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.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, James A. Tipton ("Tipton"), has been a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 0018147, which expires on January 31, 1987. Tipton employed the services of Robert Corno as a field man for taking samples to establish soil profiles, site characteristics and existing water tables for septic tank applications prepared and filed by Tipton. Corno had actual authority from Tipton to conduct tests, site examinations and evaluations and to submit his findings to Tipton. Sometime before April 8, 1985, Tipton was retained to perform professional engineering services in connection with the preparation and filing of an application for a septic tank on lot 168, block 3, Charlotte Ranchettes Subdivision in Charlotte County ("lot 168"), owned by Joseph Duseo. Tipton sent Corno to lot 168 on April 13, 1985, to examine and evaluate the site, take soil samples and make other observations that would have to be reported to Tipton in connection with Tipton's work. Corno completed his work and reported to Tipton. Corno did not bring Tipton the actual soil samples. On April 8, 1985, Duseo's general contractor told Corno about a well on lot 168. When Corno visited the site, he observed the well. The well is an artesian well, about 3 feet high and six inches in diameter. The well is an irrigation-type well and is non-potable. The well was within fifty feet of the drain field of the septic system Tipton proposed for lot 168. The well also is approximately 5 to 10 feet from the north property line. Corno knew at the time of his visit to the site that the well was not plugged. However, Corno understood that Duseo was in the process of arranging with the Southwest Florida Water Management District to have the well plugged. Corno did not tell Tipton about the well before Tipton prepared and filed the application for the proposed septic tank. Therefore, Tipton did not know there was a well on lot 168 when he was preparing the application for the septic tank permit. Tipton did not ask Corno any questions calculated to reveal whether there was a well on lot 168. Corno held the belief that non-potable wells, especially those that were to be plugged, did not have to be shown on septic tank permit applications. There was evidence about a survey of lot 168 certified by a land surveyor employed by a firm of professional engineers which did not show any well on lot 168. However, Tipton did not have access to the survey before he prepared the septic tank permit application on lot 168. (The survey bears two dates, April 17 and April 18, and was not signed until April 25, 1985.) On or about April 15, 1985, Tipton signed and certified the septic tank permit application for lot 168. The application was filed at the Charlotte County Public Health Unit (Health Department) on April 16, 1985. The application indicates "none" in the space provided to indicate the "location of wells within 75 feet of property lines." The well on lot 168 is an important consideration which should have been depicted on the application. Septic tank drain fields could pollute a well. Even if Tipton had known that the well was supposed to be plugged, it was not plugged until July 1985. Failure to show the well was a serious omission. Tipton was negligent for relying on Corno without having an understanding whether Corno would report to him the existence of non-potable wells within 50 feet of the drain field of a septic system or within 75 feet of a property line if the well was likely to be plugged. If he had used due care, Tipton would have either made explicit inquiry of Corno sufficient to reveal the existence of the well or ascertained from Corno in advance that he would report to Tipton the existence of any well within 50 feet of the drain field of a proposed septic system or within 75 feet of property lines. Having failed to exercise due care, Tipton did not realize that Corno would not be reporting to him the existence of a non-potable well which was supposed to be plugged in the future. A few days after he filed the application, Tipton learned about the well on lot 168. But at about the same time, Duseo and his contractor began discussing construction alternatives that would change the septic system and require a new septic tank application. Therefore, Tipton did not immediately amend the April 15 application to show the well. In mid-May, Tipton filed a new application for the different septic system. The new application, not in issue in this case, showed the well. The application also contained a soil profile which probably is not accurate. However, Tipton's soil profile simply reflects the information reported to him by Corno. While Tipton's soil profile does not correspond with soil profiles from other test holes dug in the area of the proposed drain field by the Health Department and an expert witness, the information Corno reported to Tipton was well within the realm of possibilities for soil in the area of lot 168. Corno generally seemed to be a qualified and experienced field man who used proper tools to do his job. There was nothing suspicious about Corno's information, and there was no reason for Tipton to suspect that it was false or fraudulent. While it is the better practice for a professional engineer to require his field man to deliver the actual soil sample to support a soil profile report, this is not required of professional engineers if there is no reason to suspect that a field man's soil profile report is false or fraudulent. On the application, Tipton estimated the high water table on lot 168 at 2.2 feet below existing grade. While other expert witnesses estimated a higher high water table, the evidence did not prove that Tipton was negligent in his estimate. Some of the conflicting estimates were Health Department estimates which, the evidence indicates, tend to be high to be on the safe side. Others were estimates on permit applications which may have been influenced by the Health Department's desires and which may not reflect the engineers' actual estimates. Of all the estimates, only Tipton's was supported by testimony how the estimate was derived. (Tipton used what he called Darcy's Law.) Finally, Petitioner's own expert witness testified that Tipton's high water table estimate could not be called negligent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order holding Respondent, James A. Tipton, guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering under Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint (but dismissing Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint) and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00). RECOMMENDED this 19th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Sarah Logan Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John Charles Heekin, Esq. C-1 Ocean Plaza 21202 Ocean Blvd. Port Charlotte, FL 33952 APPENDIX The following are specific rulings on all the parties' proposed Findings of Fact as required by Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 3, 9, 10, 13 through 16, 19, 21 and 22 are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 4 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the last sentence is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 5 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the third sentence is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 17, 18 and 27 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that they are unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 26 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that whether Alligator Creek is a "significant" drainage feature would depend on the definition of "significant" which was not established by the evidence. In addition, Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 26 is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 6 through 8 are rejected as conclusions of law and because the last sentence of Proposed Finding Of Fact 6 is cumulative. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 11 is rejected because the first sentence is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact and the second sentence is, subordinate to Findings Of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 12, 20, 23 and 24 are rejected as subordinate to Findings Of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 25 is rejected because the first sentence is subordinate to Findings Of Fact and the second sentence is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact 1 through 3, 5 and 12 are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 4 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the second sentence is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 8 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 9 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is in part unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 11 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact that there is "no way" for an engineer to avoid relying on a field man's error such as Corno's error in omitting to report the existence of the well. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 14 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 6 is rejected because it is subordinate to Findings Of Fact and is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 7 is rejected because it is simply a recitation of conflicting evidence, some of which is accepted but some of which is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, it was found that Corno did not tell Tipton about the well and that Tipton did not have the survey in his possession at the time the application was filed. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 10 is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, the evidence supported a finding of negligence on the part of Tipton for failure to utilize due care and to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles whether or not practicing in Charlotte County. In addition, Mr. Murray's expert testimony must be disregarded because it was given upon a hypothetical assumption that an engineer had possession of a sealed survey showing no improvements on the property as the time of the application, a fact not proved by the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 13 is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, personnel in the Health Department, part of the "general public," were misled. (The general public also reasonably could have been led to a fallacious conclusion, but there was no "misconduct" on Tipton's part. See Conclusions of Law.) ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 85-2684 DPR CASE NO.0058289 JAMES A. TIPTON, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of creating, keeping, or maintaining a nuisance injurious to health in violation of Section 386.041(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Citation for Violation, dated August 19, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health, the successor agency to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and correcting sanitary nuisances in this state. The Respondent, Hyacinth D. Wynter, now known as Hyacinth D. Wallace, has owned a private residence and kennels located at 2323 Tuscawilla Road, Winter Springs, Florida, from 1996 to the present. On or about June 19, 1996, the Seminole County Public Health Unit received a complaint of a possible sanitary nuisance existing on the Respondent’s property. On June 21, 1996, an inspection of Respondent’s property revealed that the property contained a large home with a septic tank and drain field in the front yard and another in the back yard. A kennel for small animals and an apartment was also located in the rear of the property. The septic tank and drain field in the rear of the property was located in a low spot which was subject to the accumulation of surface water runoff from the kennel and during periods of above-average rainfall. Observation revealed standing water in the back yard. The water showed discoloration and had a pungent odor. However, no solid waste was visible. Subsequent tests for sewage contamination was inconclusive. This observation indicated the drain field had failed. Respondent was given a Sanitary Nuisance form letter which recommended that the septic tank be pumped, the ground disinfected and the drainfield be repaired within ten days. Respondent contacted two septic tank companies in late June and received estimates on pumping the septic tank and on the repair and improvement of the septic system. Respondent retained one of the companies to pump the septic tank. The septic tank company was unable to complete the job prior to Petitioner’s reinspection on July 2, 1997, because of above normal rainfall and the inability to get its truck into the Respondent’s back yard. Petitioner reinspected Respondent’s property on July 2, 1997 and observed the same conditions as was observed on June 21, 1997. A three day extension was granted to Respondent, in order for the tank to be pumped. On July 3, 1997, Orlando Septic Tank Service, Inc. pumped the septic tank and disinfected the area. It also advised Respondent that the drainfield had failed and would need to be replaced. On July 8, 1997, Respondent inspected the area again and observed the same conditions as on the prior inspections. An Official Notice to Abate a Sanitary Nuisance and a Notice of Intended Action was issued by Respondent on July 11, 1997. It was served on Respondent, by posting and by certified mail, on July 12, 1997. Respondent was directed to abate the nuisance within 7 days of the notice or an administrative fine would be imposed. Respondent began to disinfect the area with lime on a daily basis, until the drainfield was repaired. The low area with the standing water was bordered off with visible construction type ribbon and visitors coming to the premises were advised to stay clear of the area. Respondent authorized Orlando Septic Tank Service to submit a permit application to replace the drainfield in accordance with the specifications approved by the Petitioner. The application was submitted on July 17, 1996. The permit was issued on July 24, 1996. On July 25, 1997, Respondent received a proposal from Orlando Septic Service to install an elevated drainfield on the site for the sum of $4,288.50. Respondent was not able to financially afford to authorize this work without obtaining financing for the project. When financing was obtained, Respondent accepted the proposal and then authorized the work on August 8, 1996. Due to other obligations, Orlando Septic was not able to give a proposed starting date for the project until August 26, 1996. On August 13, 1996, Petitioner inspected the Respondent’s property again and observed the same conditions as on previous inspections. Petitioner was informed of the projected starting date for repair of the drainfield, however, a Citation for Violation was issued on August 16, 1996 calling for corrective actions to abate the condition by 4:00 p.m. August 19, 1996. On August 27, 1996, the septic tank was pumped again. Orlando Septic Service was scheduled to begin work on the repair of the drainfield on August 26, 1996. On that same date, the company called Respondent and informed her that they were delayed on another job and could not begin repair of Respondent’s drainfield until sometime in September. Respondent immediately called another company and gave them the contract. The repair was completed on September 10, 1996. The evidence was insufficient to establish that a sanitary nuisance existed on Respondent’s property on August 16, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: The Respondent, Hyacinth D. Wynter, be found not guilty of violations Sections 386.041(b), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Intended Action be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonia Nieves Burton, Esquire Department of Health 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael D. Jones, Esquire Atrium II Building 301 West State Road 434, Suite 317 Winter Springs, Florida 32708 Catherine H. Berry Legal Office Duval County Health Department 515 West 6th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206-4397 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children & Families Building 2 Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, Esquire 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f), Florida Administrative Code, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the ground that these three rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, in violation of section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for septic tank contractor registration in July 1996. On September 6, 1996, the Respondent issued its intent to deny his application on the grounds that he failed to meet the required qualifications listed in Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(d) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if a previous registration issued by the Respondent has been revoked within the last 5 years. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if he has a disciplinary case pending with the Respondent involving septic tank contracting. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if he has been convicted of a crime in any jurisdiction which is directly related to the practice of contracting. Petitioner filed a request for a hearing, in which he alleged Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that these rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, in violation of section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) formally took effect on January 3, 1995. There is no material failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, in the promulgation of these rules. 9. Sections 154.06, 381.0011, 381.006, 381.0065, 489.553, and 489.557, Florida Statutes, grant the Respondent specific authority to adopt rules implementing the statutes. Petitioner does not dispute the Respondent’s rulemaking authority. Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) implement sections 154.01, 381.001, 381.0011, 381.0012, 381.0025, 381.006, 381.0061, 381.0065, 381.00655, 381.0066, 381.0067, Part I of Chapter 386, and Part III of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Part III of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), is the chapter governing septic tank contractor registration. Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, are the rules pertaining to Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, which include septic tank systems. A person who becomes a registered septic tank contractor has the authority to install, maintain, repair, and perform site evaluations for repairs of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. There are an estimated 1.4 million septic systems in use in Florida. The onsite sewage treatment program impacts public health in that it prevents and corrects sanitary nuisances; prevents pollution to groundwater, which is the primary drinking water source in the state; prevents pollution to surface water; and eliminates risks to public health from exposure to improperly treated human waste. Untreated or improperly treated human waste contains many significant disease-causing organisms injurious to human health. A “sanitary nuisance” is the “commission of any act, . . . or the keeping, maintaining, propagation, existence, or permission of anything, . . . by which the health or life of an individual, or the health or lives of individuals, may be threatened or impaired, or by which or through which, directly or indirectly, disease may be caused.” Section 386.01, Florida Statutes (1995). “Improperly built or maintained septic tanks” and “untreated or improperly treated human waste” constitute “prima facie evidence of maintaining a nuisance injurious to health.” Section 386.041(1), Florida Statutes (1995). The training, regulation, and registration of septic tank contractors, who install and repair such systems, is directly related to public health. An improperly installed or repaired system may result in untreated human waste or raw sewage either surfacing on the ground, backing up in the owner’s house/business, contaminating groundwater, and contaminating nearby surface water. The Respondent regularly receives complaints from citizens detailing installation problems, including complaints regarding improper workmanship, the premature failure of their septic tank system resulting in sewage on the ground around their house, and the contractor’s failure to honor his/her warranty. The impetus behind regulating contractors came primarily from the industry itself (i.e., the Florida Septic Tank Association). The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(d), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if the Respondent has revoked his prior septic tank registration within the last 5 years, protects the public from sanitary nuisances caused by the improper installation and repair of septic tank systems. This qualification is, moreover, an indicator of an applicant’s “good moral character.” The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if the applicant has a disciplinary case pending with the Respondent involving septic tank contracting, fits into what the septic tank contracting program under chapter 489 and Chapter 10D-6 is designed to accomplish. This qualification protects the public by denying licenses to those persons who have demonstrated they are not complying with the rules or statutes. The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if he has been convicted of a crime in any jurisdiction which is directly related to the practice of contracting, fits into what the septic tank contracting program under Chapter 489 and Chapter 10D-6 is designed to accomplish. This qualification protects the public by denying licenses to those persons who are not law abiding and do not follow the standards. “Good moral character” is not defined in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Each of the three qualifications established by Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) make specific or interpret an individual’s good moral character. The Department’s statutory authority for Rule 10D- 6.072(3)(d), Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e), and Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f) comes from: (a) section 489.553(2), which requires the Department to “provide qualifications for applicants;” (b) section 489.553(4)(a), which says the applicant “must be of good moral character’” (c) section 489.558(2), which says the Department may deny registration if it determines the applicant “has violated any provision of this part [Part III of Chapter 489];” and (d) section 489.556, which authorizes the Department to suspend and revoke licenses. The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) has neither filed an objection nor voted on an objection to the three rules at issue in this case. Although a staff member of JAPC, in response to Petitioner’s complaint, recently made a preliminary inquiry into the validity of these rules, the committee did not adopt the staff member’s recommendation.
Findings Of Fact Franklin T. and Barbara Snow acquired the NE corner of the S-1/2 of the SE-1/4 of Government Lot 3 in Section 14, Township 19 South, Range 16 East near Ozello in Citrus County. This property was acquired by Petitioner at a public sale by the U.S. Government who had acquired the property in a tax delinquency proceeding. Petitioner purchased the property to use as a homesite for a doublewide prefabricated home he desired to place on the property. Before a building permit will be issued by Citrus County, Petitioner is required to have access to water and to sewage disposal facilities. No central sewage treatment facility serves this area and other developed lots in the vicinity use septic tanks. Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit was denied by the Citrus County Health Department because there was an insufficient buffer zone between the proposed drain field and surface water. Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, provides onsite sewage disposal systems shall be placed no closer than 75 feet from surface waters. Because the lot owned .by Petitioner was platted prior to 1972, the minimum setback for this property is 50 feet from surface waters. Petitioner appealed to the Review Group for Individual Sewage Disposal, DHRS, for a waiver from this setback requirement. By letter dated March 9, 1984, Petitioner was advised that his request for variance was denied. Following discussions with Citrus County Health Department officials who issue septic tank permits, on May 11, 1984, Petitioner applied to DER for a dredge and fill permit to place some 750 cubic yards of fill into a wetland area on Petitioner's property to provide a sufficient buffer or setback zone for a proposed septic tank and drain field installation. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of a marsh approximately 1,200 feet from the open waters but within the landward extent of the St. Martins River. The marsh area consists principally of black rush and salt grass and is interlaced with small tidal creeks which flow into the two adjacent canals or into St. Martins River. Petitioner's property contains an upland parcel approximately 50 feet in width between existing canals which resulted from dredging these canals. The "upland" configuration was larger at one time than its present configuration, but was reduced to its present size through enforcement action by environmental agencies. The area which Petitioner seeks to fill had fill removed therefrom in these enforcement proceedings. The waters surrounding and including the project site are classified as Class III waters. Soil borings taken at the site shows the salt marsh underlain by 8 to 12 inches of sand, which overlays an organic mat of decaying anerobic black rush. Beneath this organic layer is limerock. Petitioner's application for a permit to fill this property was denied by Respondent because of the proposed septic tank installation. Respondent suggested chemical sewage disposal systems could be used at this site; however, the only witness qualifying as an expert in waste disposal facilities is familiar with other waste disposal systems and testified none of those systems can be used at this site. Before a building permit will be granted, household water supply is required and treatment of this water after use for bathing, washing, etc., will still be necessary and this treatment cannot be accomplished in a chemical system. Septic tank systems are regulated by DHRS and applications therefor are approved by DHRS specialists at the county health department level. The property here involved is within the 10-year flood plain and in order to obtain septic tank approval the site must be elevated above that plain. Here, that is 4.9 feet above sea level. The site is 3.5 feet above sea level. The bottom of the drain field is required to be 24 inches above the water table. If the fill permit is granted and approximately three feet of fill is placed over the 4,500 square feet, this will raise the property sufficiently so it will not be subject to tidal action and will provide a buffer zone sufficient to allow Citrus County to issue a septic tank permit. One objection raised by DER is that filling the area over existing vegetation will create another organic mat of decaying vegetation which will leach laterally into adjacent surface waters where it will contribute nutrients and exert an oxygen demand on the water column. Citrus County Health Department has authority to require the existing detritius be removed before new fill is applied and to require the perimeter of the fill area to be constructed with clayey soils to inhibit leachate escaping from the site. Removal of salt grass would precede removal of the decaying vegetation under the 8 to 12 inches of sand and leave nothing to add to the nutrient level of adjacent surface waters or impose an oxygen demand on the water column. The black rush and salt grass which presently dominate the proposed fill site perform a significant water quality function in trapping sediments, filtering runoff and assimilating nutrients. The presence of adjacent canals increases the value of this function. The proposed fill site also functions as a productive habitat for numerous aquatic species which comprise a portion of the estuarine food chain and ecosystem. More than a dozen aquatic organisms were turned up by a singe scoop of a dip net in an area nearly in the center of the proposed fill site. Leaving the site in its present condition creates a public benefit to the State. Adding fill to the area as requested will allow the site to comply with the regulations for septic tank installation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will issue a federal dredge and fill permit to Petitioner if this application is granted. Therefore, the granting of this application for a dredge and fill permit will allow Petitioner to use the property he purchased for a home site. Respondent called one witness who qualified as an expert in the field of public health microbiology. This witness testified that studies have shown dead end canals and septic tank leachate to be significant contributors to high fecal coliform densities in adjacent waters. This witness opined that the statutory buffer zone is inadequate to prevent violations of Class III water standards in adjacent surface waters from such sources. Proposed finding No. 16, while not technically incorrect, is misleading. Bradley did represent that a buffer zone whose perimeter is composed of clay will keep leachate from escaping the site; that if a 50-foot setback could be maintained from surface waters, the county would grant the permit; and he believed the fill permit should be granted.
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 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
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 in this case is whether Respondent created a sanitary nuisance by installing drainfield pipes too far apart in a septic tank drainfield and failing to seal the lid to a septic tank, failing to call for a required inspection before covering an onsite sewage disposal system, and engaging in gross misconduct by assaulting two of Petitioner's employees.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is registered with Petitioner as a septic tank contractor and authorized to provide septic tank contracting services. On May 4, 1994, pursuant to a previously issued permit, Respondent completed the installation of a new drainfield at 204 West DelMonte Avenue in Clewiston. He asked Petitioner's office for an inspection for approval to cover the system. Jim Rashley, an environmental specialist employed by Petitioner, inspected the system on the morning of May 4. No one was at the site during the inspection. Mr. Rashley discovered a violation concerning the type of header pipe. He also discovered that the drain lines were more than 36 inches apart and 18 inches from the side of the field. Mr. Rashley determined that the drainfield pipes were three feet and four inches apart. Examining the septic tank itself, which Respondent had pumped, Mr. Rashley found that the lid had not been properly resealed, which would allow rain or dirt to enter the tank or effluent to escape from the tank if the drainfield failed. Returning to his office, Mr. Rashley informed his supervisor, Steve Havig, that he was failing the system and called Respondent and told him the same thing. Respondent asked Mr. Rashley to come out to the site so they could both examine the system, and Mr. Rashley agreed. When they met at the site, Respondent asked Mr. Rashley to point out the three violations, which he did. Respondent's response was to tell him that he was sick and tired of college kids telling him how to install septic tank systems. Mr. Rashley said that he could not ignore violations of the rules. After Respondent became more upset, he moved to within inches of Mr. Rashley's face and asked him if he would approve the system. Mr. Rashley answered he would if Respondent fixed the violations. While Respondent yelled at Mr. Rashley only a few inches from his face, Mr. Rashley, feeling very uncomfortable, retreated to his vehicle and started to drive back to his office. Respondent got into his vehicle and tailgated Mr. Rashley the entire way. When they arrived at Mr. Rashley's office, Respondent told the secretary to call Mr. Rashley's boss. Claiming that Mr. Rashley had unfairly disapproved the system, Respondent asked Mr. Havig to visit the site himself. Mr. Havig agreed to do so. Mr. Havig visited the site on the morning of May 5 outside the presence of Respondent. He confirmed the violations. At their closest point, the drain lines were three feet four inches apart, and the septic tank lid was not sealed. Mr. Havig left a message for Respondent with this information. At Respondent's request, Mr. Havig agreed to meet Respondent at the site at 1:30 pm. Returning from lunch with two other men, Mr. Havig stopped off at the site to meet Respondent. He found that the header pipe violation had been corrected, but the other violations had not been. Mr. Havig and Respondent talked about the separation of the drain lines. Respondent said he could not move the pipe without disturbing the elevation, which is crucial to the functioning of the drainfield. Mr. Havig said he could either move the pipe or add another line so as to reduce the maximum separation between lateral lines to below 36 inches. Respondent complained that he could not maintain the position of the flexible pipe when pouring gravel over the pipes. Respondent became angry. He grabbed a section of the plastic pipe and said that he would show Mr. Havig. The gravel fell in behind the place where the pipe had rested. Respondent declared that he would get the homeowner's approval to cover up the system rather than modify it. Mr. Havig went to his car to get a camera, and Respondent began using a lot of vulgarity. As Mr. Havig took pictures of the installation, Respondent became angrier. His face turned red and he accused Mr. Rashley and Mr. Havig of harassing him. He warned Mr. Havig that, if they did not stop, they would have to suffer the repercussions. Moving very close to Mr. Havig and pounding his fist into his hand, Respondent asked Mr. Havig if he knew what Respondent meant. Mr. Havig said yes, that it was time for him to go. Respondent covered the system up shortly after Mr. Havig departed. Respondent did not allow a reinspection of the system to determine if he corrected either the separation of the drain lines, which he admits he did not correct, or if he sealed the septic tank lid, which he claims he did correct. Respondent has worked as a septic tank contractor in the area for 18 years. The likelihood of system failure is high if a septic tank lid is not properly sealed before the system is covered and placed into operation. Respondent appears to have been a responsible contractor. Based on these facts, there is enough doubt on the lid-sealing issue to preclude finding that Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not seal the lid before covering the system. The pipes constituting the drain lines are manufactured to allow 18 inches of effluent to escape from either side of the pipe. By installing lines with more than 36 inches between each other or 18 inches between a line and a side, Respondent reduced the efficiency of the drainfield because parts of the drainfield, which lies beneath the lines, will not receive as much effluent as other parts of the drainfield. For awhile, due to safety concerns, Petitioner had to send two inspectors to inspect Respondent's work sites. Respondent never apologized to either Mr. Rashley or Mr. Havig until, acknowledging his unprofessional behavior, he apologized during the hearing. Respondent also noted that Petitioner has dealt with him professionally since the incidents in question. Petitioner and Respondent have had troubled dealings in the past. On one occasion, Petitioner insisted on the placement of a drainfield adjacent to an existing, failed drainfield, even though the existing and proposed drainfields drained directly into a canal. Respondent wanted to locate the drainfield well away from the canal. Unable to secure approval locally, Respondent took an appeal to Petitioner's representatives in Tallahassee, who approved Respondent's original, more sensible plan to relocate the drainfield. On the other hand, Respondent violated the minimum- separation rule for drain lines in 1993. Petitioner fined Respondent for the violation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rule 10D-6.056(4)(b) and thus 10D- 6.075(2)(a) by installing a drainfield with excessive separation between drain lines, Rule 10D-6.075(4)(d) by failing to call for a required inspection, and Rule 10D-6.075(4)(l)1 by engaging in gross misconduct in his behavior toward two of Petitioner's employees. It is further recommended that the final order impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $500. ENTERED on July 14, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Floirda 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 14, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings All adopted or adopted in substance except that Respondent failed to seal the septic tank lid, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Mastin Scott Senior Health Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 60085 Ft. Myers, FL 33906 Attorney Melanie A. McGahee 333 S. Commercio, Suite B Clewiston, FL 33440 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Martha Valiant, M. D. Director, Hendry County Public Health Unit P.O. Box 70 LaBelle, FL 33935
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is qualified for licensure as a septic tank system contractor.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner applied for Septic Tank Contractor Registration on or about June 1, 1993. Mr. Gerald Briggs, Environmental Health Specialist III for the Department, notified the Petitioner that his application was not complete on or about July 7, 1993, and returned the Petitioner's application to the Petitioner. In November 1993, the Petitioner refiled his application with the Department. By letter dated December 9, 1993, the Department notified the Petitioner of its decision to deny his application for septic tank contractor's registration because the Petitioner lacked the required three years of active experience as a worker who has learned the trade as an apprentice under a registered septic tank contractor. William A. Kerce, a registered septic tank contractor in Florida, testified at the hearing. He stated that he had employed the Petitioner prior to the Petitioner's graduation from high school in 1985, and continued to employ him up until he sold the business to Donald Rose. The Petitioner's duties for installation of new septic tanks and for repairs of existing systems were to dig up an area, prepare it to install a septic tank in the ground, prepare the drainfield, and recover the tank and drainfield with soil. In addition, Mr. Kerce used the Petitioner to assist him in pumping septic tanks. Mr. Kerce stated that he did not consider the Petitioner an employee, but considered him an independent contractor. Mr. Kerce would have had to pay social security and provide worker's compensation benefits if he had considered the Petitioner an employee. Mr. Kerce provided all the materials and equipment used on the job. Mr. Kerce used the Petitioner's services five or six days a week for well over three years. Petitioner did not work for Mr. Kerce when Mr. Kerce did not have work to do, about two weeks per year. Mr. Kerce paid the Petitioner by the job, $200-$300 for installing a system, and $15-20 for helping him pump a system. The Petitioner worked for Mr. Kerce, except when he was working for another septic tank contractor doing the same type of work. If the Petitioner was working for another man, Mr. Kerce waited and scheduled his work until the Petitioner was available. While Mr. Kerce was not present on the job constantly, Mr. Kerce did supervise and approve all work done by the Petitioner. He was required by law to do so. Mr. Kerce sold his business to Donald Rose in 1992. To Mr. Kerce's knowledge, Mr. Rose continued to use the Petitioner. Mr. Rose could not get qualified as a contractor with the Department. As a result, Mr. Kerce had to step back in and run the business. The Petitioner assisted Mr. Rose in installing unpermitted systems. When confronted, the Petitioner assisted in the investigation of Mr. Rose, under threat of prosecution. As a result, the court withheld adjudication in the Petitioner's case and placed him on probation which he has not completed. The Petitioner was employed by Rotor Rooter in Jacksonville, Florida, for six months, installing and repairing septic systems. The Petitioner has been employed by AA Septic since April 15, 1994. The Petitioner took steps in June, 1993, to start a septic tank business as C&J, including listing in the Yellow Pages. However, his application was not approved. He did install a system for Eleanor Rake at about that time without a permit; however, he later returned Ms. Rake's money when confronted by the authorities. The Petitioner was on probation when he did the work for Ms. Rake.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department deny the Petitioner certification until he completes his probation for violations of laws directly related to installation of septic systems; and further, that upon the completion of that probation and reapplication, the Department register the Petitioner, who has established that he met the work experience requirements. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 27th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 94-0954 The following findings were adopted or rejected for the reason stated: Respondent's Findings Recommended Order Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 3, 4 Paragraph 4 Subsumed in paragraph 4 and Preliminary Statement. Paragraph 5 Subsumed in paragraphs 5 and 6 which are based upon best evidence. Paragraph 6 Subsumed in paragraphs 8 - 11, which are based on best evidence. Paragraph 7 Subsumed in Preliminary Statement. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward Jackson, Esquire 515 W. Adams Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Teresa Donnelly, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Building H Gainesville, FL 32601 Robert L. Powell, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kimberly J. Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
