The Issue Whether Petitioner should take disciplinary action against Respondents for the reasons alleged in the Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact On behalf of his brother, Mr. Howell Parish, who lives in Orange Park, Florida, Mr. James A. Parish contracted with Respondents to restore efficient of operation the septic tank system at 5469 Soundside Drive in Santa Rosa County, premises owned by Howell Parish. Respondents agreed to make the restoration by providing a fiberglass approved tank with a fiberglass lid, install a new drain field and haul in dirt to build up a low area of the existing drain field. Respondents undertook repair activities but without a permit. Respondents did not obtain an inspection of their work after they had finished. On June 10, 1992, after the repairs were supposed to have been done, James Parish paid Respondent Harmon for the job with a personal check in the amount of $1,498.48. On the same date, Respondent Harmon signed a receipt for payment. The receipt shows as work performed, "Demucking and Installing one 1050 Gal Tank & 200 Sq.' Drain Field." Ms. Jo Ann Parish, spouse of Howell Parish, reimbursed James Parish for the work done on Soundside Drive. Shortly thereafter, the septic tank "caved in and the waste was boiling to the surface." (Tr. 16.) Howell Parish met with Larry W. Thomas, Environmental Health Supervisor for the Santa Rosa County Health Department, to discuss the situation. Following the meeting, Mr. Parish called Respondent Harmon and told that him that the problem needed to be straightened out and that he should contact Mr. Thomas promptly because his license could be in danger. Respondent promised to correct the problem and to reimburse Mr. Parish for the job but he did neither. He did not contact Mr. Thomas either. Mr. Thomas, on behalf of the County, investigated the site of the septic tank repair. He found that Respondents had installed a broken fiber glass tank when fiberglass tanks are not allowed at all in Santa Rosa County because of their structural inadequacy. In addition to the tank being cracked, it had a cracked lid. Another hole in the tank that should have been covered with a lid was covered with a piece of plywood. The plywood was kept in place by dirt fill. The drain field did not meet the minimum standards required by the County. Most significantly, it was installed beneath the water table. There was a laundry discharge pipe which was not connected to the tank as required. The site of the septic tank repair by Respondents was a sanitary nuisance. The broken condition of the tank allowed raw sewage to overflow. The drain field was emptying raw sewage directly into ground water. The laundry discharge was discharging into the ground rather than being hooked up to the septic tank. Mr. Parish was forced to hire another septic tank service to restore the system to good working order. The work, performed by Bettis Septic Tank Service, was billed to Mr. Parish at a cost of $6400.00.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, that Respondents' certificates of registration be revoked and that the Department impose on Respondents a fine of $2000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Bozeman, III Asst. District Legal Counsel D H R S 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, FL 32501 Kenneth P. Walsh Attorney at Law P. O. Box 1208 Shalimar, FL 32505-0420 Robert L. Powell, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 DAVID M. MALONEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1994.
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 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 The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Petitioner is entitled to a variance so as to allow the installation of an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) on the Petitioner's property located in Dixie County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of Lot 24 of Hatchbend Upon Suwannee subdivision, a platted subdivision in Dixie County, Florida. The Petitioner purchased the lot for residential purposes and seeks to install an on-site sewage disposal system (septic tank) (OSDS) on that lot for purposes of serving a single family residence. The Petitioner originally filed a permit application seeking a permit authorizing installation and operation of an OSDS for that property. That permit application was filed on December 12, 1989. It was denied and the Petitioner sought a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings to contest that denial, which became Case No. 90-6134. That case was ultimately settled between the Petitioner and the Department and no permit application was granted. Instead, the Petitioner filed the subject application for a variance from the requirements of then Section 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. The variance application was filed on June 21, 1991, with regard to Lot 24 only. By letter of October 9, 1991, the Department denied the application for variance and the Petitioner timely requested a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to contest that denial. Lot 24 of Hatchbend Upon Suwannee subdivision, owned by the Petitioner is located on the Suwannee River. The Petitioner submitted a report of the Suwannee River Water Management District, in evidence, which indicates that the subject property lies within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. The two year flood elevation at that location is 19 feet above mean-sea level (MSL). The ten year floor elevation at the installation site is 29 feet above MSL. The elevation of the proposed septic tank system installation site is 17.5 feet above MSL. Department personnel performed an inspection and an evaluation of the site. It was thus found and established by testimony and evidence, presented through witness Fross, that the water table level during the wet season is at or above the surface of the property at the installation site and the dry season water table level is approximately 6 inches below the surface grade of the property at the installation site. This is the reason, together with the fact that the property lies within the regulatory floodway and beneath the ten year flood evaluation of the Suwannee River for the river mile at the site, that the inspector recommended denial of a permit for an OSDS for the property. The Petitioner maintained that the information originally submitted and obtained from the Suwannee River Water Management District had incorrectly indicated the river mile at the site. The ten year and two year flood elevations are calculated according to the river mile at a given site, river miles being measurements of the linear distance of the Suwannee River and the Suwannee River floor plain. However, if the lower ten year flood elevation prevailing at the river mile the Petitioner maintained equated with the project site was applicable, by the Petitioner's own admission, the site in question (and indeed any location on any of the nearby lots he owns) would be below that resulting ten year floor elevation level. Ms. Emily Wilson testified on behalf of the Respondent. It was established that the education, experience and certification of Ms. Wilson as a registered sanitarian, together with her graduate and post-graduate degrees in the area of environmental science, accord her expertise in the areas of environmental protection, sewage disposal and sanitation and she was accepted as an expert in those fields. It was thus established that installation and operation of a septic system on the Petitioner's property would pose a threat to the ground and surface water in the vicinity of the site due to the high water table levels and the fact that the property, including the proposed installation site, is subject to frequent flooding. The exposure of the septic tank drainfield to ground or flood waters would allow the release of pathogens into those waters, which could be carried along into the ground or surface waters when the flood receded. These pathogens would endanger the health of the Petitioner, surrounding land owners and other persons through contamination of the drinking water supply. The pathogens could also endanger persons using the river for recreational purposes. The Department produced photographs which were introduced into evidence establishing that the road leading to the property was underwater due to flooding in the spring of 1991. That road runs along the back of the Petitioner's property and is further removed from the river than the actual installation site where the Petitioner proposes to install a septic system. After the flood receded, the water marks on the trees in the area of the proposed installation site on the Petitioner's property indicate that the area had been submerged under approximately three feet of water. The property was established to be subject to frequent flooding. Ms. Wilson is aware that other systems can potentially be used to adequately contain and treat sewage generated by a residence such as that the Petitioner envisions, including a closed system characterized by no sewage discharge. The applicant however has not submitted a proposal for such a system for consideration by the Department. She is unaware of any other system of sewage disposal that has previously been approved for use in low areas similar to that prevailing at the Petitioner's property and installation site. The Petitioner purchased the property under a contract for deed. The contract for deed specifically states that the property was subject to frequent flooding at the time the Petitioner purchased the property and the Petitioner was aware of that. The Petitioner purchased the property in spite of that representation in the contract for deed. The construction and use of a mounded septic tank and drainfield system designed to elevate the septic tank and drainfield a sufficient required distance above the groundwater table and the ten year flood elevation level could potentially be installed, but the system would require a very large, high mound. It was not shown that the dimensions of the lot would permit the installation of the required mound base pad, and mound itself, of a sufficient size to properly elevate the proposed system so that a permit could be approved. The mounded system required under proper design parameters provided for in the Department's rules would cause the mounded system to approach or even exceed the entire width of Lot 24. A mounded system located in the regulatory floodway, as Petitioner's property is located, would require issuance of a separate permit from the Suwannee River Water Management District. There was no showing that the Petitioner sought such a permit nor any showing of the likelihood that such a permit could be granted at the time of the hearing. Additionally, the Department's rules require that a qualified engineer issue a certification with respect to the use of a mounded disposal system within the regulatory floodway which certifies that the insertion of fill material for constructing such a system in the floodway will not cause a rise in the level of the "base flood", also known as a "zero rise certificate." No such certification has been obtained. In order to establish compliance with the requirement for granting of a variance set forth in the legal authority cited below, the applicant must establish, among other things, that there is no reasonable alternative to the installation of the system proposed. The applicant has presented no evidence to show that there are no reasonable alternatives to the system proposed. Rather, the testimony and evidence indicates that indeed there may be alternative disposal systems and methods available, although the proof was not developed in this proceeding to establish what those might be. The consideration of another location for the system on a different lot or installation site presently owned by the Petitioner or of an alternative type of treatment and disposal system might be feasible but would require a new site evaluation and submission of appropriate information which could establish that a specific alternative system and/or location is feasible, in terms of the requirements in the statute and rules that no deleterious impacts to the ground or surface waters in the vicinity of the site would occur. Such an effort would have to be the subject of a separate permit application and is not at issue in this variance proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting, for the reasons found and concluded above, which denial should be without prejudice to a later permit application which might offer full consideration of potential, reasonable alternative sewage treatment and disposal systems and methods in the manner envisioned in Rule 10D-6.0471, Florida Administrative Code and other pertinent rules. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: All proposed finding of fact are accepted. The Petitioner presented no Proposed Findings of Fact but rather a posthearing pleading constituting, in effect, a closing legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Prior 3106 Waverly Avenue Tampa, Florida 33269 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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 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 This case arises out of the Petitioner's objection to the issuance of a septic tank permit for property adjacent to his lot in Panama City Beach, Florida. The sole issue before the Hearing Officer, as alleged by Petitioner's pleading, is whether the applicant's permit for septic tank should be denied on the basis that it is in violation of Rule 10D-6.24, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that no septic tank be placed within 75 feet of a private water supply well. On November 15, 1982, by certified mail, the Bay County Health Department notified Petitioner of its intent to grant a permit for a septic tank at 6713 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida. Thereafter, on December 13, 1982, Respondent filed a petition for formal proceeding, objecting to the issuance of the aforementioned permit and requesting a formal hearing. Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held at which the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and also called Paul Miller, an Environmental Sanitarian for the Bay County Health Department as a witness. Respondents called as witnesses Michael Sarra, Bay County Health Department, William Curtis Wright, and Thomas F. Gladstone. Petitioner offered and had admitted two exhibits and Respondents offered and had admitted three exhibits. The Petitioner, subsequent to the formal hearing, filed with the undersigned Hearing Officer two late-filed exhibits. No permission had been granted or requested at the formal hearing for the filing of late-filed exhibits and, therefore, those exhibits were neither considered nor utilized as a basis for the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in this Recommended Order. Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those findings of fact are not adopted herein, they were considered by the undersigned Hearing Officer and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 15, 1982, Mr. Dewayne Dilmore, by and through his contractor, Tom Gladstone, applied for a septic tank permit for a new residence located at 6713 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida (See Petitioner's Exhibit B). After a required change in the design drawings reducing the structure from a 3-bedroom to a 2-bedroom residence, the application was determined to be in compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements and was approved by the Bay County Health Department. Petitioner, Samuel M. Torrence, owns a residence at 6715 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida. This home is west of and contiguous to Mr. Dilmore's lot. In response to a Notice of Intent to issue a septic tank permit for the adjacent lot, 6713 Gulf Drive, Mr. Torrence objected on the grounds that such septic tank would be located within 75 feet of his private water supply well. Prior to the June 15, 1982, application by Mr. Dilmore, there was an existing septic tank on Mr. Dilmore's lot. This septic tank had been on the lot since April, 1961. The Petitioner's home at 6715 Gulf Drive was constructed in 1968 or 1969. 4 The replacement septic tank on the applicant's lot will be located farther from the Petitioner's property than the existing septic tank. The testimony of Paul Miller and Michael Sarra, along with the approved application, establish that the application of Dewayne Dilmore and the proposed replacement septic tank meet all requirements of Rule 10D-6.24, Florida Administrative Code, and Florida Statute 381.272(1982). Approximately two years ago, Mr. Torrence had his home at 6715 Gulf Drive hooked into city water, and has no private well hooked up to any of the pipes of his home. Although the Petitioner contended that the replacement septic tank would be within 75 feet of a private well on his property, there was no evidence in the record of the specific location on his property of a private well or any measurements he had made. The evidence does not show that there is in fact a private well within 75 feet of the location of the replacement septic tank. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has an established policy of grandfathering existing septic tanks, and this policy permits the septic tank on the Dilmore property as a replacement of an existing septic tank regardless of whether said tank would be located within 75 feet of a private water supply well on the Petitioner's property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is:: RECOMMENDED: That the permit for septic tank be issued and Petitioner's request to halt issuance should be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 12 day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS 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 12 day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel M. Torrence Post Office Box 7106 Dothan, Alabama 36302 John Pearce, Esquire Department of HRS 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mr. Mike Sarra and Mr. Paul Miller Bay County Health Department Post Office Box 1728 Panama City, Florida 32402 Mr. David H. Pingree Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent failed to reasonably honor a warranty relating to the installation and repair of a septic tank system.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the regulatory agency which regulates the installation and prescribed standards for on-site sewage disposal systems. Respondent, Alan Billings d/b/a Billing's Liquid Waste Removal, is a Florida entity registered and authorized by Petitioner to provide septic tank contracting services. On or about February 12, 1992, Respondent performed a septic tank repair at a two bedroom residential home located at 13904 Summers Avenue, in Hudson, Pasco County, Florida. Respondent's repairs consisted of adding 100 square foot of drainfield to the existing system, three yards of rock, cover paper, pipe, and a distributor box. Respondent provided the repairs as he agreed to on or about February 11, 1992. Installation of the additional drainfield by Respondent was proper and based on the size of the home (a two bedroom house), it was adequate for the building's normal requirement. Petitioner's expert, Van Kampen, testified without contradiction that the septic tank system repairs by Respondent were proper and was attached to an existing system which further added to the capacity of the system. The added capacity was far in excess of the particular purpose required for the home if used by a family of four. Based on the size of the home in which Respondent made the repairs, the maximum water usage anticipated would have been 4500 gallons of water per month. Documentary evidence introduced herein indicates that during the months in question, the average water usage at the subject home exceeded 11,000 gallons per month. The unexpected usage caused a "hydraulic overload" of the system, and was not within Respondent's expectations when he repaired it. Van Kampen related that the family that resided in the home consisted of seven (7) members. Respondent was unaware of that fact nor was he apprised of this fact until subsequent to the repairs when the system failed due to a hydraulic overload. Respondent did not offer a warranty to cover the "hydraulic overload" which is at issue herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint filed herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 4th day of February, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ron Smith, Esquire 12360 66th Street North Largo, Florida 34643 Shirley K. Hart, Esquire HRS District V Legal Office 11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 407 Largo, Florida 34648-1630
