The Issue Whether a septic tank construction permit should be issued by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, for use by the Respondent, Alex Rutkowski, owner of Lot number 6, Block E, Carlton Terrace Subdivision First Addition, in Clearwater, Florida. Whether the filling in of Lot number 6 and the construction of a septic tank will damage the residence of the Petitioner, Elinor Burger, on Lot number 5.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Alex Rutkowski, and his wife own Lot number 6, Block E, Carlton Terrace Subdivision, First Addition, in Clearwater, Florida in which the sixteen (16) lots are approximately 70 feet wide and 105 to 150 feet deep. The soil in the area is Mayakka Fine Sand, a poorly drained soil which has a water table normally at a depth of ten (10) to thirty (30) inches below ground surface, but which rises to the surface for a short time during wet periods. After respondent Rutkowski's initial application for a permit to install a septic tank on Lot number 6 had been denied, he employed an engineer and filed a plan for proposed site modification. The plan was received by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and Rutkowski was notified on December 6, 1979, that the plan to remove the existing land fill, replace it with Astatula Fine Sand and raise the building pad appeared to be acceptable for the issuance of a septic tank construction permit, but that no further action on the application for the permit could be taken until after an administrative ruling on a protest by a neighboring property owner (Respondent' Exhibits 1, 4 and 5). The Pinellas County Engineering Department had approved the drainage for the area on October 9, 1979 (Respondent's Exhibit 2). The Petitioner, Elinor Burger, has lived on Lot number 5, which adjoins Lot number 6, since 1957. When there is a heavy rain of three (3) to four (4) inches, her septic tank fails to operate, and water stands in her back yard. She has seen and smelled polluted water standing in the street in front of her home. Water also stands on a second lot she owns adjoining her residence after a heavy rain preventing the mowing of the lot for long periods of time. Ms. Burger has unsuccessfully sought to connect to a sewer system by petitions for sewer connection on at least- three (3) occasions and has laid additional drainage lines to help solve her problem. In the spring, summer and fall of 1979, she had severe water problems. Ms. Burger believes the elevation of Lot number 6 would cause further water damage to her property, and that a septic tank on Lot number 6 would add more sewage problems to the area A witness for Petitioner, Alan Flandreau, who lives with his wife and three (3) children on lot number 13 adjoining Lot number 5 in the subdivision, has a septic tank that fills up in rainy weather and runs into the street, resulting in a stench and green slime. Flandreau has had his septic tank pumped out a number of times since 1968, when he bought his home. His lot is low, and water drains onto his property from other lots. A witness for Petitioner, Burl Crowe, owns Lot number 11 and lives on Lot number 12. Lot number 11 adjoins Lot number 6, and Lot number 12 borders on the property of Petitioner Burger. Crowe has lived on Lot number 12 for fourteen (14) years and on many occasions had water entering his garage and standing in his yard when it rains. He has seen Lot number 6 under water and water standing on the street in front of his house, A witness for the Respondents was Gerald Goulish, the professional engineer who prepared the site modification plan (Respondent's Exhibits 4 and 8). Goulish has studied the site together with Rule 10D-6 of the Florida Administrative Code (infra) and believes the plan to fill the location of the septic tank site will cause the soil to percolate and evaporate and the proposed elevation of Lot number 6 two (2) feet will cause the water to drain toward the street and not onto adjoining property. He suggested that the adjoining and adjacent property owners cooperate and construct common swales to eliminate the surface water problems. A second witness for the Respondents was Burt Fraser, a sanitary supervisor for the Pinellas County Health Department, who denied the first application for installation of a septic tank on Lot number 6 but notified Respondent Rutkowski that the lot could be modified. Thereafter, he wrote Rutkowski that a modification plan had been received which meets the minimum requirements of the Florida Administrative Code. Fraser stated that he will issue a permit for construction of a septic tank upon completion of the administrative hearing procedure unless directed not to issue such a permit. Fraser agreed that the conditions as described by Petitioner Burger and her witnesses are accurate, and that the subdivision has problems which will not be solved until sanitary sewers are installed, but he believes that he has no alternative except to issue a permit if an applicant meets the requirements of Rule 10D-6.25 Florida Administrative Code. He knows of no requirement to make a study of adjacent and adjoining properties, and Respondent Department has not made a study. There are seven (7) houses in the sixteen (16) lot subdivision. The area is low and subject to flooding because of soil texture. There is an undisputed drainage problem in the area which causes a septic tank problem to the residents. The addition of more houses and septic tanks will increase the already serious drainage conditions which are public health nuisances. The Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, submitted proposed findings of fact, memorandum of law and a proposed recommended order. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Respondent Rutkowski's application for a permit for the construction of a septic tank on Lot number 6 be denied without prejudice to the Respondent to reapply if there should be a change in circumstances. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of April 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED Barbara Dell McPherson, Esquire Department of HRS Post Office Box 5046 Clearwater, Florida 33518 William W. Gilkey, Esquire Richards Building 1253 Park Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 Mr. Alex Rutkowski 30 North Evergreen Clearwater, Florida
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent installed certain septic tank and drainfield systems without having the appropriate permits from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS or Department) and without having the appropriate inspections performed before completing and being paid for the work in question. It is alleged, as well, that the Respondent engaged in advertising and performing septic tank contracting services under the name "Stone's Septic Services" without applying for and receiving an appropriate certificate of authorization from the Department to provide such services under that name.
Findings Of Fact On December 10, 1991, the Respondent installed a drainfield and septic system for Pam Matheny. He was paid $490.00 for that job, which was to include the cost of obtaining the required permit before the installation of the system. The Respondent obtained no such permit, but proceeded to install the system, which is currently operating. The Respondent performed drain line repair of a septic system for Mrs. Noel at 10 Royal Pines Drive, Pace, Florida. That job was also done without the required permit. A similar job was performed at 4844 Orleans Street, Pace, Florida, for a Mrs. Adams. No inspection of the work by the Department was obtained by the Respondent and no permit was issued to or obtained by the Respondent for the work, as established by the testimony of witness, Darla Ard, of the Santa Rosa County Health Unit of the Department. Mr. William Sirmans testified. He is Ms. Ard's supervisor in the Escambia County Health Unit of the Department. All permit applications for the installation and/or repair of septic tank and drainfield sewage disposal systems are processed and issued, if appropriate, by his office. He corroborated the testimony of Ms. Ard and witness, Pam Matheny, to the effect that no permits were ever issued for the three jobs in question which were performed by the Respondent. He discussed these matters with the Respondent during the investigation process underlying this complaint and the Respondent conceded that he had performed the three jobs in question without the required permits. The required inspections, as delineated above, were not obtained either.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative services revoking the Respondent's septic tank contracting registration and authorization, as provided for in the above-cited legal authority. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1992, 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 18th day of December, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Rodney M. Johnson, Esq. Department of HRS District One P.O. Box 8420 Pensacola, Florida 32505-0420 Marcus E. Stone 11601 Chemstrand Road Pensacola, FL 32514
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and her husband jointly own a parcel of property in Ezell Beach, Taylor County, Florida, which lies contiguous to the Gulf of Mexico. On February 1, 1985, Petitioner made application to DER for a dredge and fill permit and water quality certification to construct a pile supported house with a mounded septic tank and drain field on her property. The 768 sq. ft. house was to be 32 ft. x 24 ft. and the mounded septic tank and drainfield would have covered a 2,250 sq. ft. area with approximately 300 cu. yds. of fill. For all practical purposes, Petitioner's property is covered entirely by salt marsh areas dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), sea daisy (Borrichia frutescens), and marsh elders (Iva frutescens). On November 25, 1985, DER issued its Intent to Deny the permit for both the house and the mounded septic tank system. After that date the house was constructed; the septic tank system was not. DER stipulated at hearing, based upon the particular facts of this case, that it no longer objected to the construction of the house. The proposed fill would permanently eliminate approximately 2,250 sq. ft. of tidal marsh within the landward extent of the Gulf of Mexico. This kind of salt marsh provides detritus for support of the aquatic based food chain and provides essential feeding and nursery grounds for fish and acuatic organisms. It is also important in maintaining water quality through the filtration uptake and transformation of pollutants from upland runoff, as a result of the assimilative capacity of the detrital microbial population and benthic micro-organisms, as well as the adsorptive and absorptive capacity of the soils. Elimination of the tidal marsh and its associated vegetation by filling would reduce the capability of the system to perform its vital functions and therefore the filling associated with the project could be expected to have a long-term detrimental impact on water quality and biological resources. The proposed filling would further result in water quality degradation by replacing the periodically inundated areas, which help maintain water quality in waters of the state, with uplands containing a septic tank with the potential for adding pollutants to waters of the state. Based on evidence provided by Petitioner, the proposed project does not provide reasonable assurances that turbidity, nutrient, dissolved oxygen, biological integrity, bacteriologioal quality and biochemical oxygen demand water quality standards will not be violated. To the contrary, the evidence presented by Respondent suggests that the immediate and long-term impact of the filling would result in violation of State Water Quality Standards. The placement of the fill and septic tank would result in turbidity and an overabundance of bacteria and nutrients. This overabundance would lead to depletion of the oxygen dissolved in the water and an increase in BOD, along with the production of algae or some other less desirable plant life than that ordinarily found in a fully functioning salt marsh. The filling would also adversely affect invertebrate and marine animals which negatively impacts the biological integrity of the marsh. Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest in accordance with Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. To the contrary, the evidence presented by Respondent suggests that the project will adversely affect certain of those criteria. Public health, safety and welfare would be negatively affected because septic tanks in wetlands become inundated and release improperly treated septage into the environment. Fish and wildlife are negatively affected by eliminating the habitant of juvenile fish, invertebrates and other creatures which are food chain constituents. Marine productivity will decrease to some degree since the filling will eliminate a productive area. The proposed project poses cumulative impact concerns. If others similarly situated to Petitioner also placed mounded septic tank systems in close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, the total negative environmental impact would be very extensive. The only evidence presented by Ms. Gibson regarding her entitlement to the fill placement necessary for septic tank installation was her testimony that other similar houses in similar areas have septic tanks. She specifically discussed a house built by a Mr. Rogers in Dekle Beach, Florida, which she stated had a similar septic tank system. However, no evidence was presented to show that in fact the Rogers project was similar to this project. In fact, DER presented evidence that Rogers may have installed a septic tank and fill, but in fact Rogers had no permit to do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order granting Sallie P. Gibson a permit for construction of a house and denying the dredge and fill permit for installation of a mounded tank and drainfield. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 27th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0818 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Sallie P. Gibsons Each of the following proposed findings of fact are 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(2); 2(4); 3(4); 4(5); 5(12); and 6(13). Proposed finding of fact 7 is rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation Proposed findings of fact 1-13 are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order in Findings of Fact 1-13. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Sallie P. Gibson 1003 North Washington Street Perry, Florida 32347 William Congdon, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301-82419 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E-6.022(1)(b)2, 64E-6.022(1)(d), and 64E-6.022(1)(p) by making repairs to an on-site sewage disposal system without a permit, and by missing required inspections of the system, as outlined in the citation issued by the Respondent Agency dated August 29, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Health and Duval County Health Department (Department) is an Agency of the State of Florida, charged with enforcing the statutory and regulatory provisions regarding septic tank and drain field installations and repairs, in Florida, in accordance with Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 64E-6. The Petitioner is the qualifying registered septic tank contractor for All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc. (All Florida). He holds registration number SR00011389. He has 15 years of experience in the field of septic tank system construction and repair. All repairs of on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (septic systems), are required to be performed under the supervision and control of a registered septic tank contractor. Mr. David Adeeb is president of United Properties of North Florida, Inc. He owned property (a residence) at 375 North Cahoon Road, in Duval County Florida. He was informed by his tenants at that residence that the septic tank and drain field were malfunctioning and needed to be repaired or replaced, sometime in April 2004. He therefore contacted All Florida, asking them to inspect the septic system at that residence and advise what repairs might be needed. He was advised by some representative of All Florida that the drain field needed to be replaced and was quoted a price of $2,000.00. All Florida requested that payment be made before the work was performed. Since Mr. Adeeb was out-of-town at the time he asked his tenant to temporarily pay All Florida for the cost of the repairs and/or installation, which they agreed to do. All Florida then issued a contract/proposal to United Properties on April 12, 2004. It was signed by a representative of All Florida, Michael Carver. Mr. Carver was an employee of All Florida. The contract/proposal indicated that a 360 square foot drain field would be installed at 375 Cahoon Road, for a price of $2,000.00, to be paid in cash. The contract/proposal was on All Florida letterhead and included a warranty. Mr. Adeeb was told by his tenant that the Petitioner, who is personally known to that tenant, was on the property while the work was being performed. No one applied for a permit to make any repairs to the septic system and the work was completed without a permit being obtained. Some five months later the system began leaking sewage from the new drain field. It had malfunctioned. Mr. Adeeb therefore again called All Florida to demand that they repair any malfunctions pursuant to the warranty. All Florida informed Mr. Adeeb that a new drain field with a mounded system and pump was needed. When Mr. Adeeb told a representative of All Florida that they had just replaced the drain field in April of that year, he was told that another $2,000.00 would be required to correct the drain field problem. Mr. Adeeb had just recently entered into a contract to sell the property at 375 Cahoon Road so, time being of the essence in closing the sale of the property, he felt he had no choice but to ask All Florida to go ahead with the repair work on the system which All Florida had been asked by him to repair five months previously in April of 2004. After the new system was installed Mr. Adeeb found that a permit had never been obtained for the first drain field work which he had requested from All Florida and that All Florida had done the work incorrectly. Mr. Adeeb objected to paying another $2,000.00 for the second repair job, performed in approximately September of 2004 and after much discussion with All Florida's representatives agreed to pay $1,000.00 dollars for the second stint of repair work. He made the payment and he received a warranty from All Florida for one year, good through September 22, 2005. The warranty was signed by Mr. Wayne Joyner, operations manager for All Florida. Mr. Joyner is also the qualifying registered septic tank contractor for AA Septic Tank Service, Inc., apparently a second corporation domiciled at the same facility and address as All Florida Septic Service, Inc. In May of 2005 Mr. Adeeb was again contacted by the now former tenant who had purchased the property from Mr. Adeeb. He was thus informed that the system had failed again and sewage was leaking onto the surface of the property from the drain field. Mr. Adeeb again contacted All Florida on May 23, 2005. A representative of All Florida informed him that he should fax a copy of the paid receipt and the warranty to them and that they would take care of the problem. On June 20, 2005, the home owner again contacted Mr. Adeeb and told him that no one from All Florida had repaired the drain field as yet. A faxed copy of the paid receipt and warranty was requested once again by All Florida. After numerous phone calls with representatives of All Florida, Mr. Adeeb was told that the problem was not due to All Florida's repair work and that Mr. Adeeb would need to get someone else to repair the system. The Petitioner, James L. Smith, the registered qualifying septic tank contractor for All Florida, testified that Michael Carver had performed the initial repair job in April of 2004 for Mr. Adeeb without the knowledge of the Petitioner or All Florida. He claims that Michael Carver never worked for All Florida. He introduced into evidence a letter purported to be from Michael Carver which was dated September 30, 2005, but signed on October 5, 2005. That letter states that Mr. Carver performed the first drain field repair job without the knowledge of All Florida and that he had created the receipt form which was apparently given to either the tenants at the residence in question, or to Mr. Adeeb, on All Florida letterhead without the knowledge of any officer, employee, or representative of All Florida. That letter, however, was not authenticated because Mr. Carver was not present at the hearing and could not be examined concerning it, or the details of Mr. Carver's involvement with the initial repair project. Moreover, the Petitioner was unable to explain how Mr. Carver would have known about the job at all if he had never worked for All Florida. This is because Mr. Adeeb established that in obtaining all of the repair work during 2004-2005 he had only contacted representatives of All Florida. He had never had contact with Mr. Carver. The Petitioner denied ever telling counsel for the Department in a telephone conversation that Michael Carver had worked for him during the week (i.e. All Florida) but that he let Mr. Carver do "side jobs" on his own on weekends. He claimed that Mr. Carver did the job in question in April of 2004 because the tenants knew him personally and arranged for him to do the work. The testimony of Mr. Adeeb and the Department's evidence in the form of its composite exhibit, is accepted as more credible than the self-serving testimony of the Petitioner, and it is found that All Florida and the Petitioner were responsible for the repair jobs at issue in this case because Mr. Adeeb contracted with All Florida for the work in question. Even if the initial job was performed by Mr. Carver, it is determined that he did so as employee or agent of All Florida and the Petitioner. Under the authority cited herein the Petitioner was responsible, as the qualifying, registered septic system contractor for All Florida, with performance and supervision of the work in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Respondent Department finding that the violations charged have been established and that a fine of $2,500.00 dollars be imposed for the violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Smith 8300 West Beaver Street Jacksonville, Florida 32220 Catherine R. Berry, Esquire Department of Health 515 West Sixth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206-4311 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 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 Sapp is the owner of Lot 24, Tara Farms Subdivision, located at Doctor's Inlet, Clay County, Florida. Sapp's request for septic tank permit was denied by HRS in its letter of November 28, 1978, for the following reasons: Soils of unsatisfactory quality beginning at ground level and con- tinuing to entire depth of soil log. Impervious soils as identified under the "Unified Soil Classification System" as inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays, inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. Percolation test rate exceeds fifteen (15) minutes per inch run-off. History of septic tank failures in this subdivision. In its letter, HRS contends that the foregoing reasons for denial constitute a failure to meet the requirements of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, standards for individual sewage disposal facilities. Understanding that the soil was unacceptable in its natural condition, Sapp employed a consulting engineer, Mr. H. C. Stone, to design a plan that would conform to state regulations. Mr. Stone recommended that a 40' X 70' X 3' compacted free-draining sand fill be employed to provide an adequate filter bed for the septic tank. Mr. Stone further recommended that the drain field consist of not less than 300 feet of drain pipe (perforated or open joint) installed in the middle of the fill area. Stone further recommended that the laundry facilities be discharged through a separate 225 gallon tank with a separate drain field consisting of 75 feet of drain tile and a 15' x 40' X 3' compacted free draining sand fill. The depth of the water table during the wettest season of the year from the surface is 20 inches. Installation of the sandfill to a depth of 3 feet would create soils of satisfactory quality and characteristics from the surface to the water table at the wettest season of the year and would eliminate objectionable impervious soils from the system. The percolation test rate for the natural soils exceeds 15 minutes per inch run-off, but the proposed drain field would have a percolation rate of only 1.2 minutes per inch. While evidence of septic tank systems failures in the same subdivision was introduced, none of the examples of failure occurred in systems with the same specifications as those proposed by Sapp for use on his property. Of the three examples given, all contained a significantly lesser depth of free- draining sand fill.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should have an administrative fine imposed for allegedly providing septic tank contracting services without a license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: When the events herein occurred, Respondent, Herman Campbell, operated a back-hoe service in Santa Rosa County, Florida. He presently holds no licenses with, or registrations from, Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), to engage in the septic tank contracting business. In April 1997, Wayne Sullivan, who resides in Navarre, Florida, made arrangements with a local contractor, Robert Hoover, to dig up the drainfield and replace the pipe on a septic tank system at his mother-in-law's home at 8207 Laredo Street, Navarre. Hoover purchased the necessary pipe but then backed out of the job at the last minute. Sullivan then called Mary Esther Plumbing, who recommended that Respondent be used. Respondent was a former licensed septic tank contractor who had installed the original septic tank at the residence more than ten years earlier. Sullivan agreed to purchase all materials (pipe and gravel) needed for the job. Although Sullivan claims that Respondent told him he was licensed to do the work, it is found that Respondent indicated to Sullivan that he held no license or registration and could not obtain any permits. Notwithstanding Respondent's lack of licensure, Sullivan nonetheless asked Respondent to perform the work. Respondent undertook the job on or about Thursday, April 24, 1997. Charging a rate of $45.00 per hour to operate his back-hoe, Respondent replaced the pipe in the drainfield. In addition, he dug up a number of stumps in the front yard. The total charge for all work, including the stump removals, was $1,375.00, which was paid by check from the mother-in-law. The amount related to the septic tank work is not known. The following Monday, the Department received an anonymous complaint that an unlicensed person had performed septic tank contracting services for Sullivan's mother-in-law. After an investigation was conducted by a Department environmental specialist, an administrative complaint was issued. Respondent did not register with the Department before performing the work, and he did not obtain the required permit from, and inspection by, the Department. By failing to do so, Respondent acted in contravention of Department rules. Although the complaint alleges that Respondent caused monetary harm to the customer, there is no evidence that Sullivan's mother-in-law suffered any damages by virtue of Respondent's work. Indeed, at hearing, Sullivan indicated that he was pleased with Respondent's workmanship. While the Department suggests that the mother-in-law has been left with an "unauthorized drainfield," there is no evidence that this caused her to incur additional expense. Respondent contended that he was merely "digging a ditch" with his back-hoe and was not providing septic tank contracting services. However, the evidence shows that he dug the ditch, removed the old pipe, placed gravel in the bed, and laid the new pipe into the ditch, all of which relate to septic tank contracting services. While Sullivan may have assisted Respondent in performing these tasks, it does not relieve Respondent of the responsibility of complying with Department rules. Respondent also contended that he was being singled out for enforcement purposes because he is black. There was no evidence, however, to support this contention. In mitigation, Respondent believed he was working with Sullivan, as the owner of the property, in jointly performing the work, and there was no intent on his part to evade the licensing requirements. In addition, there was no danger to the public, and the customer's property was not damaged. Although the Department contends that Respondent has installed many septic tanks and drain fields "without a permit," there is no evidence in the record of specific jobs performed illegally by Respondent. Finally, the $2,000.00 administrative fine suggested by the Department would appear to have an adverse impact on Respondent's livelihood.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rules 64E-6.022(1)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, and that Respondent be issued a letter of warning as to the first violation and that an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00 be imposed for the second violation. The allegation that Respondent violated a third rule should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 Herman Campbell 621 Oak Lane Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Willie Harmon Post Office Box 733 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Pete Peterson, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner may be granted a variance from Rule 64E-6.001(4), Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 381.0065(4)(h)1., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Tony and Alma Moreno are owners of the building and premises located at 8250 Scenic Highway, Pensacola. They own the real property at that location all the way to road frontage right-of-way at Scenic Highway. The building had been in continuous existence in the same location for twenty or more years before Petitioner became connected with it. During that period of time, except for short hiatuses, either the Morenos or their lessees operated it as a licensed bar, most often under the name, "The Lighthouse Tavern." Sewage lines exist in the right-of-way at Scenic Highway, within 400 feet of the premises. The tavern is equipped with a septic tank. There has never been any history of septic problems on the tavern premises. The Lighthouse Tavern has always been a neighborhood bar of limited success. Martin MacAndrews has been putting amusement games in the tavern since 1978. He testified that during those twenty-two years, the average number of patrons has been eight to 14. Jim McDaniel has sold paper products to successive lessees since the 1970's. He has seen an average of 10 patrons during the day and up to 20 patrons at night. Charles Barcia, a more recent patron, has observed a maximum of nine patrons in the tavern. Denise Powell (nee´ Williams) leased the premises from August 7, 1998, until approximately September 28, 1998, during which time she operated the Lighthouse Tavern. She had approximately ten customers per day, used plastic barware, and had no septic problems. During the month or so she operated the tavern, she did not have the septic tank pumped. Ms. Powell's lease with the Morenos was not due to expire until July 31, 1999. However, on or about September 28, 1998, Hurricane Georges damaged the Lighthouse Tavern and wreaked destruction on Pensacola and much of the Florida Panhandle. The area was declared both a state and federal "disaster area." Ms. Powell immediately notified the Morenos, and they cancelled the lease by mutual agreement, because the premises were uninhabitable due to substantial water damage. Ms. Powell testified that but for Hurricane Georges, she would have continuously operated the Lighthouse Tavern under the terms of her lease from the Morenos. As it was, she abandoned the lease and the property. The Morenos made no repairs to the building. No commercial activity, as a tavern or otherwise, occurred on the subject property from September 28, 1998, through May 1, 2000, approximately a year-and-a-half. City water service to the property was terminated from October 12, 1998 until April 7, 2000. On April 5, 2000, Petitioner, a widowed mother, applied to Escambia County for an occupational license to run a tavern at that location. On or about April 7, 2000, Petitioner negotiated a new lease with the Morenos. It involved rate and terms favorable to Petitioner in exchange for her substantial investment (approximately $35,000, as of the date of hearing) in renovating the Lighthouse Tavern. Among other renovations to the property, Petitioner has replaced the tavern's back wall and outside deck, added two pool tables, coolers, two complete bathrooms, a three compartment sink, and a handwash sink. Very few of the fixtures, etc. are removable, let alone subject to resale. A five-year lease, Exhibit P-2, was executed on May 1, 2000. It limits Petitioner's use of the property to use as a tavern, so she cannot get her renovation money back by converting to another business. Paragraph 21 of the lease, purporting to be a lease/purchase option, has not been filled- out, so Petitioner's option to purchase the property is potentially unenforceable. Current Florida Administrative Code rules require septic tanks to have a minimum capacity of 1050 gallons, a filter, and a baffle. A baffle is a device to keep water and waste from going into the drainfields. On May 15, 2000, Ensley Septic Tank Service, operated by Agnes and Joe Nelson, pumped, inspected, and certified the existing septic tank as structurally sound. However, the existing septic tank is twenty years old and provides only 750 gallons. It is not baffled and does not have a filter. Its two drainfields are 75 feet and 69 feet, respectively, from the waterfront, whereas by Escambia County Ordinance, the current setback requirement is 100 feet. On May 25, 2000, the Department denied Petitioner a permit to utilize the existing septic tank, based on the contents of her application, which stated that the tavern occupancy would be 75 seats. Departmental analysis showed that 75 patrons would result in 1,000 gallons per day usage. The existing septic tank does not have that capacity. Before the execution of the lease, Petitioner made no inquiries of Respondent Agency. Likewise, no one told her before the execution of the lease that she would not be able to utilize the existing septic tank or use the premises for a tavern. Rather, Petitioner relied on her own interpretation of an Escambia County Ordinance providing additional time to meet County regulations for reopening a business (or nonconforming use) after closing the business due to Acts of God, and on the fact that Denise Powell's lease, by its terms, did not expire until July 31, 1999. When she was denied a permit to use the existing system, Petitioner applied for a variance for 75 patrons. Petitioner also filed a second application for variance and requested 24 patron occupancy. Petitioner went before the Department's Variance Review Board, which recommended granting the variance with the provisos offered by Petitioner. However, on July 18, 2000, the Department denied the requested variance, stating that the information provided by Petitioner failed to show that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage or that the discharge from the septic tank will not significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. The Department offered to permit the tavern to operate either with a connection to the existing sewer system or with a septic tank that meets the current requirements of the Florida Administrative Code. At hearing, Petitioner established that the tavern's water bills from 1996 to 1998 show a use of only 430 to 588 gallons of water per month. This amount reflects the low number of 10-20 patrons per day during that period of time (See Finding of Fact 4), but it also is only approximately three- quarters of the capacity of the existing septic tank. At hearing, Petitioner offered the following cumulative provisos to reduce water flow to the system: limit tavern hours to 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. (15 hours) daily; use plastic or paper cups; not serve food or mixed drinks; restrict beverages to beer and wine; and limit occupancy to 24 patrons. She offered to pump the existing septic tank more frequently and provide "port-a-potties," as needed. Petitioner anticipates using 24 seats inside, plus picnic tables on the deck. She offered to eliminate the outside seating. The deck constitutes one-quarter of the 900 square feet of the establishment. She will upgrade the septic system as her income from operating the tavern recoups her investment. She will close-up and terminate her lease if she cannot bring the premises "up to Code," that is, to meet the current Florida Administrative Code requirements for septic tanks and/or sewer connections, in one year's time. She has no objection to such provisos being attached to a variance, if one is granted. At hearing, certified septic tank engineers, Agnes Nelson and Joe Nelson, testified that the existing 750-gallon septic tank should handle 24 patrons and the water use would be further limited by using plastic or paper drink containers. In Mr. Nelson's opinion, since he found no salt water from the Bay or water table inversion in the tank when he inspected it, and since the drainfield slopes away from the building, the only way salt water would enter the existing septic tank is if it got above ground. Agnes Nelson conceded that high tide could fill the tank up. If, for any reason, the drainfields were not working, then the current septic tank would not work. However, because the building is between the beach and the drainfields; because, in her opinion, 24 patrons probably could not fit inside the building; and because there was so little solid waste in the tank when it was pumped, Ms. Nelson doubted that the tide and the drainfields would create a problem, even in ordinary rainy weather. Unfortunately, in rendering her opinion, Ms. Nelson did not consider the seating capacity of the tavern's deck or the effect on the surface waters of Escambia Bay of operating the tavern with the existing system. As of the date of hearing, the Morenos were in agreement with all of Petitioner's efforts to obtain a variance. They also will allow her to bring the premises "up to Code," if she can. The Department's current opposition to granting a variance with the provisos offered by Petitioner is based in part on immaterial disputes between the parties over who signed the original application for variance and who filled in the number of seats as 75. The Department also is mistrustful of Petitioner because her second variance application stated the building constituted 1,200 square feet. Because the Department and Petitioner now agree that the premises comprise 900 square feet, the error in the second application is also irrelevant. The Department's current opposition to granting the variance with the foregoing provisos volunteered by Petitioner is at least in part due to the on-site audit, wherein Departmental staff determined that the premises, including the outside deck, actually could accommodate 60-75 living, but not necessarily seated, patrons. The Department sees this as an impediment to occupancy being limited to 24 patrons, in practice. Human nature is such that if a bar has a large, outside deck in a tropical climate, it will probably have more patrons then those sitting in the 24 "seats" provided. While this concern might be speculative in other realms, in dealing with possible contaminants to groundwater or to the surface waters of Escambia Bay, it is a legitimate, if uncodified, concern. Joseph Scott Hale, Environmental Health Supervisor I, made the following suggestions which do not require a variance. Petitioner could connect her premises to the existing sewer at the 75-person occupancy limit; or could install a septic tank or tanks and drainfield(s) in accordance with Departmental rules for a 47-person occupancy limit; or could install a much more modest tank and drainfield system for a 24-person occupancy limit. Petitioner has received written bids to accomplish such alternatives in the following ranges. (1) Installation of the necessary plumbing and pumps to connect to an accessible sewer line is available at a cost of $27,628 to $28,450, although these costs could be inflated to more than $40,000 by adding a grinder station and by charges from CSX railroad for access across its right-of-way to the existing sewer lines; and (2) Installation of one or more septic tanks and drainfield systems in accordance with current rules and in a size for an occupancy capacity of 47 is available for a price ranging from $28,032 to $29,465. Neither of these options is currently feasible for Petitioner, because she has spent her savings on the completed renovations and has only $1,000 +/-, on deposit at this time. She has no current income. Without a contract to purchase the tavern property, she does not believe she can obtain financing. She is not eligible for an upgrade grant from the State because the tavern is commercial property. Petitioner feels that it would be necessary for her to run the tavern at a profit for a year at a minimum capacity of 24 seats in order to be able to pay for either of the foregoing possibilities. She cannot get an alcoholic beverage license without the variance. Petitioner is satisfied that if she cannot make a go of the tavern within one year, she can rescind the lease. The Morenos were silent on this issue. It is not necessary to interpret the lease on this score in order to resolve this case. Respondent construes part of Mr. and Mrs. Nelson's testimony as providing a third, cost-effective, and reasonable alternative for Petitioner in the form of a septic tank and drainfield which could be installed according to current Code with an occupancy capacity of 24 patrons at an approximate cost of $3,600 to $4,000. This oral estimate was testified to by Mrs. Nelson, who, although a certified septic tank inspector, does not actually do installing of septic tanks. She conceded that dollar figure was purely a guess and based on one elevated tank of 1050 gallons with a baffle. Mr. Nelson, who does the actual installing, estimated that more than one tank, a mount system, and a pump or two might be necessary, at additional cost. His thinking is in line with the components of the other written estimates Petitioner has received. Accordingly, it is found that the estimate that Ensley Septic Tank Service can bring the existing system up to Code at a cost of $3,600 to $4,000 to Petitioner is speculative and not a reasonable alternative. As is common, expert opinions were mixed on the danger, if any, to the groundwater and surface waters which would be occasioned by Petitioner operating the tavern under her foregoing proposed provisos without upgrading the current septic system. Petitioner's expert in civil engineering and degradation of groundwater did soil borings on the premises and hit no groundwater at 15 inches, even after two weeks of significant rain. However, his experience with soil analysis from "mottling" was limited, and accordingly, his opinion that water in the ground will never or rarely rise above 15 inches, so as to endanger groundwater or surface waters was not persuasive. Instead, I accept the greater weight of the evidence as a whole in order to make the following findings of fact. The top of the drainfields are located 12 to 22 inches below grade and occupy a one foot area, 24-34 inches below grade. The seasonal high water table is 15 inches below grade. The drainfields operate within the groundwater table. Current rules require drainfields to have a separation from the bottom of the drainfield to the top of the seasonal high water table so as to provide space for aerobic biological action. When a drainfield operates within the water table, no opportunity exists for aerobic biological action. Anaerobic biological action is not effective in killing viruses and other pathogens. Viruses can travel in soil from a drainfield to surface water at a rate of 100 feet in eight hours. Mr. Hale, (see Finding of Fact 30), who was accepted as an expert in groundwater table determination, has an impressive list of credentials, and among other qualifications, is State-certified in OSTDSs. He has personally witnessed water rising to the level of the leechfield in this location. Mr. Hale also took borings, but not in the leechfield. Even though standing water was not found until 32 inches below grade, the soil was saturated at 15 inches, which is the seasonal high water table and mean high water mark of Escambia Bay at Petitioner's waterfront. The usual groundwater high water table in this location is 24 inches below natural grade, and the temporary water table rises and falls, as affected by Escambia Bay tides and by rainfall. Another concern is that the leechfields average only 15 inches below grade, and soil "capillary action" or water "wicking" through the soil can result in contamination of the groundwater if they become saturated. The close proximity of the property to Escambia Bay presents the potential for pollution of surface waters. Mr. Hale reported that the tavern location is not subject to frequent flooding. However, it can, and probably will, flood, as before, during a hurricane. Mr. Hale testified further that but for the length of the cessation of business as a result of the hurricane (more than one year), the tavern could have continued to operate with eight seats and no danger to the groundwater. In his opinion, the existing system, unaltered, can handle waste disposal for only eight patrons. A 47-seat occupancy is the maximum allowable for a 1,000 gallon flow. Even though 24 seats would not be expected to exceed 1,000 gallons a day, 24 seats would not be accommodated by the existing system's 750 gallon tank, drainfields, leechfields, and insufficient set back footage. Mr. Hale reluctantly conceded that 22 seats might be "feasible," with all proposed provisos in place, plus the substitution of low flow toilets, but that solution would not be his best recommendation nor acceptable to the Department. According to Dr. Malcomb Shields, who was accepted as an expert microbiologist in the field of migration of pollutants from drainfields to surface waters, Escambia Bay is already above its threshold in dangerous nutrients. Dr. Shields further opined, with impressive scientific detail, that narrowing the zone in the drainfield, as on the Lighthouse Tavern property, makes the drainfields susceptible to more pathogens. In his opinion, the offered provisos would have absolutely no effect on the existing septic tank and system efficiency except to limit water and waste into the septic tank itself. Dr. Shields conceded that a variance granted upon the terms requested would not, by itself, cause significant degradation of water quality. However, he felt that perpetual use of the variance, even with the foregoing provisos, would, combined with all other factors present, contribute to surface water degradation, which is the test under the rule. Dr. Shields did not feel that a variance absolutely limited to one year's duration would have the same effect.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health enter a final order which: Permits Petitioner to operate her tavern either with a connection to the existing sewer system or with installation of a septic tank and drainfield system in accordance with the current Florida Administrative Code rules for an occupancy capacity of 24 patrons; and alternatively Grants Petitioner a 12-month variance to utilize the existing tank and drainfield system upon the following terms: Petitioner shall obtain and maintain an annual OSTDS operating permit allowing inspection at will by the Department; Petitioner shall maintain an annual contract with a licensed septic tank contractor to inspect and service the existing OSTDS at least once per month, or more frequently as necessary; Upon notification by the septic tank contractor of any problem with the OSTDS, Petitioner shall provide port-a- potties sufficient for 22 patrons; During the 12 months the variance is in place, Petitioner shall provide a port-a-potty on any occasion of rain over eight hours' duration. Petitioner shall not open for business until low- flow toilets are substituted; Petitioner shall operate the premises as a tavern for no more than 12 months, during which 12 months Petitioner shall take all necessary steps to bring the system up to Code or to connect to the sewer line; During the 12 months the variance is in place, Petitioner shall limit hours of operation to 15 hours daily; eliminate all deck seating; provide no more than 22 seats inside; use only paper or plastic ware; serve no food or mixed drinks; and actively limit occupancy to 22 patrons at any one time; and At the end of the 12 months, the system shall be in compliance or the tavern shall be closed and remain closed until compliance is achieved. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 12th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven E. Melei, Esquire 3603 Mobile Highway Pensacola, Florida 32505 Rodney Johnson, Esquire Department of Health 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 Theodore M. Henderson, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should fine the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., for maintaining a sanitary nuisance.2/
Findings Of Fact In 1990,6/ the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., purchased property at 8402 Lemon Road, Port Richey, Florida, for purposes of relocating his on-going food distributing business. The prior owner operated a carpet business, with approximately five employees, at the location. The Respondent had about 45-50 employees. Shortly after the Respondent started doing business at the new location, he began to have problems with the existing septic tank system. The problem seemed to relate to the increased use of the toilets in the building by the added number of the Respondent's employees. In September, 1990, an HRS environmental health specialist inspected the premises and observed evidence of raw sewage bubbling to the surface from the septic system's drain field and flowing into a stormwater retention pond on the property.7/ The Respondent was directed to abate the nuisance, and a discussion of the Respondent's alternatives ensued. The Respondent rejected the first proposed alternative of connecting to a central public sewer. The nearest connection was over 1000 feet away and would entail significant cost to the Respondent. (The cost would have been even higher if gravity flow was not possible, and it became necessary to pump to the connection point.) The Respondent chose, with HRS' permission, the next alternative of trying to solve the problem by installing a second septic tank system on the property. The second septic tank system for which the Respondent applied, and which he had built, was designed for domestic use by 15 employees. In addition, after installation of the second septic tank system, the Respondent began processing a relish pack and a salad mix on the premises. The processing method for these products required the use of a great deal of water. On or about February 7, 1991, another HRS environmental health specialist inspected the premises and again found evidence of raw sewage bubbling to the surface, this time from the new septic system's drain field, and flowing into the stormwater retention pond. The amount of water flowing into the drainfields, from a combination of the use of the toilets in the building, together with the new processing operations taking place in the building, had overtaxed the double septic tank system, and the system failed. Given the quantities of water needed to process the new products, the Respondent should have anticipated, and probably was aware of, the system failure. The Respondent was directed to fix the problem within a week or stop the processing the new products on the premises. The Respondent tried several water conservation methods in an attempt to address the problem without having to either stop processing the new products or incur the cost of connecting to the central public sewer system. He knew, or should have known, that his efforts were futile, given the quantities of water needed to process the relish pack and salad mix. HRS also referred the matter to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. DER inspected on or about February 18, 1991, and told the Respondent that he could not dispose of the industrial waste from the operation of his business in the on-premises septic system without an industrial waste disposal permit. In connection with this, DER apparently advised the Respondent that he would be required to test the water in the stormwater retention pond for certain contaminants. The Respondent was unable to understand what he needed to test for, and how, and sought assistance from DER and HRS. Although there is evidence that HRS tried to help the Respondent by referring him to certain individuals employed by the DER for answers, the Respondent did not follow HRS' guidance. In any case, the efforts would have been futile, as the Respondent did not have enough property to dispose of the industrial wastes from the operation of his business on-site using a septic tank system. On or about June 19, 1991, a neighbor complained to the Respondent about the smell of raw sewage coming from the Respondent's septic system. The Respondent did not receive his neighbor's observations kindly. The neighbor complained to HRS and the Pasco County Sheriff's office. An HRS inspection on June 20, 1991, confirmed the existence of a sanitary nuisance on the premises. Again, raw sewage was bubbling to the surface from the new septic system's drain field and was flowing into the stormwater retention pond. HRS arranged for another meeting with the Respondent on June 27, 1991. At the June 27, 1991, meeting, HRS required that the Respondent stop processing the relish pack and the salad mix until he could hook up to the central public sewer. It was felt that the septic tank systems might be adequate pending connection to the central public sewer if the quantities of water required for processing those products on the premises were eliminated and if other preventive measures were taken. From June 27, 1991, forward to the date of the hearing, the Respondent purchased relish pack and salad mix from other suppliers rather than process them on the premises at 8402 Lemon Road. In addition, the Respondent continued to attempt to conserve water, had the septic tanks pumped out as frequently as required (sometimes practically daily), and had his employees utilize portable toilets in an attempt to avoid additional septic tank failures. After learning that excessive water use at the premises was partially a result of plumbing leaks, the Respondent also had the plumbing fixed. The Respondent also immediately initiated the long process of connecting to the central public sewer. He had a meeting with the assistant county administrator for utilities service for Pasco County on July 3, 1991. They discussed alternatives for connecting the Respondent's business. Initially, the County wanted the Respondent to pay to run a sewer line over 1000 feet to the south of his property to enable the County to efficiently connect other businesses and property owners in that area. But this option would have been costly to the Respondent, and there was no guarantee that gravity flow was possible between the Respondent's property and the connection point. If not, the Respondent also would have to pay the cost of pumping to the connection point. The Respondent hired an engineer to design an alternative that would be less costly. He also sought the cooperation of his neighbors, who would be required to connect to central sewer when the Respondent did. The engineer also worked with those neighbors in designing an alternate connection. On or about September 9, 1991, another meeting was held among the Respondent and his engineer and the county's utilites construction team. As a result of this meeting, the County agreed to modify the connection route in accordance with the Respondent's proposal. The Respondent's engineer continued his work on the design of the connection. HRS inspections on or about September 11 and 25, 1991, revealed that the Respondent's septic system was failing again and that raw sewage again was bubbling to the surface from the new septic system's drain field and flowing into the stormwater retention pond. HRS arranged to meet with the Respondent again on October 4, 1991, along with a Pasco County deputy sheriff and a DER industrial wastewater compliance inspector. At this meeting, the Respondent felt that the deputy sheriff was threatening to arrest him for violation of the law, and he angrily terminated the meeting and asked all of them to leave the premises. In December, 1991, the Respondent arranged a meeting with the County and his neighbors to discuss sharing the cost of the connection route the Respondent was proposing to build. The neighbors, realizing the Respondent's weak bargaining position, refused to share the Respondent's costs. At this point, the County conceded to pay the approximate $9,000 to jack and bore under the road, but the Respondent was required to pay to run a sewer line approximately 300 feet to the south and to construct a manhole on his neighbors' side of the road, as well as on his side of the road. (The second manhole would be used by the neighbors to connect their properties to the line the Respondent was building when the County required them to connect.) The total cost to the Respondent for his part of the construction of the connection to the public sewer will be approximately $24,000. On January 17, 1992, the Respondent paid a $3,428 impact fee for connecting to the central public sewer, based on projected water use. On January 23, 1992, the Respondent applied for a force main interconnect permit. At the time of the final hearing, the jack and bore and the construction of the new sewer line connecting the Respondent's property to the central sewer were about to begin. The evidence indicates that, once HRS made it clear to the Respondent on or about June 27, 1991, that connection to the central public sewer was the Respondent's only remaining option, the Respondent moved with reasonable dispatch. The time it took to arrange to be connected to the public sewer was within normal ranges, and there is no evidence that the Respondent did anything to cause unnecessary delays. (Delays, if any, were caused by the need for the Respondent's engineer to work with and get cooperation from the Respondent's neighbors, who were not as anxious as the Respondent to have the new sewer line built.) There also is no evidence that the Respondent processed relish pack or salad mix on the premises after June 27, 1991. In addition, the Respondent continued to attempt to conserve water, had the septic tanks pumped out frequently (sometimes practically daily), and had his employees utilize portable toilets in an attempt to avoid additional septic tank failures. The evidence also indicates that, after June 27, 1991, all concerned were hopeful that the measures the Respondent was taking would prevent, or at least minimize, septic system failures pending connection to the public sewer. After June 27, 1991, HRS presented direct evidence of septic tank system failures only on two occasions in September, 1991. The evidence is that, after becoming aware of the system failures in September, 1991, HRS sought the imposition of a fine against the Respondent. The evidence suggests two other important motivating reasons for HRS' action: first, not being aware of the actions the Respondent took between June 27 and September, 1991, to connect to the central sewer, HRS mistakenly believed that the Respondent was ignoring its instructions; and, second, HRS mistook the Respondent's angry outburst at the meeting at the Respondent's place of business in September, 1991, when he felt he was being threatened with arrest for violation of the law, as being evidence that the Respondent was not genuine in his apparent concern and efforts to respond to HRS' guidance and instruction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) enter a final order fining the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., in the amount of $5,000. RECOMMENDED this 29 day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 day of April, 1992.
