The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to the grant of a variance for the installation of an onsite sewage disposal system ("OSDS") for his property on the Santa Fe River in Gilchrist County, Florida, in accordance with Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Gilchrist County, Florida, more particularly described as Lot 4, Unit 4, Ira Bea's Oasis, a subdivision. The evidence is not clear concerning whether the plat of the subdivision was actually recorded, although the evidence and the Petitioner's testimony indicates that the lots in the subject subdivision were subdivided in 1965. The evidence does not clearly reflect whether the subdivision was ever platted, however. On April 2, 1990, the Petitioner filed an application for an OSDS permit regarding the subject property. The application was for a new OSDS on the above-described property; and the system was intended to serve a single- family residence, which the Petitioner desires to construct on the subject property for a vacation and retirement home. The proposed residence would contain three bedrooms and a heated or cooled area of approximately 1,100 square feet. In the permit application process, at the Respondent's behest, the Petitioner had a survey performed by Herbert G. Parrish, registered land surveyor. That survey, in evidence as the Respondent's Exhibit 1, reveals a benchmark elevation of 21.65 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The proposed installation site is at an elevation of 22.5 feet above MSL. A report by the Suwannee River Water Management District, which is admitted into evidence and was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioner with the application for the OSDS permit, shows a ten-year flood elevation for the subject property, and River Mile 10 of the Santa Fe River, at 31 feet above MSL. Thus, the subject property is located beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Santa Fe River, as that relates to required engineering certification and calculations being furnished which will assure that if OSDS's are constructed employing mounding or sand filters, and like constructions, that such related fill deposited on the property within the regulatory floodway will not raise the level of the "base flood" for purposes of the rules cited hereinbelow. No evidence of such certification by an appropriately-registered engineer was offered in this proceeding concerning the installation of a mounded system and its effect on the base flood level. The surface grade level of the subject property at the installation site is 9.5 feet below the ten-year flood elevation. The grade elevation of the subject property is also .5 feet below the "two-year flood elevation", and the property has been flooded once in the past three years and has been flooded approximately four times in the past 15 years. It has thus not been established in this proceeding that the property is not subject to frequent flooding. On April 18, 1990, the Respondent denied the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit by letter of that date. The Petitioner did not make a timely request for a formal administrative hearing to dispute that denial. The Petitioner maintained at hearing that this was, in essence, because the Respondent's personnel informed him that he should seek a variance instead, which is what he did. The testimony of Mr. Fross reveals, however, that, indeed, he was advised of his opportunity to seek a variance but was also advised of his right to seek a formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of the permit itself. Nevertheless, either through the Petitioner's misunderstanding of his rights or because he simply elected to choose the variance remedy instead, the fact remains that he did not timely file a petition for formal proceeding to contest the denial of the OSDS permit itself. Even had a timely petition for formal proceeding concerning the denial of the OSDS permit application been filed, the evidence of record does not establish the Petitioner's entitlement to such a permit. As found above, the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and, indeed, lies below the two-year flood elevation, which subjects the property to a statistical 50% chance of being flooded each year. This and the other findings referenced above indicate that the property has not been established to be free from frequent flooding; and although appropriate "slight-limited" soils are present at the proposed installation site, those soils only extend 50 inches below the surface grade. That leaves an insufficient space beneath the bottom of the drainfield trenches where they would be located so as to have a sufficient volume and distance of appropriate treatment soil available beneath the drain field, if one should be installed. Below 50 inches at the subject site is a limerock strata which is impervious and constitutes a barrier to appropriate percolation and treatment of effluent waste water. Thus, for these reasons, especially the fact that the property clearly lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and because adequate proof in support of a mounded system which might raise a septic tank and drainfield system above the ten-year flood elevation has not been adduced, entitlement to the OSDS permit itself has not been established. Concerning the variance application actually at issue in this proceeding, the Petitioner has proposed, in essence, two alternative systems. The Petitioner has designed, and submitted as an exhibit, a plan for a holding- tank-type- system. By this, the Petitioner proposes a 250-gallon holding tank, with a venting pipe extending approximately three feet above the level of the ten-year flood elevation, with an attendant concrete retaining wall and concrete base to which the tank would be securely attached. The Petitioner thus postulates that flood waters would not move or otherwise disturb the holding tank and that he would insure that the holding tank was pumped out at appropriate intervals and the waste there from properly deposited at a treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The precise method of such disposal and its location was not disclosed in the Petitioner's evidence, however. Moreover, the testimony of Dr. Hunter establishes that the deposition of waste water and human waste into the tank, either through pumping, or by gravity line, if the residence were located at an elevation above the inlet to the tank, might well result in a hydraulic condition which would cause the untreated sewage to overflow from the vent pipe of the tank. Moreover, such systems do not insure that public health, the health of the occupants of the site, and ground or surface waters will not be degraded since it is very costly to pump such a tank out which would have to be done on a frequent basis. This leaves the possibility that the user of such a holding-tank-facility could surreptitiously drain the tank into nearby receiving waters or otherwise improperly empty the tank. Even though the Petitioner may be entirely honorable in his intentions and efforts in this regard and not violate the law and the rules of the above-cited chapter in his manner of disposal of the holding-tank effluent, there is no practical, enforceable safeguard against such illegal activity, especially if one considers that the property may later be conveyed to a different landowner and user of the system. The Petitioner also proposes in his testimony and evidence the possibility of using a nondischarging, composting-toilet-type system to handle sewage involving human excreta. Such a system has been shown by the Petitioner's evidence to adequately treat human sewage so that public health and the ground and surface waters involved in and near the site could be adequately safeguarded. The problem with such a system, however, is that the "gray water", that is, waste water from bathtubs, showers, lavatories and kitchens, cannot be disposed of in the composting-toilet system. Such gray water, which also contains viruses, coliform bacteria and nutrients, must be disposed of, according to the rules at issue, in an appropriate sewage disposal system, be it in a septic tank and drain field or through pumping to an appropriate disposal and treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioner's proof does not establish how such gray water could be appropriately and safely disposed of in the environmental and public health context at issue herein. Thus, the proposed alternatives suggested by the Petitioner's proof do not constitute minor deviations from the minimum requirements for OSDS's specified in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Ironically, the composting-toilet system, coupled with a proper disposal system for household gray water, could constitute a reasonable alternative to a conventional system. Thus, the Petitioner's proof, itself, shows that a reasonable alternative may exist, which militates against the granting of the variance, although he did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished. In summary, therefore, the Petitioner's proof failed to establish that no reasonable alternative exists and that the proposed system would only be a minor deviation from the minimum requirements of the Respondent's rules concerning OSDS's and their installation and operation. The Petitioner established that a reasonable alternative to a conventional OSDS might exist for purposes of granting an OSDS permit itself, had that issue been formally placed before the Hearing Officer, but did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished and operated. This proof shows, however, that such a reasonable alternative might be found operable which, thus, fails to justify the granting of a variance based upon hardship. If the Petitioner could come forward with proof to establish the feasibility of disposal and treatment of the household gray water involved in an appropriate treatment and disposal site and facility above the ten-year flood elevation, in conjunction with use of a composting- toilet system, a later permit application might be entertained in which could be justified the granting of an OSDS permit.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and regulatory requirements, cited above, for the issuance of permits. At such time as the Petitioner is able to show changed factual circumstances, as for instance, that a reasonable, feasible alternative system, which will adequately treat and dispose of all household waste water effluent in a manner comporting with the rules of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, a permit application should be entertained. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 27th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-4569 The Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. 17. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Mark Moneyhan, pro se Route 3, Box 407 Perry, FL 32347 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS District III Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
Findings Of Fact Kearney is engaged in the development of real property in and around Hillsborough County, Florida, and is located in Tampa, Florida. Corrugated is a Louisiana Corporation which maintains a local headquarters in Tampa, Florida, and is presently seeking a business outlet in Hillsborough County for the assembly and distribution of metal buildings. At all times material hereto, Kearney and Corrugated have been parties to a real estate transaction concerning certain real property located at 1920 U.S. Highway 301 in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. The subject property consists of .82 acres of undeveloped land which is located in an area of rapid commercial and industrial growth. Under the Hillsborough County Zoning Code, the subject property is designated M-1, which authorizes commercial and industrial uses. Corrugated is the purchaser of the subject property, and proposes to establish an assembly and distribution center for pre-painted sheet metal buildings. Corrugated does not propose to engage in any activity which will generate industrial wastewaters of any kind, and in particular, will not generate wastes or wastewaters of a "hazardous" or "toxic" nature. No centralized public wastewater service has been available to this property, and septic tanks with drainfields are utilized by both adjacent properties for their domestic and other wastewater needs. Kearney and Corrugated have determined that the property in question is suitable for the intended uses in all other respects, including water, electricity, and transportation. In September, 1988, Kearney and corrugated sought approval from Respondent of a permit to install an onsite sewage disposal system (septic tank and drainfield) for the sole purpcse of providing toilet services to employees of the company. The site plan and preliminary construction drawings for the on- site system were reviewed by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to determine whether the project posed unusual wastewater problems or relied upon inadequately designed facilities. The DER had no objection to the installation of the septic tank and drainfield to serve the proposed system because of the non-hazardous character of the business, and the absence of floor drains in the proposed work areas. The Hillsborough County Health Department, however, gave immediate verbal denial of a septic tank permit based solely upon the industrial zoning of the property, and set forth its denial, in writing, on October 14, 1988. Following the County Health Departnent's denial, Kearney and Corrugated, based upon consultation with Respondent's officials in Tallahassee, assembled additional information to provide further assurance that the site would not generate industrial or hazardous wastes which could be disposed of via the septic tank. They provided detailed descriptions of each process to be performed by Corrugated, in substantiation of its claim that no wastewaters would be generated at the site. They also obtained the agreement of the Hillsborough County Building Department to subject any future building permit applications at the site to particular wastewater scrutiny, in addition to formal deed restrictions which they proposed for the subject property. Notwithstanding these additional representations, the Environmental Health Director of the Hillsborough County Health Department continued to reject the application on the sole ground that the property was zoned for industrial uses. On October 14, 1988, Petitioners submitted an application for a variance to the Hillsborough County Health Department and the Respondent, accompanied by supporting material setting forth the regulatory history referred to above, as well as the written representations and assurances, including proposed deed restrictions, which they had previously tendered to the County Environmental Health Director. They appeared before the Variance Advisory Review Board on November 3, 1988, to substantiate the specific measures which they proposed in order to ensure that no toxic or hazardous substances would be introduced into the septic tank system. These proposals were received by the Advisory Board without objection, and members observed that Petitioners had done everything they could do to provide the comfort margin which the agency sought. However, denial of the variance was recommended based upon the failure of Hi1sborough County to adopt a local ordinance providing for future inspections or controls by local officials to prevent future toxic or hazardous wastes from being disposed into the on- site sewage disposal system. Without such a local ordinance, the Advisory Board members expressed the view that it did not matter what the applicant presented to the Board. On December 2, 1988, the Respondent formally informed the Petitioners, in writing, that their application for a variance had been disapproved. This denial had the effect of formally denying Petitioners' permit application. Thereupon, Petitioners timely sought review of this decision by filing a petition for formal administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent issue a permit for an onsite sewage disposal system to the Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Stephens, Esquire Bayport Plaza - Suite 460 6200 Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607 Raymond Deckert, Esguire W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 W. Buffalo 5th Floor, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 John Miller, General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner is entitled to a permit permitting installation of an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) on his property located in Dixie County, Florida, in the vicinity of the Suwannee River and whether he is entitled to seek a variance from the statutes and rules concerning permitting of such systems.
Findings Of Fact The department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit, without prejudice to the applicant applying for and seeking a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting for the reasons found and concluded above, and without prejudice to applying for and pursuing an OSDS permit application should the applicant, at a later time, be able to demonstrate that alternative methods of treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent at issue can feasibly be performed, within the bounds of the standards enunciated in the above-cited statutes and rules concerning on- site sewage disposal permitting. DONE and ENTERED this 21st of December, 1990 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2487 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS-OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. 5-14. Accepted. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-7. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John K. McPherson, Esquire 22 South Main Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Frances S. Childers, Esquire Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondents' Division of Hotel and Restaurants' license should be suspended or revoked, or a civil penalty assessed for alleged violation of Division Rule 7C-4.01(5)(c) and Florida Statute s. 509.221, as set forth in Notice to Show Cause issued by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On April 19, 1977, Johnny Bell, inspector for petitioner's Division of Hotels and Restaurants, received notification from the Health Department of Sarasota County that respondents' place of business, Port-of-Call, resort apartments located at Longboat Key, Florida, was not connected to the sewerage system of Longboat Key. Bell inspected respondents' premises and discovered that a septic tank system was in use at the Port-of-Call. He informed respondents that they must connect to an "approved" sewerage system within sixty (60) days. On June 20, 1977, Bell returned to the premises and found that no action had been taken to connect to the Longboat Key system. Respondent Edward W. Henderson informed him that he should not have to go on such a system because his septic tanks were adequate and functioning properly. Bell did not examine the septic tanks or ascertain if they were, in fact, in proper condition and operating satisfactorily. He proceeded to issue a Notice to Show Cause as to why respondents' license No. 68-606H should not have a civil penalty assessed against it or be suspended or revoked. The stated cause for such intended action was as follows: "Division Rule 7C-4.01(5)(c) ; Florida Statutes 509.221 -- Failure to have sewage system hooked into public sewerage system." The Notice to Show Cause also informed respondents of their right to an Administrative Hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Respondents thereafter requested such a hearing. There is no food operation at the Port-of- Call. (Testimony of Bell, Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That the charges against respondents be dismissed. Done and Entered this 10th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence C. Winson, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building, Suite 210 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John W. Meshad, Esquire 100 South Washington Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33577
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of Respondent's witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Sometime prior to May 7, 1980, Petitioner, Wyatt S. Odom, applied for a permit to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat on Drs Lake in Orange Park, Clay County Florida. By letter dated May 7, 1980, Ronald E. Bray, Sanitarian Supervisor for the Clay County Health Department, advised Petitioner that his permit application to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat was being denied since the area of Petitioner's property was approximately 26,250 square feet2 A survey of the subject property revealed that the area is 19,890 square feet, which is of course less than one-half acre. (Respondent's Exhibit 2) (0.60 acre) with three individual sewage disposal systems already existing on the property; the land was not suitable for the installation that would allow the proper and required drainfield absorption area and setback requirement could not be maintained due to the existence of buildings, waterlines, wells, a lake and existing sewage disposal facilities which, if permitted, would be in contravention of Chapters 10D-6.23(2) and 10D-6.24(2), (3), (4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. Supervisor Bray and Sanitarian Thomas Haley, observed the subject property and the survey, and concluded that based on the size of Petitioner's property and the existing wells and septic tanks thereon, it was unsuitable for and could not satisfy the setback requirements and the required drainfield absorption area. (Testimony of Ronald E. Bray.) As stated, Petitioner did not appear at the hearing to contest the Respondent's denial of his permit application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's denial of Petitioner's request for a permit to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat on Drs. Lake in Orange Park, Florida, be UPHELD. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of September, 1980. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Odom P. O. Box 14735 Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Leo J. Stellwagen, Esquire Assistant District IV Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Celebrity Resorts, Inc., (Celebrity) is entitled to a permit to construct a wastewater treatment and reuse/disposal facility in Marion County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Proposed Project Celebrity is seeking a DER permit to construct a 0.065 million gallon per day wastewater treatment and reuse/disposal facility to serve a proposed recreation vehicle (RV) park. The facility is to be located in northern Marion County on the southern border of Orange Lake, an Outstanding Florida Water. The RV park is to be located on 75 acres of land, and is to contain 372 RV and "park model" sites, four bath houses, a clubhouse, and an expanded boathouse. The sewage treatment plant (STP) and effluent disposal system, consisting of a spray irrigation system, are to be located on the southern end of the site, away from Orange Lake. There is a "break" in the watersheds of the Celebrity property caused by a ridge across the approximate center of the project site. The effect of this "break" is that approximately one-half of the property drains toward the lake while the approximate southerly half of the property drains into an independent depression creating a watershed separate from the lake. Some underground pipes for a sewage collection system were installed at the site without an appropriate DER permit. Celebrity stopped the installation upon notice from DER that a permit was required for such installation. The permit needed for the installation of the collection system pipes was not the permit for the sewage treatment project which is being considered in this proceeding. Celebrity was penalized for its collection system violation, which was resolved with a consent order. Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) The STP is an extended aeration plant. It is designed to meet secondary treatment standards (90% removal of BOD and suspended solids from raw sewage) and basic disinfection. This type of treatment plant is very reliable. All mechanical components have a 100% backup so if a pump or blower fails, another is available to operate. The STP is designed to be capable of treating the flow from this RV park. Additionally, the facility has a holding pond for treated sewage effluent that can store five days of flow. Furthermore, because the RV park is a transient facility, it is possible in an emergency to shut down the entire plant and have people leave. By its nature, this is much more convenient in an RV park that in a residential or commercial neighborhood. The holding pond is to be lined with a 60 millimeter high density polyethylene liner, so there should be no leakage to the ground or groundwater even if there is an accident in the STP causing release of untreated sewage into the holding pond. The STP is to be maintained five days a week and must be attended for three nonconsecutive visits a week by a Class D certified plant operator. The amount of dissolved/undissolved heavy metals in the effluent is typically not a problem in domestic sewage effluent such as from the proposed RV park. To the extent that trace amounts of metals will exist, the STP will remove some heavy metals from the effluent during the treatment process and entrain them in the sludge (which will be taken to appropriately licensed landfill). There is no possibility of effluent leaking or discharging from the plant to directly discharge to Orange Lake, even if the STP completely malfunctions. Although the proposed STP is not a highly sophisticated plant, reasonable assurances have been provided that the STP will comply with DER's requirements for secondary treatment and basic disinfection and proper operation. Effluent Disposal System (Spray Irrigation System) Phase I of the effluent disposal system (spray irrigation system) is 3.66 acres in size, with an additional 1.7 acres designated if Phase II is implemented. Approval under this permit authorizes only the 3.66 acres on Phase I. Numerous separate sprinkler heads will spray the treated effluent on the field. The heads can be separately controlled and shut down. The sprayfield is sited on the southwestern corner of the 75-acre site and is separated hydrologically from the Orange Lake drainage basin by the "break" referred to in Paragraph 4 above. Therefore, surface water drainage in the area of the sprayfield drains away from the lake and does not connect back to the lake. The permitted loading rate is 1.7 inches per week, or approximately 24,000 gallons per day at full capacity. This amount corresponds to only approximately 170% of natural rainfall, but is more evenly distributed and controlled. After uptake of nutrients by green plants and evaporation (evapo- transpiration), the average amount of treated effluent that will percolate below the "uptake zone" to the surficial aquifer (to the extent that such exists on the site) is 0.3 to 0.4 inches per week. The surficial water table in the area of the sprayfield generally flows to the north toward the lake, although the flow is not immediately direct toward the lake. The Floridan Aquifer (which is beneath the intermittent surficial water table) in the area of the sprayfield generally flows away from the lake to the south and southeast. There are four sinkholes on the 75-acre site, although none of these four sinkholes have been identified on the 3.66-acre sprayfield. The four sinkholes on the 75-acre site and the majority of sinkholes in the area are "subsidence sinkholes." These sinkholes do not result in an open void down to the limerock after the collapse forming the sinkhole, but instead continue to have unconsolidated material above the limerock, even though a depression forms on the surface. One of the sinkholes has standing water within it and could possibly represent a connection with the lake water table or the Floridan Aquifer, but that sinkhole is separated hydrologically from the sprayfield site by the "break" across the property. There will generally be a slight increase in hydrologic conductivity through a subsidence sinkhole, since the unconsolidated material on the surface remains and is loosened. In some cases there may be even less hydrologic transmissivity due to a "jamming up" of the unconsolidated material, and in some cases there may be an increase in transmissivity when the unconsolidated material falls into an even less consolidated state. A "lineament" may exist on the 75-acre site. A lineament is a fracture zone, which indicates an increase in ground water transmissivity, resulting in an increase in solution of limestone and therefore indicating a more likely location for sinkhole formation. If a sinkhole develops within the sprayfield and if the sinkhole results in an increased area of ground water transmissivity, it could be a conduit for treated effluent to reach the surficial aquifer or Floridan Aquifer. Sinkholes which may form on the site are subject to being repaired with impervious material which prevents their becoming routes of contamination to the aquifer. In addition, the loading rate of any single sinkhole that forms within the spray irrigation field is so light and so easily shut down that there is a high confidence rate that no new sinkhole will act as a conduit for even the small immediate discharge over the area of the new sink to reach the Floridan Aquifer. A spray irrigation effluent disposal system is appropriate for this area which is subject to sinkhole formation. Spray irrigation allows dispersal of the effluent over a large area as opposed to a percolation pond which concentrates in the percolation area and therefore increases the chance of sinkhole formation and the chance of larger amounts of effluent reaching the Floridan Aquifer if all the intervening safeguards should fail simultaneously. In addition, the repair of any sinkhole forming within the sprayfield is simplified by the ability to simply shut off the sprinkler head or heads affecting that sinkhole while repair is being effected. Permit conditions further limit excessive effluent application rates by limiting the amount of flow, prohibiting application during storm events, and requiring monitoring of the flow. Spray irrigation is a common method of effluent disposal which generally has fewer problems than use of percolation ponds. No evidence has been presented that discharge from the sprayfield will cause violations of groundwater quality standards or violations of surface water quality standards, including the Outstanding Florida Water requirements in Orange Lake. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed effluent disposal system will not violate DER water quality standards or other applicable DER rules. Standing Petitioner Suto could be substantially affected by this proposed facility if it causes pollution to Orange Lake since she uses the lake for nature photography. Additionally, she resides to the southeast of the proposed sprayfield and has concerns over contaminated ground water reaching her property and affecting her drinking water. Petitioner Riley could be substantially affected by this proposed facility if there is pollution to the Floridan Aquifer since she lives southeast of the proposed facility and has two drinking water wells on this property. Additionally, Petitioner Riley is a user of Orange Lake and therefore could be substantially affected by the proposed facility if it impacts the lake. Petitioner Solomon could be substantially affected by the proposed project if the project impacts Orange Lake since Mr. Solomon earns his living on the lake as a commercial fisherman and bass fishing guide.
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 to Celebrity Resorts, Inc., a permit to construct a wastewater treatment facility and spray irrigation disposal system subject to the conditions set forth in the Intent to Issue. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2722 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Celebrity Resorts, Inc. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(1); 5(2); 6(4); 7(5&6); 8- 12(7-11); 13(12); 14(13); 15(14); 16(15&16); 17(17); 18(18); 19-21(20-22); and 22-27(26-31). Proposed findings of fact 1-3 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 28 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4-6(1-3); 7-13(5-11); 14(12); 15-17(13-15); 18(17); 19(18); 20-26(19-25); 27-32(26-31); and 33-35(32- 34). Proposed findings of fact 1-3 are unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Delcie J. Suto, Pro Se 2400 N.W. 165th Street Citra, FL 32113 Carol B. Riley, Pro Se 2250 N.W. 165th Street Citra, FL 32113 Crawford Solomon, Pro Se 1303 N.W. 186th Place Citra, FL 32113 Karen English 3680 West Highway 318 Citra, FL 32113 Marilyn Nehring P. O. Box 481 Orange Lake, FL 32112 John Monsees 2400 NW 165 Street Citra, FL 32113 William L. Townsend, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 250 Palatka, FL 32178-0250 Douglas H. MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Should Petitioner's application for variance from the standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems be granted?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department, through its local health units, is the agency in the State of Florida responsible for permitting or granting variances from permitting standards set forth in Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code, for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (OSTDS). Sometime around 1970, Petitioner purchased a mobile home park (Park) in Winter Haven, Florida. The Park presently contains 68 spaces for mobile homes, all of which are occupied. The Park is situated due south of Lake Shipp. There are two canals running approximately east and west through the interior of the Park. Another canal borders the Park on the north side. Included with the purchase of the Park was a Sewage Treatment System (STS) which is permitted and regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection and is presently operating at its maximum capacity serving the 68 mobile homes located in the Park. Sometime around 1980, Petitioner purchased a parcel of land (Property) immediately north of, and across a canal (this is the canal that borders the north side of the Park) from, the Park. The Property borders a basin to Lake Shipp. The Property is zoned for mobile home usage and such is the purpose for which Petitioner purchased the Property. Petitioner has designed the Property such that it will accommodate three mobile home lots (Lots numbered 69, 70, and 71) which Petitioner intends to operate as part of the Park. Initially, Petitioner requested approval of the Department of Environmental Protection to connect the new lots to the existing STS. However, since the existing STS was already at capacity, the Department of Environmental Protection denied Petitioner's request to connect the additional three lots to that system. However, the Department of Environmental protection advised Petitioner that it would have no objection to the installation of septic tanks approved by the Department of Health to serve the additional lots. Subsequently, Petitioner proceeded to obtain the necessary approvals from the local governing authorities and a permit from the Department for the installation of septic tanks on the Property. Petitioner was successful in obtaining the necessary approvals from the local governing authorities but was not successful in obtaining a permit for the installation of septic tanks on the Property from the Department. By letter dated July 16, 1997, the Polk County Health Department denied Petitioner's Application for Onsite Sewage Treatment Disposal System Permit for the following reason: "Domestic sewage flow exceeds 10,000 gallons per day." The denial letter also advised Petitioner that she could request a variance through the Variance Review Board or request an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, on the Department's denial of her application for a permit to install septic tanks on the Property. Petitioner elected to file an application for a variance from Section 381.0065(3)(b), Florida Statutes, with the Variance Review Board. By letter dated August 7, 1997, the Department denied Petitioner's application for variance for the following reasons: The Variance Review and Advisory Committee for the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Program has recommended disapproval of your application for variance in the case of the above reference property. The granting of variances from established standards is for relieving hardships where it can be clearly shown that the public's health will not be impaired and where pollution of groundwater or surface water will not result, where no reasonable alternative exists, and where the hardship was not intentionally caused by the action of the applicant. The advisory committee's recommendation was based on the failure of the information provided to satisfy the committee that the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant, no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage, or the discharge from the system will not adversely affect the health of the public. I concur with the advisory committee's recommendation and hereby deny your variance request. Subsequently, Petitioner requested and was granted a formal hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, on the denial of Petitioner's application for a variance. The Petitioner intends to locate the OSTDS on the Property. The tank and drain field for the OSTDS will be located approximately 125 feet from the basin. The City of Winter Haven's Sewage System is not available to the Property. The Park's existing STS does not have adequate capacity to accept the sewage that will be generated by the Property. There is no publicly-owned or investor-owned sewage system capable of being connected to the plumbing of the Property. Petitioner testified that the estimated cost of increasing the capacity of the Park's Sewage System to accommodate service to the three additional lots was $30,000.00 - $40,000.00. However, Petitioner presented no evidence as to how the estimate was determined. The projected daily domestic sewage flow from the Property is less than 1,500 gallons per acre per day. The Property contains 1.78 acres and there will be less than four lots per acre. In a letter dated October 17, 1997, from W. R. Cover, a professional engineer with Cover Engineering, Inc., Mr. Cover expresses the following opinion: The location of these proposed mobile homes is such that a septic system will not cause adverse effects or impacts on the environment or public health. The unit will be located so as not to significantly degrade groundwater or surface waters. There is no reasonable alternative for the treatment of the sewage in view of the fact that it would be an additional financial burden to attempt to connect these units to the existing sewage treatment plant Mr. Cover did not testify at the hearing. However, the letter was received as evidence without objection from the Department. Petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence to show that: (a) no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage, and (b) the discharge from the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or the public or significantly degrade groundwater or surface waters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for variance from the requirements of Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes and Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Robert J. Antonello, Esquire Antonello, Fegers and Cea Post Office Box 7692 Winter Haven, Florida 33883-7692 Roland Reis, Esquire Department of Health 1290 Golfview Avenue, 4th Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-0293
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit authorizing installation of an OSDS on property which Petitioner owns near the Suwanee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with Section 8l.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an owner, by joint tenancy, of real property located in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as part of Government Lot 1, Section 4, Township 11 South, Range 13 East; closely proximate to the Suwanee River at a location generally known as "New Pine Landing". The surrounding property is characterized by homes and mobile home,;, which have OSDS's installed and operating. The subject property has no improvements constructed thereon, although the Petitioner intends the placement of a 12X60 foot mobile home, containing two bedrooms and one bathroom. There is no OSDS of any type installed on the property at the present time. The subject property is approximately 18.5 acres in size. It was purchased on January 17, 1990, but the property in question has never been platted. On March 20, 1990, the Petitioner made application for an OSDS permit for the aforesaid property, which was denied by the Respondent's letter of denial dated April 23, 1990. The Petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to pursue an informal variance application through the variance procedure set up by the statute and rules cited hereinbelow. Rather, the Respondent, in its denial letter, indicated that, because of the perceived effect of the Governor's Executive Order, discussed hereinbelow, no variances were being granted and the variance procedure would be "bypassed" in favor of affording the Petitioner a formal administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings concerning the permit denial. The Petitioner testified generally concerning the character of the property in question and the general nature of the terrain and vegetation. The property is characterized by a wetland or swampy area at one end of the property and, in the area of the proposed installation site, the ground elevation is higher, with a benchmark elevation of 8.8 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"), as established by Herbert H. Raker, certified land surveyor, and depicted by Petitioner's Exhibit 2 in evidence. The Petitioner offered no testimony concerning the ground water levels, other than to say that at one point in time, he dug a three-foot-deep hole on the subject property near the septic tank installation site and observed no water in the hole. His testimony did not indicate at what season of the year the observation was made nor whether conditions were wet or dry at the time. The only concrete evidence concerning ground water level at this installation site was that offered by the Respondent, which indicates that the ground water level at the time of the site evaluation was 42 inches below the surface of the property in question at the proposed installation site and, through observation of "mottling1, of the soil, indicating the presence of dampness, that the wet season water table is 12 inches below the surface of the property. Likewise, the Petitioner professed to have no knowledge of the ten-year flood elevation for the property. The Respondent's evidence, derived from materials submitted by the Petitioner in furtherance of the application, consisting of a report from the Suwanee River Water Management District, establishes that the ten-year flood elevation is 14 feet above MSL for Suwanee River Mile 29, which corresponds to the location of the subject property. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway administered by the Suwanee River Water Management District. Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, mandates that before a mounded system for on-site sewage disposal can be installed, a certification by a registered engineer would be necessary to determine that installation of such a mounded system would not raise the level of the "base flood". No such engineering testimony or evidence has been offered in this proceeding, however. The Petitioner further testified in a general sense that it would be a hardship not to be able to) install the OSDS on the property, given the money paid to purchase the property and the intent by the Petitioner to use it for a residence. The Petitioner has no use for the property without being able to use it for a residence. The Petitioner, however, did not offer any testimony or evidence concerning alternatives to installing the proposed OSDS, nor did the Petitioner establish that installation of such a system or an alternative system would pose no adverse health effects on the Petitioner or members of the general public nor that it would pose no degradation to the surface or ground waters involved for purposes of the Petitioner establishing entitlement to a permit or a variance It should be remembered, however, that the Petitioners were not accorded the opportunity to avail themselves of the variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances, or permits for OSDS within the ten-year flood elevation. This leads to its advising the Petitioner that to apply for a variance in this instance would be futile. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwanee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such system; beneath the ten-year flood elevation was entered on January 17 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit without prejudice to the Petitioner applying for and seeking a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting, for the reasons found and concluded above; and without prejudice to pursuing an OSDS permit application at a later time should the Petitioner become able to demonstrate that alternative methods of treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent in question can feasibly be performed within the bounds of the standards enunciated in the above-cited statutes and rules concerning on- site sewage disposal permitting. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3120 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-9. Accepted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: None filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Mary Ann White and Inman White P.O. Box 756 Old Town, Florida 32680 Frances Childers, Esquire Assistant District Legal Counsel HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
The Issue The issues for consideration in these cases concern whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit, or the grant of a variance from the permitting requirements embodied in the statutes and rules cited herein, so as to authorize installation of an OSDS for property they own near the Suwanee River in Dixie County, Florida. See, Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are the owners of certain real property located in Dixie County, Florida, in close proximity to the Suwanee River, more particularly described as Lots 22 and 37, High Point Suwanee Riverfront Estates, a subdivision platted and recorded in 1983. Lot 22 is approximately 150 feet by 127 feet by 121 feet, and Lot 37 is approximately 100 feet by 175 feet by 176 feet in dimension. The lots were purchased on September 22, 1987 and December 10, 1987, respectively. The parties have stipulated that evidence and factual testimony adduced in this proceeding shall apply equally to the circumstance of both lots since they are in close proximity to each other and have similar elevations and other site characteristics. Accordingly, these Findings of Fact will be based upon that stipulated, combined evidence; and all Findings of Fact will apply to both lots, except as to elevation figures peculiar to each lot and as otherwise noted in these Findings of Fact. The Petitioners purchased Lot 22 for $14,995.00 and Lot 37 for $12,500.00. They were purchased in September and December of 1987, respectively. The Petitioners purchased them with the intent of holding them for investment and building a retirement-type home on one of the lots. On March 22, 1990, the Petitioners applied for an OSDS permit for the lots in question. The new systems applied for would be for a frame-type "stilt home", which would contain three bedrooms and a heated and cooled area of 1,232 feet, which equates to a 350-450 gallons per day sewage flow under the standards contained in the Respondent's rules. Hubert H. Raker, a certified, land surveyor of Cross City, Florida, performed a survey on the property, shown by Petitioners' Exhibit NO. 1 in evidence. That survey establishes a benchmark elevation for Lot 22 of 11.79 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). That benchmark is actually six inches above the grade level elevation of the property at the benchmark location. Lot 37 was established to have a benchmark elevation of 12.25 feet above MSL, also six inches above the actual grade level of the lot at the benchmark elevation site. The site of the proposed installation of the OSDS has an elevation of 11.19 feet above MSL, as to Lot 22, and 11.75 feet above MSL, as to Lot 37. The ground water level, at the time the site evaluation was made by the Respondent's representative, was 60 inches below the surface of the grade for Lot 22 and 54 inches below the surface of the grade for Lot 37. The wet season water table for both lots was shown, by "mottling" existing in the soil beneath the surface of the lots, to be 54 inches below `:he surface of both lots. The soil type for both lots, starting with six inches below the surface, is of a "slight limited" soil characteristic and is fine sand down to approximately 48 inches and from 48 inches to 72 inches, consists of "loamy-sand". Such soils are well adapted to OSDS installation and operation. The property was shown, by the Respondent's own Composite Exhibit NO. 2 in evidence, to not be subject to frequent flooding. The property is, however, as to both lots, beneath the ten-year flood elevation established by the Suwanee River Water Management District's calculations and admitted into evidence in this proceeding as a part of Respondent's Composite Exhibit NO. 2. The ten-year flood elevation for both lots was shown to be 15 feet above MSL. Thus the surface elevation of both lots is somewhat below the 15-foot, ten-year flood elevation. The bottom of the drain-field or absorption-bed trenches, if the systems were installed on the lots, would be a greater distance beneath the ten- year flood elevation. Thus, the property is located within the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwanee River and is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Suwanee River. Other properties and lots in the immediate proximity of the Petitioners' two lots are equipped with OSDS's, including a number of "mounded systems", involving the placement of septic tanks and drain fields in elevated earthen mounds in order to elevate them above the ten-year flood elevation. Petitioner, John W. Holian, testified in a general way that such a system might be feasible and advisable in his situation, as well as the possibility of installing an aerobic septic tank treatment and disposal system, involving the injection of air into the septic tanks so that aerobic, (as opposed to anaerobic), bacteria could perform the sewage treatment function, which typically perform the function better than does a conventional anaerobic system. Petitioner Holian, did not offer any detailed testimony or evidence which would explain and establish how such a system could work without endangering the health of the Petitioners or members of the general public, if placed on the lots in question below the ten-year flood elevation, nor if or how such a system would protect against degradation of the ground or surface waters involved in the proximity" of the sites. If the system were mounded above the ten-year flood elevation, the Petitioners did not establish, through proper engineering testimony and other evidence generated by a registered engineer, that the use of the fill for the earthen mound for such a system would not raise the level of the "base flood." In summary, although the Petitioners suggested such a mounded system or an aerobic system or such a system possibly used in combination, the Petitioners did not go beyond suggesting an alternative and did not offer evidence which could establish that such an alternative would be a reasonable operationally feasible one and would adequately protect the ground or surface waters and the members of the general public from health hazards associated with sewage effluent. See, Rule 10D-6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code. On May 1, 1990, the Respondent, by letter, advised the Petitioners that they should pursue a formal administrative proceeding upon the initial denial of their OSDS permit application and advised them that an application for a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D-6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code, regarding the ten-year flood elevation problem at issue, should not be pursued but rather, the formal hearing process before the Division of Administrative Hearings should be employed by the Petitioners. The Respondent asserts, that the Petitioners were not accorded the opportunity to avail themselves of the variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances or permits for OSDS within the ten-year flood elevation. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwanee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such systems beneath the ten year flood elevation was entered on January 17, 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications. The Petitioners apparently took-that advice because no variance application was filed. It is noted, somewhat parenthetically, however, that in terms of the requirements for the establishment of a right to a variance, the Petitioners have not shown that no reasonable alternatives exist to a standard subterranean septic tank and drain field OSDS, (such as those alternatives referenced in the paragraph next above, which efficacy was, nonetheless, not established by the Petitioners). Neither did the Petitioners establish, in terms of the variance requirements in the authority referenced below, that the installation of an OSDS would not have an adverse effect on the public's health or the quality of the ground or surface waters involved at the sites. Because these two necessary elements of proof necessary to establish the right to a variance, through hardship, were not proven by the Petitioners, the elements of proof necessary to establish the right to a hardship variance have not been made out by the Petitioners and one could not be granted under the proof of record in this proceeding, even had the Petitioners made formal application for such a variance. That is not to say, however, that with proper preparation and presentation of evidence, entitlement to a variance could not be established in the future.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3109 AND 90-3445 The Petitioners filed no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-9. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John W. Holian 466 South Lake Triplet Drive Casselberry, Florida Frances S. Childers, Esquire Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
Findings Of Fact The permit Applicant and Co-Respondent, Florida Medical Facilities, Inc. is the owner and developer of a 60-acre tract of land upon which it has constructed a hospital and will construct various attendant laboratories, medical offices and the like. Additionally, the Applicant is the owner of approximately five acres of land adjacent to its original 60-acre site which lies on Morningside Drive in Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida. The Applicant proposes to construct and operate the wastewater treatment plant on that 5-acre parcel. The Applicant proposes to construct an extended aeration wastewater treatment plant and effluent disposal drain field system which will accommodate and dispose of all wastewater effluent on the site by the absorption bed, land application method. The proposed sewage treatment plant will have an average daily design flow capacity of 50,000 gallons per day. The anticipated peak flow of the treatment plant will be 60,000 gallons per day. The plant will generate and dispose of approximately 900 gallons of waste sludge on a daily basis. The facility would employ dual drain fields, use of which would be rotated on a weekly basis. The proposed average hydraulic loading rate would be 3.21 inches per day or two gallons per day, per square foot of drain field. The proposed facility will serve a 100-bed community hospital, assorted medical offices, a diagnostic laboratory and a 75-bed nursing home. The permit applicant has agreed and stipulated that chemical, nuclear and other hazardous and noxious waste materials, blood, body parts, medicines, and drugs will not be introduced into the sewage treatment system plant or drain fields. The Applicant (FMF) originally proposed to dispose of sewage effluent emanating from its hospital and other facilities by transmission of it through force-mains to existing public wastewater systems, one of which is in Charlotte County and the other in Sarasota County. After exploring these possibilities, these alternatives proved to be either too expensive or to involve transmission of effluent over too great a distance to make these options feasible. Sarasota County has a local pollution control program approved by the DER, pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes. Under this program the Sarasota Environmental Service Department reviews domestic wastewater treatment facility permit applications pending before the DER and makes recommendations on their disposition. The county's ordinance concerning such facilities is equivalent to the DER standards, except in some respects it is stricter Mr. Russell Klier of the county environmental services department established that the proposed project as planned and designed, will comply with county ordinances regarding wastewater treatment plants. Indeed, it was established through Mr. Klier's testimony, that the proposed project has more redundancy and reliability safeguards than any other such project presently operating in Sarasota County. The proposed sewage treatment plant and disposal system is designed to attain the secondary level of treatment required by Chapter 17-6.060, Florida Administrative Code. The effluent disposal system will provide for disposal of effluent in an absorption field system as envisioned by Chapter 17-6.040(4)(M), Florida Administrative Code and the Department's "Land Application Manual," incorporated by reference in that rule. The system, as proposed, will have the additional safeguards required by the "Land Application Manual" in order to attain "Class I reliability." The hospital, which is the initial facility to be constructed on the 60-acre site, is largely completed, and is being served by a temporary "package" sewage treatment plant until the permit application is resolved. The package sewage treatment plant, as well as the proposed plant and drain field land application system will only serve the medical center complex. All on-site stormwater and surface water run-off from both the 60-acre original medical center site, as well as the 5- acre proposed sewage treatment plant and disposal site, will be managed by directing stormwater and surface water run-off to holding ponds to be constructed and maintained on the original 60-acre site. Steven Houghton was accepted as an expert engineering witness. It was thus established that the system as designed will meet all water quality parameters regulated and enforced by the DER and Sarasota County in terms of the quality of the effluent generated by the plant and disposal system for disposal by land application. In this connection, he established that no nuclear, infectious, toxic or noxious waste will be processed by the system or introduced into the system nothing other than domestic-type sewage will be treated, processed and disposed of by the proposed system. Mr. Houghton acknowledged that the project will be located in an historically flood-prone vicinity, but that will not affect the quality or effectiveness of the operation of the plant nor the safe disposal of the resulting effluent. In that regard, the Applicant will place fill at the drain field site so as to provide a more effective soil percolation condition than that presently existing in the soils at the drain field site. Additionally, the Applicant will provide a sewage storage tank to provide extra reliability and avoidance of pollution caused by sewage overflows in the event of any excessive sewage flows into the plant, and as a safeguard against disposing of insufficiently treated effluent during periods of high rain and high surface or ground water conditions. Additionally, the system will be constructed and operated with sufficient redundancy of electrical and mechanical components so as to provide auxiliary capacity throughout the system, allowing it to operate efficiently 24 hours a day and to continue to provide treatment and disposal of the effluent in accordance with secondary treatment and Class I reliability standards, even during periods of mechanical or electrical outages. Petitioner Mary Wagoner owns and resides on acreage generally south and adjacent to the proposed project site. Mrs. Wagoner uses a potable water well in the shallow aquifer with a depth of approximately 35 feet. Mrs. Wagoner's well has recently been tested and at this time provides good, safe, potable water which she uses both for drinking, cooking, domestic usage, as well as water for her livestock. Mrs. Wagoner's well is less than 500 feet from the proposed "wetted area" of the drain field land application disposal site. Mr. Edward Snipes was accepted and testified as an expert witness in the areas of engineering and wastewater engineering on behalf of the Department. He corroborated Mr. Houghton's testimony in establishing that the project would meet the Department's standards for water quality and Class I reliability in large part. It was shown that the project will not likely have harmful effects on the Petitioners' water wells. Mr. Snipes established that the Department's "Land Application Manual" embodied in Rule 17-6.04(4)(Q), Florida Administrative Code requires a buffer zone of only 100 feet, instead of 500C feet, from the wetted area of the sewage effluent disposal site, due to the type of system and level of treatment proposed. That is, the system would provide secondary treatment, with additional safety measures incorporated in the design and operation so as to achieve Class I reliability. This Class I reliability standard includes a sufficiently high rate of disinfection so as to allow unrestricted public access to the site, and thus would meet the most stringent Class I reliability standards extant in Rule 17- 6.040(4)(M), Florida Administrative Code. This permits a reduced buffer zone between the wetted area of the drain field and any adjacent, shallow-water wells. Thus, the buffer zone would, in the case of this plant, be allowably reduced from 500 feet to 100 feet. In only one respect, was any doubt cast by Petitioner's testimony and evidence on the showing of reasonable assurances that all Department water quality and wastewater treatment standards will be met. That doubt concerns the distance from the bottom of the drain field to the water table elevation at the drain field site, as that relates to the ability of the system to continue to treat and dispose of effluent within appropriate standards in this admittedly flood-prone area, as that problem would in turn relate to potential contamination of ground water in the area, especially in times of high rainfall and high ground water levels. In that connection, Petitioner Wagoner offered Herman Weinberg as an expert witness in civil engineering and he was accepted. Mr. Weinberg acknowledged that he was not a soil engineer and acknowledged that the Department or its witnesses were more knowledgeable about wastewater regulation, treatment and disposal methods than he. He opined, however, that the plant may not be able to reach Class I reliability due to its location in a flood-prone area. He fears that insufficient soil testing and water quality testing had been done prior to the filing of the permit application. and prior to the ultimate construction of the project, if that is to be the case. Section 17-6.040(4) (M), Florida Administrative Code, adopts by reference the United States Environmental Protection Agency design criteria for mechanical, electrical and fluid system and component reliability manual. That manual sets forth certain minimum standards for Class I reliability sewage treatment and disposal plants and systems. In this regard, the rule in that manual establishes that wastewater treatment works include holding ponds and basins and other structures of the disposal system. It provides that all treatment works, structures, as well as electrical and mechanical equipment, shall be protected from physical damage by flooding of a magnitude occurring on the average of once in a hundred years, the so- called "100-year flood." In this connection, it was established through witness Weinberg's testimony as well as that of Mr. Houghton, the Applicant/Respondent's witness, that the 100-year flood plan elevation on and around the subject site is 12 feet above mean sea level. The top of the proposed drain field would be located at 12.33 feet elevation. The bottom of the drain field would be at 10.33 feet elevation. The water table level established by witness Houghton as a result of his survey and calculations, is at 8.33 feet elevation. The Department of Environmental Regulation, in its "Land Application Manual," which provides criteria for sewage plant and disposal system construction and operation, requires a 36-inch minimum separation between the bottom of a drain field and the design water table level. Thus, the legally operative Class I reliability standards, incorporated in the above-referenced rule and manuals, and which the Applicant and the Department agree is the level of reliability required, given the conditions and the proximity of Petitioner's well, can only be met if the drain field disposal system is at this required elevation of 36 inches above the design water table level. Affirmative, reasonable assurances that this safeguard will be incorporated in the subject system are necessary in view of the fact that Petitioner Wagoner's potable water well is clearly less than 500 feet from the wetted area of the drain field site. In this connection, the Applicant/Respondent has proposed placing fill soil of a suitable type for adequate percolation and land application treatment of the effluent on the drain field site, however, it has not been established that this will be done to such an extent as to raise the elevation of the drain field sufficiently so that the bottom of the drain field is a minimum of 36 inches above the design water table. The installation of an adequate depth of fill soil of a suitable percolation characteristic must therefore be a condition on the issuance of the permit. Further, in that regard, the Applicant/Respondent's soil test and calculation of tile ground water level or "design water table," occurred in January and February of 1985, at a time when the southwest region of Florida was in a drought or dry condition, such that the water level or ground water table at normal rainfall conditions would likely be at a higher elevation. Thus, a grant of this permit must be conditioned upon the installation of sufficient, appropriate quality fill soil to ensure that the minimum 36-inch separation between the drain field bottom and the water table is maintained during normal water table or rainfall conditions. If this measure is not taken, given the 2-foot separation between the drain field, as designed, and the water table, the oxygen transferring capacity of the soil beneath the drain field may not be sufficient to satisfy the oxygen demand required for consistently adequate treatment and safe disposal of the sewage effluent. Additionally, in this same context, Chapter 1 of the DER Land Application Manual at Section 1.3, requires that sufficient storage capacity exist on-site to ensure retention of sewage effluent during conditions which preclude land application, such as high ground water conditions or flooding conditions. This capacity should be equivalent to three days maximum daily flow at the design capacity of the plant, or in this case, 180,000 gallons. Although the Applicant, by its plans and specifications in evidence, has assured that a sewage effluent storage tank will be constructed and operated, it has failed to establish that sufficient storage capacity will be incorporated to assure the retention of 180,000 gallons of effluent. Any grant of the permit application should be conditioned upon such an assurance. Finally, in connection with the above-mentioned condition concerning installation of sufficient, appropriate soil filling to allow for a minimum 36-inch amount of unsaturated soil beneath the drain field, that addition of fill should also be of a sufficient type and amount to ensure that the Applicant's proposed rotation or "resting" of drain fields for 7-day periods will be adequate to ensure that the subject amount of soil is unsaturated before re-use of either of the two drain fields. There should be incorporated in these conditions, upon a grant of the permit, the requirement that the Department monitor construction of the proposed facility to ensure that the above conditions are adequately met, in view of the low-lying terrain at the drain field site and the flood-prone condition of that locality. Petitioner Mary Nygaard testified on behalf of herself and her husband, Lyle A. Nygaard. Mrs. Nygaard complains of feared pollution of her shallow-water potable well which she maintains is within 500 feet of the drain field and sewage plant site. Mr. Nygeard established that the well is 187.1 feet from the Petitioner's southern property boundary, but acknowledged that no survey has been done delineating the distance to the proposed wetted area of the drain field. It was not otherwise proven how far the Nygaard's potable well is from the wetted area of the proposed drain field where the effluent will be disposed of. Various easements and roadways lie between the Nygaard's well and the wetted area of the proposed drain field site with indeterminate dimensions, thus it was not proven what distance exists between the Nygaard's well and the drain field site other than that it exceeds 187.1 feet.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Florida Medical Facilities for a permit authorizing construction of an extended aeration, wastewater treatment plant and disposal system to serve only the Englewood Hospital and Medical Center project in Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida, referenced above be GRANTED, provided that the above-delineated conditions upon a grant of the permit are complied with. DONE and ENTERED this 30th of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 30th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Lyle and Mary E. Nygnard 740 Morningside Drive Englewood, Florida 33533 Harlan Domber, Esquire ISPHORDING, PAYNE, KORP and MUIRHEAD, P.A. 333 West Miami Avenue Venice, Florida 33595 James H. Burgess, Jr., Esquire SYPRETT, MESHAD, RESNICK and LIEF, P.A. Post Office Box 1238 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Douglas L. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following specific rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to the extent that the proposals actually constitute proposed findings of fact as opposed to recitations of testimony and evidence, conclusions and arguments of law. APPLICANT/RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Additionally, paragraph 7 constitutes a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Additionally, paragraph 11 constitutes in part a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Accepted, but this proposed finding of fact is unnecessary and immaterial to a resolution of the material issues presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as modified by the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order concerning the conditions which must be met before the permit should be granted as that relates to Class I reliability standards and the "buffer zone" issue. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the necessity of the installation of a minimum 36-inch adequate soil percolation zone and adequate sewage effluent storage capacity. Accepted in part, but rejected to the extent that this proposed finding of fact maintains that the nature of Mrs. Wagoner's well has been impossible to obtain due to her refusal to allow inspection. Indeed, Mrs. Wagoner adduced competent evidence of the water quality in her well. Accepted in part, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the additional conditions that should be placed upon the permit related to its location in a flood-prone area, and related to the distance between the bottom of the drain field and the high water table. Accepted. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the conditions referenced above which must be met for Class I reliability and for avoidance of harmful effect on Petitioner's water well. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted.. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning additional conditions referenced above which must be met concerning Class I reliability and protection of water quality in Petitioner's-well. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as constituting merely a discussion of testimony. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but this proposed finding is irrelevant to a resolution of the material issues presented. Accepted. Rejected as merely being a recitation of testimony. Accepted. PETITIONER WAGONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, except to the extent that it indicates the applicant will situate the facility in a manner so as not to be accessible to the general public. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as constituting a discussion and conclusion of law. 13 and 14. Rejected. These two proposed findings in reality constitute discussion and conclusions of law. 15 and 16. Rejected. These two proposed findings in reality constitute discussion and conclusions of law. They are rejected for the additional reason that portions of those two paragraphs that constitute proposed findings of fact do not comport with the competent, substantial, credible evidence and testimony presented. 17 through 31. These proposed findings are rejected as constituting conclusions of law and, to the extent that they embody proposed findings of fact, are not supported by the competent, substantial, credible evidence and testimony presented. The evidence and testimony shows that reasonable assurances (except as to the permit conditions recommended) have been provided that all pertinent regulatory criteria have been or will be met. The EPA Manual criteria referenced in these proposed findings of fact (17-31) are not mandatory, whereas those in Subsection (4)(q) of the above-referenced rule are mandatory and have been reasonably assured by the applicant to be met subject to the conditions recommended on a grant of the permit by the Hearing Officer. Accepted, except to the extent that the applicant is reputed not to have provided data to substantiate the estimated design water table. The applicant's proof of the water table elevation was un-refuted. Accepted as to the first sentence, the remaining portion of that proposed finding of fact is irrelevant and unnecessary to a disposition of the material issues presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Accepted to the extent that the conditions recommended to be attached to a grant of the permit envision assurance being provided before a grant of the permit that the issue raised by proposed finding No. 39 is satisfied. Accepted. Accepted as to its second sentence, the first sentence in that proposed finding is rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented, and as being unnecessary to a resolution of the material issues presented. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 47. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 48. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 49. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 50. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 51. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 52. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 53. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 54. Accepted. 55. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 56. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 57. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 58. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 59. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 60. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 61. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 62. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 63. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 64. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 65. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 66. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 67. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 68. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 69. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and for the additional reason that the last sentence is a proposed finding of fact not supported by competent, substantial credible evidence and testimony presented. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and for the further reason that the proposed finding of fact is not supported by competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected in part as constituting a conclusion of law and accepted to the extent that reasonable assurances concerning the effect of the water table elevation discussed in the Recommended Order have not been provided and such assurance should be a condition on a grant of the permit. The remainder of that proposed finding of fact is not supported by the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented and is irrelevant. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented.
