implied that the entire system was in good working order. Within two weeks after Respondent's certification, the system failed completely. Petitioner ordered the new owner to incur substantial expenses to repair the onsite system until he could tie into centralized sewer services.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order imposing against Respondent a $500 administrative fine and suspending his license for 90 days. ENTERED on March 30, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on March 30, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 4-5: adopted or adopted in substance. 6-15: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17-19: adopted or adopted in substance. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3-4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 5: rejected as irrelevant. 6: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 7-9: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 10: rejected as irrelevant. The rule speaks of harm to any "person," not to a customer or other person in privity with the contractor. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 12: adopted or adopted in substance, but Petitioner's indirect responsibility does not excuse Respondent's grossly incompetent inspection of the system. 13-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: rejected as unnecessary. 16-17: rejected as subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Mastin Scott, Senior Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 60085 Ft. Myers, FL 33906 Thomas B. Hart Humphrey & Knott, P.A. P.O. Box 2449 Ft. Myers, FL 33902-2449 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the primary factual issues are as follow: whether the application for a variance was a minor deviation from the standards established by Rule 10D-6.45(3), Florida Administrative Code; Whether the Petitioner clearly showed that the public health would not be impaired or that pollution of surface or groundwater would not result; and whether the petitioner would suffer a hardship if the variance were not granted. Both parties submitted posthearing findings of fact, which were read and considered. Those findings not incorporated herein are found to be subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary, or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact On January 11, 1983, the petitioner, George F. Conley, applied for an individual sewage disposal system (septic tank) permit to the Hillsborough County Health Department, a part of the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. This application appears to be for one of two adjoining lots owned by the Petitioner. By letter dated January 11, 1983, signed by William Dickson of the Hillsborough County Health Department, the petitioner's application was denied. The grounds for denial, as stated in Dickson's letter received as Joint Exhibit 1, were lack of sufficient soil depth and severely limited soil. The Petitioner applied for a variance as provided for in Joint Exhibit On January 24, 1983, a hearing was held before the Variance Board pursuant to Section 10D-6.45, Florida Administrative Code. The transcript of said proceeding reflects that the Board unanimously recommended approval of a "mound" septic tank system which would be elevated at least three feet above the existing grade and be oversized. The application for the variance was for one of the Petitioner's two lots; however, the Board's approval was for a variance on both lots. On or about February 1, 1983, Robert Roush, soil conservationist for the United States Department of Agriculture, conducted a soil identification at the Petitioner's proposed construction site. In Roush's letter of February 1, 1983, he reported that test borings indicated the soil at the test site was Bradenton fine sand, thin surface phase, as described in the Soil Survey for Hillsborough County, Florida, Series 1950, No. 3, of September 1958, USDA--Soil Conservation Service. Roush further reported that the Soil Survey Supplement of the USDA--Soil Conservation Service, Seffner, Florida, June 1981, indicated said soil constituted a severe hazard, with wetness being the chief limiting factor. By letter dated February 14, 1983 (Joint Exhibit 5), Stephen H. King, State Health Officer, denied the Petitioner's request for a variance for a septic tank system in relationship to both lots. Dr. King's letter stated in pertinent part as follows: granting of variances from established standards is for relieving or preventing excessive hardships and may be granted where minor deviations will not result in pollution of ground- water or impairment of public health. The Hillsborough County Health Unit has stated that a history of failing systems has been noted in the Ruskin area in soil conditions similar to those existing on your lots. Although the Review Group for Individual Sewage Disposal has recom- mended approval of your variance appli- cation, the site specific conditions on your lots, including soil, seasonal high water table and potential flooding conditions, do not appear suitable for the installation of onsite sewage dis- posal systems. Therefore, I must hereby disapprove your request for variance. The Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing on the denial of his application and request for a variance. In the manner by which the water table is computed under the Respondent's rules, the perched water table normally lies at six inches beneath the surface. C. K. Satyapriya was accepted as an expert in civil engineering and geo-technical engineering. Satyapriya described a mound septic tank system for treatment of gray water waste which met the minimum criteria for soil depth as provided in Rules 10D-6.42(12) and 10D-6.45(2), Florida Administrative Code, and could be installed on the site. See Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. According to Satyapriya's plan, the existing soil would be excavated, a soil with good absorptive qualities would be used as fill in the area excavated, and additional material added to form a mound. Black water would be dealt with separately, retained onsite, and removed from the site for disposal. The pictures taken by the parties and the weather information presented by the Petitioner indicate that January/ February 1983 was a period of exceptionally high rainfall in the Tampa Bay area within which Ruskin is located. The system described by the Petitioner's expert would not have flooded for any significant period during these exceptional conditions. Dickson, a sanitarian with the Hillsborough County Health Department for 22 years and supervisor in the area of administration of septic tank applications, was called to rebut Satyapriya's testimony. Dickson had worked for many years in the area of Ruskin, Florida, where the Petitioner's lots are located. Many problems with septic tanks, including flooding and breakdown of the system, occur in this general area because of a layer of impermeable material near the ground surface. This impermeable layer prevents the waste water from dissipating within the drainfield and, when it rains, acts as a basin to retain rainwater above the impermeable layer. Any excavation into, but not through, this impermeable layer traps the water, creating a bathtub effect. The bathtub effect creates problems when the area floods during heavy rains and the replaced material within which the drainfield has been installed becomes saturated. When saturated with water, the septic tank system is unable to accept any more waste product, which in turn backs up sewage into the waste line of the home or business. These conditions constitute a health hazard to the public and a potential health hazard to ground and surface water. Dickson interpreted the rule to require digging through the impermeable layer to permit the water to move down into absorptive material below. The existing water tables in the area of concern are a result of the subsurface impermeable layer described above. This layer retains the water above the layer and prevents it from sinking deeper into the ground. It also forms a cap on top of the water beneath it, which water table may be restrained by it. The resultant water pressure causes artesian wells. Therefore, this impermeable layer causes two water tables in this area, one perched on top of the impermeable layer and another underneath the impermeable layer. It is the water table perched on top of the impermeable layer which lies close to the surface. However, the impermeable layer keeps this "surface" water from mixing with water beneath the layer. Drinking water is not obtained from the upper water table, but from the water table under the impermeable layer. The impermeable layer would not be penetrated by the proposed gray water system, which meets the Respondent's guidelines of 54 inches beneath the drainfield. According to Dickson, a mound made of absorptive materials would soak water up into the mound from the groundwater level. This would saturate the drainfield in the mound above the normal water table. Satyapriya testified that the use of course material would prevent this absorption through capillary action. Satyapriya's testimony is accepted as the most credible, and the gray water treated in the mound would not pollute the upper water table.
Recommendation Having found it is a minor deviation from the rules to install a septic tank system in an area of limited soil; having found the denial of the Petitioner's application is a substantial hardship; having found that a mound system can be installed within the physical limitations provided in the rules; and having found that a system separating gray and black water properly installed would not endanger public health or pollute water, it is recommended that the Respondent approve an alternate system for one of the Petitioner's lots, constructed in accordance with plans certified by a Florida engineer to be installed in accordance with the approved design and installation requirements to provide for onsite treatment of gray water waste and retention and removal of black water waste from the site for disposal. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: DAMON C. GLISSON, ESQUIRE 5908 FORTUNE PLACE APOLLO BEACH, FLORIDA 33570 AMELIA PARK, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 4000 WEST BUFFALO AVENUE TAMPA, FLORIDA 33614 DAVID H. PINGREE, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact David D. Boak, Petitioner, owns a 3/4 acre lot at 9602 East Flora Street on which he proposes to put a two-bedroom house trailer. The area is rural in nature. There is no sewage service to the area and none is currently planned. Soil samples taken at the site show that from 9 inches to 48 inches below the surface the soil is a mixture of Manatee and Pompano fine sands which have poor percolation qualities. Soil Survey for Hillsborough County (Exhibit 1) describes the limitations of these soils for septic tank use as severe with wetness. Petitioner contends that he has lived on this property for 21 years and has had his septic tank pumped out once, 11 years ago; that he has never seen this property flooded; nor has he seen water standing on the property more than minutes following a heavy rain. Respondent's witnesses testified the water table at this site is 13 inches below the surface and septic tanks will not work properly in this area. When Petitioner's initial application for a permit was denied, he applied for a waiver. The application for waiver was presented to the review group pursuant to the provisions of Rule 10D-6.45(1), Florida Administrative Code, and the review group recommended the waiver be granted. However, the Staff Director, Health Program Office, denied the waiver and this appeal followed. The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority has condemned the land in this area, including that owned by Petitioner, for use as a county airport site. That condemnation proceeding is currently in litigation. If this property is ultimately taken for airport purposes, Petitioner will have no use for the variance here sought. Testimony was presented that the soil conditions plus the wetness factor make the site unsuitable for the installation of a septic tank. No evidence was presented regarding the pollution of surface waters by a septic tank in this area or whether public health will or will not be impaired if a septic tank is installed.
The Issue Did Petitioner violate Section 386.041 and Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Citation for Violation Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department, through the Polk County Health Department, was the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of issuing permits for the construction, installation, modification, abandonment, or repair of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. The property in question is a duplex apartment building owned by Respondent and located at 1101-1103 Old South Drive, Lakeland, Florida. The two apartments in the duplex are serviced by a single septic tank and drainfield. In the summer of 1997, Petitioner determined that the drainfield needed repair and engaged the services of an individual who was not licensed to repair drainfields. Additionally, Petitioner did not obtain a permit for the repair to the drainfield. During the fall of 1997, Petitioner continued to experience trouble with the drainfield. Thereafter, on two separate occasions, Petitioner engaged the services of Burns Septic Tank Company (Burns) and Central Fla. Septic Tank Co. (Central) to pump-out the septic tank. Both Burns and Central indicated on their invoices for pumping out the septic tank that the drainfield was in need of repair. On December 9, 1997, after receiving a complaint from one of Petitioner’s tenants, the Department’s Environmental Specialist, Wade Schulz, made an inspection of the septic tank and drainfield at 1101-1103 Old South Drive, Lakeland, Florida. Schulz’s inspection revealed that the septic tank was backing up at the duplex apartments and that the septic tank D-box, old rock, and the drainfield pipe were exposed to the ground. Additionally, it was discovered that septage was flowing directly from the system to a wet drainage ditch. On December 9, 1997, Schulz verbally notified Petitioner that the system was in violation of: (a) Section 386.041, Florida Statutes (Nuisance injurious to health); (b) Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (Prior approved system shall remain in operating condition); and (c) Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (No person shall repair without permit). A written copy of the Citation for Violation Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance (Citation) was mailed to Petitioner but was returned as undeliverable. A copy of the Citation was personally served on Petitioner on January 23, 1998. After receiving the verbal citation from Schulz, Petitioner engaged Robby’s Septic Tank Service and had the septic tank pumped out. Other than pumping out the septic tank, Petitioner has made no other effort to correct the problem. After receiving the Citation, Petitioner met with the Department’s representative in an attempt to work out a solution. However, Petitioner contended that there was nothing wrong with the drainfield and refused to pay any fine. On July 9, 1998, the Department visited the site again and found that nothing had been done to correct the problem. Furthermore, the Department found that the system was still being improperly maintained. It was the opinion of both Schulz and Tony Warr, the Department’s Environmental Supervisor, that the only way to correct the problem was to completely repair the drainfield. It was Petitioner’s contention that the drainage ditch was clogged up resulting in a high water table around the drainfield and that if Polk County cleaned out the drainage ditch, allowing the water to flow off, it would resolve the problem of the drainfield. While the drainage ditch may be a problem, there was insufficient evidence to show that unclogging the drainage ditch would resolve the problem of the drainfield. It is clear that Petitioner’s drainfield is not operating properly and is in need of repair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order finding the Petitioner guilty of the violations as charged and requiring Petitioner to pay a fine in the amount of $1,500.00 as set forth in the Citation for Violation Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance, Part 6. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin AO2 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Glenn E. Woodard, pro se Post Office Box 2000 Eaton Park, Florida 33801 Roland Reis, Esquire Department of Health 1290 Golfview Avenue, Fourth Floor Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit application should be granted?
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 1987, Petitioner applied for a septic tank permit for a proposed individual sewage disposal system to serve a single family residence on Lot 40, Block P, Killearn Lakes Unit I (Unit 1), in Leon County, Florida. A septic tank system consists of a tank and a drainfield which is wholly or partly underground. The decision of whether to grant a septic tank system permit is greatly influenced by the elevation of the wet season water table in the area where the septic tank system will be located. Under normal circumstances, the elevation of the wet season water table can be determined by taking a boring of the ground in question using an auger. If water is found at the time the boring is conducted, that is an indication of where the water table is located. If no water is found, the elevation of the wet season water table can be determined by examining the soil removed from the ground for signs of mottling. Mottling is the discoloration of the soil caused by the interaction of water with the minerals in the soil. The process of mottling takes place over hundreds of years. Therefore, a rapid change in conditions may cause the elevation of the wet season water table to be different than what would be indicated by mottling. Because of the development of Unit I and the drainage method used in Unit I (sheetflow), the elevation of the wet season water table in Unit I is estimated to be between 12 and 20 inches higher than what is indicated by mottling. On July 7, 1987, a boring was taken on an indeterminate area on Lot 40, by Certified Testing, Inc., a private engineering firm. The evaluation of the boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 60 inches. On August 3, 1987, Ms. Teresa A. Hegg, an Environmental Health Specialist with HRS, took two borings on Lot 40. The first boring was taken in an area other than where the septic tank system's drainfield would be located. This boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 45 inches. The second boring was taken in the area where the septic tank system's drainfield would be located. This boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 22 inches. Based on the boring taken at the proposed site for the septic tank system, showing mottling at 22 inches, and the estimate that the wet season water table in Unit I is from 12 to 20 inches higher than mottling would indicate, the estimated wet season water table for Lot 40 is between 2 to 10 inches below the ground surface. Unit I has a history of septic tank system failures. Unit I was platted prior to January 1, 1972. There exists a very high probability that any septic tank system, even a mound system, installed in Lot P-40 will fail.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4085 The Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection First phrase accepted. Remainder of paragraph supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. First two sentences accepted. Third sentence supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Accepted. 5,6,7,8,9,10 Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Accepted. 13,14 Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 15. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected; the wet season water table on Lot P-40 is from 2-10 inches below grade. Third sentence accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Jr., Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 John R. Perry, Esquire Assistant District II Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monore Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues to be resolved in the proceeding concern whether the Respondent, a licensed septic tank contractor, installed twelve septic tank systems at eleven locations in Bay and Walton Counties in which the required filters were removed, allegedly violating the various provisions of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code, cited and discussed herein below and, if that is the case whether an administrative fine should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with regulating the licensure and compliance of septic tank contractors with the statutory and regulatory authorities cited herein. That authority includes the inspection and approval of the installation of septic tank and drainfield waste disposal systems in Bay and Walton Counties, Florida. It includes the authority to prosecute alleged violations of the statutes and rules regarding appropriate and legal installation of septic tanks and drainfield systems as are involved in this case. The Respondent, John E. McDaniel, is a licensed septic tank contractor subject to the Department's jurisdiction and regulation. His firm installed twelve septic tank systems at eleven locations in Bay County, Walton County and one in Fountain, Florida. Final inspections were conducted on those systems from May 7, 1998 through January 11, 1999. Thereafter, acting on information and belief, the Department inspected those systems again and found that after final inspections that eleven legally required filters from eleven septic tank systems had been removed after the previous "final inspection." The removal of those filters was without authorization and contrary to the portions of the Florida Administrative Code cited below. The petitioner agency took the position that the Respondent and his company were responsible for the illegal removal of the septic tank filters and took initial Agency action assessing a fine in the proposed amount of $3,300.00, $300.00 per violation. The Respondent contested that initial agency action bringing about the subject formal proceeding and evidentiary hearing. Mike Guyne is the Environmental Health Director of the Bay County Health Department. He is familiar with three incidents of prior discipline where the Respondent was subjected to fines for two citations issued by the Department in 1996. Septic tank filters are required on all septic tanks. Although homeowners or persons other than the septic tank contractor could remove the filters, it would be difficult because the lids covering the filter weigh fifty to seventy-five pounds and are sealed with cement mortar and then covered with a layer of dirt. Thus if any person were to remove the subject septic tank filters it would be most easily accomplished before the system is sealed with mortar and before it is covered with dirt (i.e., after the final inspection of the system was made but before it was covered up). On February 16, 1999, Joseph W. Miner, an Environmental Health Specialist for Washington County, went to a site in Washington County to inspect a septic tank system installed by Superior Septic Tank Company (Respondent). The filter in that system had been painted orange on the top but the installers had already moved to another job and so Mr. Miner was unable to question them regarding the origin of that filter. Mr. Miner went to the next site to inspect a septic tank system also installed by Superior Septic Tank Company, and the filter in that septic tank system had also been painted orange on its top. Some counties mark filters by spray painting them when they are put into service to keep them from being removed and used in another system. Mr. Miner engaged in a conversation with an employee of the Superior Septic Tank Company whose name is unknown (gray- haired gentleman with a ponytail) at the second location. This employee was in the company of co-employee Mike Parker who testified in this case. He was questioned by Mr. Miner. This employee told Mr. Miner that Walton County had marked those filters and once the inspections were complete and the inspector left those Walton County job sites that, if the homeowner did not want a filter on the system, employees of Superior Septic Tank Company removed the filters before sealing the tank and system. This same employee also told Mr. Miner that they could not re-use the orange painted filter in Walton County because they would be detected as having already been painted (for identification reasons by Department personnel) and therefore, if they were installed in a different system later the inspector would know that they had been removed from a previous system. Consequently, this employee told Mr. Miner that the painted filters from Walton County were thereafter used in Washington County system installations. When Mr. Miner questioned this employee about the authority for removing the filters he was told that Mr. McDaniel, the Respondent and the owner of Superior Septic Tank Company, had indicated that he had authorization "from Tallahassee" authorizing the filter removal. Mr. McDaniel himself stated in a phone conversation with Mr. Miner that he had a verbal agreement to remove filters from septic tanks with the Director of Environmental Health for Bay County. In any event, in Washington County no septic tank systems are approved for final inspection unless filters are installed according to Mr. Miner. Amanda Brown had septic tank systems installed by the Respondent at two sites. These systems later began failing and at that point an employee of the Respondent, who happened to be Brown's brother, Charles Eldridge, told Ms. Brown that the filters in her systems had been removed after final inspection. Environmental Health staff personnel later opened those three systems installed by the Respondent company in Ms. Brown's presence. Two of the three systems had no filters installed. Ms. Brown had not authorized removal of those filters. Ken Manley is a contractor who builds residential homes including those at the addresses depicted in Exhibits three and four. Mr. Manley did not authorize the removal of the filters from the septic tank systems referenced in Exhibits three and four, although someone removed them. George Stanley Pitts is a land developer who contracted with Superior Septic Tank Company and Mr. McDaniel to install septic tank systems. The systems were installed at the locations referenced in Exhibits five, six, seven and eight in evidence. Mr. Pitts had a conversation with personnel of the Superior Septic Tank Company who told him that the Health Department had authorized leaving filters out of the systems if the owner did not object. Mr. Pitts maintains that he did not remove nor authorize removal of the filters referenced in those exhibits and yet they were removed. James Buchanan owns property that is referenced in Exhibit nine in evidence. He had a septic tank system installed by the Respondent on Angie Road as referenced in Exhibit nine. He did not authorize removal of the filter from the septic tank system at that location although they were removed after the final inspection. Thomas Owen as well had a septic tank system installed at 12034 Oak Avenue, in Fountain, Florida, as depicted in Exhibit ten. It was installed by Superior Septic Tank Company. After the final inspection was done on the system, the filter was removed although Owen states that he did not authorize removal of the filter from his septic tank system. Charles Eldridge was employed by Superior Septic Tank Company and John McDaniel. He was employed at four different times during a five-year period including 1998. When he was employed in 1998, the installation of filters in septic tank systems was a relatively new requirement. Mr. Eldridge performed work on his sister's septic tank systems which are described in Exhibits one and two in evidence. He removed the filters from those systems. Mr. Eldridge maintains that Mr. McDaniel told employees and frequently reminded them to remove filters from septic tank systems after final inspections were performed by Health Department officials. Mr. McDaniel, according to Eldridge, told his employees that the filters cost from $28.00 to $38.00 and could be used again in a later system (implicitly for reasons of saving money). Kevin Cobb is a Environmental Health Specialist for the Walton County Health Department. He is an inspector of septic tank systems. He did a final construction inspection and a final inspection of the septic tank system installed by Mr. McDaniel's Superior Septic Tank Company which is described in Exhibit eleven. When he performed the final inspection he spray-painted the top of the filter with orange paint, which is the practice and policy in Walton County as a means to show that that filter had been used; therefore if it appears in a later-constructed and installed system it will show the inspector at that later time that the filter had previously been used and illegally removed from another system. Mr. Cobb was accompanied by another Health Department employee and re-inspected the septic tank system described in Exhibit eleven. After removing the lid over the filter location he found that there was no filter in the outlet "T" fitting, although orange paint remained on top of the "T" fitting as shown in the photographs, in evidence as Exhibits sixteen and seventeen. Mr. Cobb discovered the filters were missing in two of the three systems installed by Superior Septic Tank Company which he inspected. Ralph McDonald is an Environmental Health Inspector for the Bay County Health Department. He inspected the septic tank systems depicted in Exhibits one, two, six, nine and ten, which were installed by the Superior Septic Tank Company. When he made the construction inspection of those systems he found filters to be in place in those systems. He did not authorize removal of the filters. Brian Hughes is also an Environmental Health Inspector for the Bay County Health Department. He made the construction inspection on septic tank systems referenced in Exhibits three, four, and eight in evidence, which were also installed by the Superior Septic Tank Company. When he made that inspection he found the filters to be properly in place. He also would not authorize removal of filters from septic tank systems nor approve permitting systems which did not have filters. After final approval of the septic tank systems referenced in Exhibits two, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten, the Bay County Health Department re-inspected those systems and found according to Mr. Hughes and Mr. Darsey's testimony, as well as Mr. Ellis', that the filters were then missing from those same systems. Thus they had been removed after the final construction and inspection had been performed. Carl Darsey is a Supervisor in Environmental Health for the Bay County Health Department. The septic tank systems installed by the Superior Septic Tank Company described in Exhibits five and seven also had filters at the time the construction approval inspection was performed. Mr. Darsey never authorized removal of those filters nor would he approve systems without the filters in place. Leroy Ellis is employed in the Disease Intervention section of the Bay County Health Department and accompanied the other named employees of the Bay County Health Department on the re-inspections of the above-referenced septic tank systems. His testimony corroborates that of Hughes and Darsey. After final approval of the septic tank systems referenced in Exhibits three and four, Mr. Guyne, with other environmental health staff of the Bay County Health Department, re-inspected those systems installed by the Superior Septic Tank Company and found that the filters were missing from those systems as well. Septic tank system filters are designed to clean the effluent and add longevity to the septic tank systems, to help prevent clogging of the drainfields. Filters have been installed in all septic tanks according to Department rules and policies for approximately the last two years and, according to Mr. Guyne, no complaints on system failures have been brought to the Bay County Health Department's attention related to filters. Mike Parker is an installation supervisor employed by the Superior Septic Tank Company. He had a conversation with Mr. Miner in Washington County and informed him of customer problems with maintenance of the filters. Mr. Guyne established, however, that homeowners are responsible for problems with their septic tank filters after the final inspection. It was not established, however, that any of the homeowners or customers of the Superior Septic Tank Company and Mr. McDaniel removed the filters themselves. Initially, in approximately early 1998, Mr. McDaniel took the position that he had some informal authority from Health Department Personnel to remove filters and so informed Mr. Eldridge and Mr. Miner. Later, however, when the dispute arose concerning the removal of the filters and who might have removed them, he took the position that he did not remove any filters. In a one-year period Mr. McDaniel's installation personnel typically installed about two hundred and fifty septic tank systems. In Walton County two filters were missing out of three tanks checked, and in Bay County ten filters were missing out of fourteen tanks checked. Mr. Eldridge testified that if an inspector remained on a site during the time that the system was being back-filled or covered up then the filter would be left in the system. Thus two employees of the Respondent stated that they were instructed to remove the filters after the final inspection. Moreover, a random sampling of septic tank systems installed by the Respondent established that a great majority of them had had the filters removed. The explanation that vandals may have taken the twelve filters does not make sense. It strains belief to think that twelve of seventeen septic tanks would be vandalized and then only vandalized as to the removal of filters with no other damage done to the systems. Further, the two employees testifying on behalf of the Respondent have testimony deficient in materiality or weight. Mike Parker was not employed by the Respondent when the installations of the majority of these systems occurred. He had no knowledge of doing the installation on the eleven systems involved and was not working for McDaniel during the relevant period in 1998. He was not aware that filters in Walton County are painted with orange paint to try to prevent their removal and re-use, and does not remember any orange paint on filters installed in Washington County, which was clearly established to be the case on the filters that Mr. McDaniel was installing. Additionally, Mr. Halstead's memory is deficient because upon being questioned about annual installations performed, his testimony varied about how many weekly or annual installations are performed. Mr. Halstead stated that he had never seen any filters in Walton County painted with orange paint when the testimony of Mr. Cobb, corroborated by the photographs in evidence, show that they clearly were painted with orange paint in Walton County. Thus both Mr. Halstead and Mr. Parker's testimony is entitled to little weight. Mr. McDaniel submitted a report in evidence showing that Charles Eldridge had apparently used marijuana at one point and had gotten into an altercation resulting in a trespass warning from the Sheriff's Department. This was supposedly related to a dispute over payment of wages, in conjunction with Mr. Eldridge apparently quitting his job with Mr. McDaniel in anger. This evidence was intended to show that Mr. Eldridge was a disgruntled former employee who might therefore have a motive to lie in his testimony to retaliate against Mr. McDaniel for perceived past grievances. The evidence shows clearly, however, that after this report was entered concerning Mr. Eldridge and after their verbal altercation, that, according to Mr. McDaniel's own testimony, he had hired Mr. Eldridge several more times. Thus there is an insufficient demonstration in the evidence of a motive on the part of Mr. Eldridge to actually lie in retaliation against Mr. McDaniel. Mr. Eldridge had apparently become upset when he worked for Mr. McDaniel because of a shortage of pay due him and Mr. McDaniel testified that he admittedly had caused that problem with Mr. Eldridge, but this does not warrant a finding that Mr. Eldridge's testimony was fabricated. This is because the statement made to Mr. Miner by the "gray-haired employee with the ponytail," who made the incriminating statement about instructions from Mr. McDaniel to remove filters, was not refuted, which fact corroborates Mr. Eldridge's testimony. That employee clearly stated that the fluorescent painted filters came from Walton County and were removed from Walton County septic tank systems and then re-used in Washington County. The reason given for the removal was that Mr. McDaniel had instructed his personnel to remove them. That is consistent with the testimony given by Mr. Eldridge. Mr. Miner phoned Mr. McDaniel back at the time the question first arose concerning the Walton and Washington County systems, and Mr. McDaniel told him that he had authorization from the Environmental Health Director in Bay County to remove filters. That authorization was shown never to have existed even if relevant. Later, at hearing, Mr. McDaniel denied making that statement and said that he never removed any filters at all. That assertion renders his testimony inconsistent and thus it cannot be credited.
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 issued by the Department of Health finding that the Respondent committed the violations charged and assessing a $3,300.00 fine against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Chief Legal Counsel Department of Health Northwest Law Office 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 Gary W. Tennyson, Esquire 3235 Lisenby Avenue Panama City, Florida 32405 Angela T. Hall, Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Amy M. Jones, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue Whether Petitioner should take disciplinary action against Respondents for the reasons alleged in the Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact On behalf of his brother, Mr. Howell Parish, who lives in Orange Park, Florida, Mr. James A. Parish contracted with Respondents to restore efficient of operation the septic tank system at 5469 Soundside Drive in Santa Rosa County, premises owned by Howell Parish. Respondents agreed to make the restoration by providing a fiberglass approved tank with a fiberglass lid, install a new drain field and haul in dirt to build up a low area of the existing drain field. Respondents undertook repair activities but without a permit. Respondents did not obtain an inspection of their work after they had finished. On June 10, 1992, after the repairs were supposed to have been done, James Parish paid Respondent Harmon for the job with a personal check in the amount of $1,498.48. On the same date, Respondent Harmon signed a receipt for payment. The receipt shows as work performed, "Demucking and Installing one 1050 Gal Tank & 200 Sq.' Drain Field." Ms. Jo Ann Parish, spouse of Howell Parish, reimbursed James Parish for the work done on Soundside Drive. Shortly thereafter, the septic tank "caved in and the waste was boiling to the surface." (Tr. 16.) Howell Parish met with Larry W. Thomas, Environmental Health Supervisor for the Santa Rosa County Health Department, to discuss the situation. Following the meeting, Mr. Parish called Respondent Harmon and told that him that the problem needed to be straightened out and that he should contact Mr. Thomas promptly because his license could be in danger. Respondent promised to correct the problem and to reimburse Mr. Parish for the job but he did neither. He did not contact Mr. Thomas either. Mr. Thomas, on behalf of the County, investigated the site of the septic tank repair. He found that Respondents had installed a broken fiber glass tank when fiberglass tanks are not allowed at all in Santa Rosa County because of their structural inadequacy. In addition to the tank being cracked, it had a cracked lid. Another hole in the tank that should have been covered with a lid was covered with a piece of plywood. The plywood was kept in place by dirt fill. The drain field did not meet the minimum standards required by the County. Most significantly, it was installed beneath the water table. There was a laundry discharge pipe which was not connected to the tank as required. The site of the septic tank repair by Respondents was a sanitary nuisance. The broken condition of the tank allowed raw sewage to overflow. The drain field was emptying raw sewage directly into ground water. The laundry discharge was discharging into the ground rather than being hooked up to the septic tank. Mr. Parish was forced to hire another septic tank service to restore the system to good working order. The work, performed by Bettis Septic Tank Service, was billed to Mr. Parish at a cost of $6400.00.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, that Respondents' certificates of registration be revoked and that the Department impose on Respondents a fine of $2000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Bozeman, III Asst. District Legal Counsel D H R S 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, FL 32501 Kenneth P. Walsh Attorney at Law P. O. Box 1208 Shalimar, FL 32505-0420 Robert L. Powell, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 DAVID M. MALONEY 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 28th day of October, 1994.
