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 The issues in this case concern the entitlement of Petitioners to the grant of a variance for the purpose of installation of an onsite sewage disposal system on property located in Dixie County, Florida. See Section 381.272, Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On April 27, 1989, the property which is at issue was deeded over to Diane H. and Charles A. Miller. The property is located in Dixie County, Florida, and contains 0.377 acres. On Nay 23, 1989, Petitioners were granted an easement for purposes of ingress and egress to and from the property. On May 4, 1989, under the signature of Diane H. Miller, a Petitioner in this case, an application was made for onsite sewage disposal at the aforementioned property. A copy of that application form may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. It states that this application is for a new system at lot No. 2, southwest corner, New Pine Landing Subdivision. Reference is also made to the directions to the property and suggestion that the property is located behind Nevin Kean Public Park [sic]. The warranty deed, a copy of which may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence, describes the fact that the property is adjacent to Nevin Keen Public Park. The application form points out that this is a new system which is by type of residence "MH." It would contain two bedrooms and a heated or cooled area which is 12 feet by 60 feet. Also attached in Petitioners' exhibit No. 1 is a paper which purports to establish the benchmark elevation of the property as part of what that paper describes as the unrecorded subdivision at New Pine Landing. It speaks in terms of an elevation of 11.36 feet as allegedly surveyed by Herbert H. Raker. That information is hearsay and may not be used for purposes of fact finding in establishing the true elevation in an instance where Herbert H. Raker has not provided this explanation. See Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. As a consequence, there being no other explanation of the elevation, it is unknown. To the extent that it is accepted that there exists a New Pine Landing Subdivision, of which the Miller property is a part, evidence was not presented at the hearing which would establish the date upon which it was platted. Copies of the warranty deed and easement which were admitted into evidence do not indicate that the property is in New Pine Landing Subdivision, nor do they describe the date upon which the subdivision was platted, if ever. From the proof submitted, especially the warranty deed and easement, it does not appear that the parcel in question is part of a recorded subdivision. This coincides with representations by Ms. Virginia Sessions, whose daughter is Diane Miller. Ms. Sessions speaks in terms of this being an unrecorded subdivision and Petitioners' exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence directed to Jermone Blake of the Dixie Public Health Unit on stationery of Suwannee River Water Management District refers to this location as New Pine Landing. Under the circumstances it is accepted that this parcel lies within an unrecorded subdivision known as New Pine Landing. There was a period of time during which the applicants did not receive a response from Respondent concerning the request for a permit to install the onsite sewage disposal system. Ms. Sessions testified that her daughter made a phone call to the Respondent to determine the status of the application and that the daughter reported that someone affiliated with Respondent said that Respondent would be getting back in touch with the applicants. This report by Mrs. Sessions of her daughter's remarks concerning a purported conversation between the daughter and the Respondent's employee is hearsay and may not be used to decide whether in fact there was a communication between the daughter and the Respondent. See Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. In any event, Mr. Blake communicated with Mrs. Sessions and informed Mrs. Sessions that the Petitioners would not be given a permit for installation of an onsite sewage disposal system and would need to file a request for variance from the requirements to obtain permission to install the onsite sewage disposal system. In furtherance of that instruction, the appropriate fee was paid and a form executed by Mrs. Sessions requesting a variance. A copy of that variance request may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. The date of that application was July 13, 1989. The form makes reference to the authority of the agency to examine the request for variance as being set forth in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. The form points out to the applicants that the variance may not be granted unless: The Department is satisfied the stated hardship was not caused intentionally by the applicant. A reasonable alternative sewage treatment method is not available The sewage discharge will not adversely affect public health and/or significantly degrade ground or surface water quality. The application for variance makes reference to the New Pine Landing Subdivision. It states that the parcel in question is lot No. 2, and makes reference to a book and page number and a plat number and purported page number associated with the plat number allegedly pertaining to the subdivision. Competent evidence was not presented to establish that these references found on the application were correct portrayals of the recordation of the subdivision and plat number. See Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. Again, this leaves the record incomplete as to any recordation of the existence of the subdivision and a plat number associated with that subdivision. The application describes the reason for requesting a variance as related to the fact that the lot is in a flood area where more than 36 inches of fill dirt may not be added. Proof was not submitted at hearing concerning the exact nature of the property in question; however, Mrs. Sessions as the person who had applied for the variance and has a layperson's knowledge of the property in question, is entitled to depict the general nature of the property and her explanation that it is flood prone is accepted. How much fill dirt may be added to the property was not established by competent evidence. Under the instructions for the owner associated with the application for the variance, the applicants are told that they should provide any supportive material and documents to the County Health Unit in Dixie County, Florida. This entails submission of a site plan, site location and reference map. These details were not submitted with the application as far as the record reveals. More importantly they were not provided at hearing. The instructions call upon the applicants to satisfy the terms of Section 381.272(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, and to state the reasons for requesting the variance under the requirements of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. The applicants were told to explain why variance from the requirements would relieve or prevent excessive hardship and to provide technical documentation to support the supposition that a variance would not likely result in pollution or impairment to public health. Written on the form submitted is the suggestion that this project is a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, related to the 10 year flood event. The application points out the size of the parcel as being approximately .38 acres and the sewage flow anticipated is 250GPD. It points out that the drinking water supply is a private source. It points out that the type of residence is a single-family retreat that has two bedrooms. It describes the proximity to sanitary sewer as 13 miles and to public water supply as 7,500 feet. The distance to private wells is said to be 775 feet and to a stream 7,400 feet. The proposed system that the applicant has in mind is a septic tank and drain field that is mounded. The system is referred to as a subsurface septic tank and drain field with six inches of fill sand. Although the application describes that the water table during the wettest season of the year is below the ground surface by 36 inches and at the time testing was done that the water table was below the ground surface and "not found 72 inches," competent proof of these assertions was not presented in the course of the hearing. The description of the type of soil as being sand is accepted. Nothing more was revealed about the soil characteristics. The application points out that the 10 year MSL flood elevation is 14 feet and that the property elevation MSL is 11 feet. Competent evidence of those facts was not presented at hearing. Nor was there competent evidence of the adequacy of the surface water drainage at the property site. The application form points out that the Dixie County Health Unit recommended approval of the variance on July 13, 1989. That says that the property is in the Suwannee River floodway where maximum fill allowed is 36 inches and that mounds are subject to erosion and moving water. It is accepted that the property is in the area of the Suwannee River. The other facts that are suggested in these summary remarks were not established by competent evidence. The form reminds the county health unit that procedures associated with the variance requests must comply with Section 120.60, Florida Statutes. The county staff is instructed to list additional details in terms of the site evaluation and tell why standards cannot be met if that is the opinion held. It reminds them to reference the specific sections within Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, that are involved with the variance request and state reasons why a recommendation of approval or disapproval is being made. The completed form is then submitted to the Environmental Health Program ten days prior to any scheduled Variance Review Board meeting date. Substantiating documents must be submitted in place of or in addition to the data just described to include the application for septic tank permit, denial letter and engineering report and USDA Soil Conservation Service reports. Based upon this record an engineer's report has never been submitted. More particularly, an engineer or acceptable substitute did not present evidence supporting the variance. Mrs. Sessions received an August 18, 1989 letter from Richard G. Hunter, PHD, Assistant Health Officer for Environmental Health. A copy of this may be found as Petitioners' exhibit number 5 admitted into evidence. It requests that additional information be provided to the Dixie County Public Health Unit associated with the date that the lot was subdivided from lot 2, if it was subdivided at one time. Mrs. Sessions testified that she responded to this request. The exact information that she provided was not presented at the hearing. Consequently, it is not clear whether the information that was presented satisfied that review group. Within the correspondence of August 18, 1989, is mention of the fact that the review group will consider the variance request at a September 7, 1989 meeting in Tampa, Florida, assuming that the information that had been requested was provided by August 28, 1989. On November 29, 1989, Kevin M. Sherman, PHD, M.P.H., Environmental Administrator, Environmental Health Programs wrote to Mrs. Sessions to advise her that the application for variance had been placed on a meeting agenda for December 7, 1989 in Sarasota, Florida. A copy of this may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. This is seen as an acceptance of the application for purposes of making a decision on the merits. Neither Petitioners nor someone representing their interests attended the December 7, 1989 meeting in Sarasota, Florida. On December 13, 1989, Dr. Hunter wrote to Mrs. Sessions to advise her that the request for variance had been rejected. A copy of this letter of rejection may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. It reminds the applicants that the purpose of the grant of a variance is for relieving or preventing excessive hardships where it can clearly be shown that the public health will not be impaired and where pollution of groundwater or surface water will not result. The basis of rejection was that the request was not considered to be a minor deviation from minimum requirements specified in Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. The letter of rejection advised Petitioners of their right to a hearing. That request for hearing was made on January 11, 1990, within the 30 days allowed for making such requests. Testimony presented by Alma Walker did not establish the nature of the New Pine Landing Subdivision and whether it had been recorded or not and the date that the property may have been platted. Mrs. Walker talked with a person within the Dixie County Health Unit whose name is Frost. This gentleman told Mrs. Walker that the case had been referred for a hearing and that the applicants should continue to pursue that matter. His secretary made some remark to Mrs. Walker concerning the impression that six inches of fill is less than allowed for septic tanks. This representation is not considered to be competent evidence as to the amount of acceptable fill. Mrs. Walker's comments concerning the applicants seeking a new benchmark from a surveyor and the suggestion that the surveyor gave this information to Mr. Frost is hearsay and does not establish the fact that a surveyor presented a new benchmark for the property to Mr. Frost. Nonetheless, following this circumstance Mrs. Walker spoke to Mr. Frost about the survey to establish benchmark and was told by Mr. Frost that the applicant still could not get a permit because of not meeting the requirements of the 10 year floodplain. Petitioners' exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence attempts to describe the impression of the application for a variance as held by the Suwannee River Water Management District. It is hearsay and may not be used to find facts in that competent evidence about the opinion of the Suwannee River Water Management District as to the acceptability of the variance request was not presented at hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which denies Petitioners request for a variance from the requirements to obtain a permit for onsite sewage disposal. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 8th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-1204 The following discussion is made of the fact finding suggested by the parties. Petitioners' Facts Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of suggestion that a benchmark elevation was determined. No competent evidence was presented to establish the benchmark elevation. Paragraph 3 is subordinate to facts found in the sense that it is acknowledged that an application for onsite sewage disposal system permit was made. Proof was not established that all necessary information required by law was presented with the application. Paragraph 4 with its discussion of the significance of information provided by the Suwannee River Water Management District is not accepted to the extent that it attempts to describe the entitlement to a permit based upon remarks made by the Suwannee River Water Management District. The issue of whether adequate reasons were given for denying the permit application was not noticed for consideration at the final hearing and to the extent that that issue has any relevance in considering the variance request Petitioner's have failed to demonstrate any prejudice to their cause in pursuing the variance request. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are subordinate to facts found. The indication in paragraph 7 that Petitioners were having to reapply for a variance does not coincide with the understanding of this process in which the facts tend to establish that the initial variance request was processed to conclusion. In Paragraph 8 the idea of reapplication is rejected as is the contention that there was a failure in the explanation as to the reasons why the variance was denied. The explanation was adequate to notice the Petitioners of the reasons which the agency had in mind in denying the variance application. Respondent's Facts Paragraphs 1-7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 constitutes a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Department Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Frances S. Childers, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 Michael Smith, Esquire Post Office Drawer 579 Perry, FL 32347 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent Toby Chapel is a co-owner of and operates DeSoto Mobile Home Park located at 132 DeSoto Park, Sebring, Florida, 33870. Robert Wolgast is employed as an environmental specialist at Highlands County Health Department. On November 10, 1983, Wolgast inspected the DeSoto Mobile Home Park as part of relicensing. During the inspection, Wolgast observed that a washing machine was discharging wastewater into the ground. Upon questioning the lady who was washing her clothes, he determined that the discharge was into a dry well. (Tr. 5) A dry well is an unapproved system that is generally made out of concrete blocks and which has no drainfield. The untreated wastewater ferments into the soil. (Tr. 8, 23, 27, 37) Dry wells have not be permitted for at least 20 years (Tr. 24). Prior to the existing rule, a waterproof tank with a drainfield was permitted for the disposal of gray water. Wolgast observed a dry well being installed at the trailer park and one being repaired on Lot 25 in the trailer park. These dry wells were made from concrete blocks and did not have drainfields. There were drains from the clothes washing areas to similar installations throughout the park. Respondent admitted to Wolgast that dry wells were being used in the trailer park. (Tr. 5, 11, 20) The subject trailer park has a central sewage system approved by the Department of Environmental Regulation and has the capacity to handle all its wastewater to include the gray water being disposed into the dry wells. (Tr. 31, 34) The wastewater from washing machines could be piped into the central sewage system. The costs of disposing of the gray water in the central sewage system would be the pipe and labor to connect up to the system. (Tr. 19) Petitioner offered to give Respondent one year until relicensing to come into compliance. (Tr. 19) George A. Wolfe, Highlands County Environmental Health Director, testified that no employee under his supervision permitted dry wells at the DeSoto Mobile Home Park. Prior to November 1983, Wolfe was not aware that dry wells were being used in any trailer park in Highlands County (Tr. 25, 26) If Wolfe had been so advised, he would have had a notice issued for correction of this deficiency (Tr. 25). James Brooks, a health department employee between April 1973 and March 1979, testified that he never had a conversation with Respondent regarding dry wells and that dry wells were not permitted. (Tr. 31, 32) Howard E. Short testified that he was employed by the health department from October 1973 through October 1977, that dry wells were not permitted, and that he never had a conversation with Respondent regarding dry wells. (Tr. 36, 38) No evidence was received that dry wells at the subject trailer park had ever been inspected or approved prior to the promulgation of the existing rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the mobile home park not be licensed until the system for the disposal of wastewater is inspected and approved by DHRS upon being determined that it complies with the applicable rules and regulations for the disposal of the gray water. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Amelia M. Park Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 James W. Kelly P. O. Box 1880 Avon Park, Florida 33825
Findings Of Fact V.M.P. Corporation operates a facility known as Stud's Pub in Jacksonville, Florida. Vincent M. Paul owns the facility and the corporation. The facility is on lots that were platted prior to 1972. Respondent is the statutory entity with authority for granting variances for onsite sewage disposal systems regulated by Respondent pursuant to provisions of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. Section 381.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1991) specifically provides: The department may grant variances in hardship cases which may be less restrictive than the provisions specified in this section. A variance may not be granted pursuant to this section until the department is satisfied that: The hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant; No reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage; and The discharge from the individual sewage disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or other members of the public or significantly degrade the ground or surface waters. Where soil conditions, water table elevation, and setback provisions are determined by the department to be satisfactory, special consideration shall be given to those lots platted prior to 1972. Rule 10D-6.045(3), Florida Administrative Code, is the portion of the rule which is the subject of this proceeding and, in pertinent part, reads as follows: Upon consideration of the merits of each application and the recommendations of the review board, the Deputy Secretary for Health or his designee has discretionary authority to either grant a variance as requested, grant a provisional variance or deny the variance request. A variance may be granted to relieve or prevent excessive hardship only in cases involving minor deviation from established standards when it is clearly shown that the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant, where no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of sewage and where proper use of the onsite sewage disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant, any persons using or living on the property, or other members of the public. An applicant must also show that the granting of a variance will not significantly degrade ground or surface waters. Variances shall only be granted to the permit applicant and are not transferable to other persons unless specifically authorized by the department as a stipulation of the variance approval. . . . (emphasis added). The rule also tracks the language of Section 381.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), and requires that "special consideration" be given to those lots platted prior to 1972 in those instances where soil conditions, water table elevation and setback provisions are deemed by Respondent to be "satisfactory." While minor amendments to the rule were made March 17, 1992, the substantive content of Rule 10D-6.045(3), Florida Administrative Code, has remained virtually unchanged since February 5, 1985. Two adjective modifiers in the rule, the terms "minor" and "excessive" which respectively modify the terms "deviation" and "hardship", have not been formally defined by Respondent in the rule. Respondent's rationale for this failure, as professed in the testimony of Respondent's policy representative at the final hearing, was to permit Respondent's review board maximum freedom to evaluate and consider the merit of each application for variance on an individual basis within the statutory authority of Section 385.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes, i.e., variances may be recommended by the board where the hardship is not intentionally caused by the applicant, where no reasonable alternatives exist and where no evidence of adverse effect upon public health or ground and surface waters is demonstrated.
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the agency should grant variances from Rule 10D-6, F.A.C. regarding construction of on-site sewage disposal systems on the lots in question.
Findings Of Fact Jerry Gagliardi is the developer and engineer for an 8-lot subdivision on Merritt Island, Brevard County, Florida. Mr. Gagliardi is a self-employed civil and mechanical engineer. The small subdivision has a long, narrow configuration, extending west to east. It is bounded on the north by an existing drainage ditch and a large tract of undisturbed wetlands. Its south boundary is a finger canal, and its east boundary is Pelican Creek. With the exception of the wetlands, most of the property in the area is already developed. There are no residences built yet on the eight lots. Hook-up to an existing sanitary sewer system is available within one- quarter mile of the subdivision. The entire area, with several finger canals, is served by the sanitary sewer system. Mr. Gagliardi planned to install on-site disposal systems (septic tanks) in the subdivision. When his plan was rejected he applied for variances for lots 1 and 2 in July 1992, stating economic hardship as the basis for the request. The applications were reviewed by Gregory D. Wright, Supervisor for Brevard County Consumer Health Services and his staff. Several site visits were made and a site evaluation was completed. Mr. Wright recommended denial of the variance because the sanitary sewer system is available; the soils (mostly sand and shell) are unsuitable for on- site disposal systems; and the area, virtually surrounded by water, is environmentally very sensitive. Mr. Wright is also concerned that a variance for the two lots will establish a precedent for variances on the remaining lots in the subdivision. Mr. Wright also observed that there is an existing irrigation well on a neighboring lot within thirty feet of the proposed septic tank on lot #1. This well does not appear on Mr. Gagliardi's plans. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Review Group for Individual Sewage Disposal concurred with the local agency's recommendation after consideration of Mr. Gagliardi's hardship argument. The request was not considered to be a minor deviation from the minimum requirements of the law and regulations. For approximately three years Jerry Gagliardi has been providing information on his development plans to the local county staff. He has become extremely frustrated with the process. However, he has still failed to produce the evidence which he must have to justify the variances he is seeking. At the hearing, Mr. Gagliardi claimed that hook-up to the existing sanitary sewer system is impossible because there is insufficient elevation for gravity feed and there is not enough room on Banana River Drive for another sewer line easement. He did not submit evidence to support that claim and it is unclear whether he has made that claim to the local staff for their verification. He has consistently claimed that hook-up to the existing system is prohibitively expensive. He has estimated that the cost of installing hook-up to the existing system would be $52,642 for the entire subdivision, or $6580.25 per lot. He has estimated that installation of aerobic on-site septic systems would cost $28,000.00 or $3500 per lot. This estimate does not include the cost of culverting the ditch along the north boundary of the property. The culvert may be necessary to meet the water body set-back requirements and, assuming that a permit would be granted for its construction, the culvert would substantially increase the cost of the septic tank project. As recently as three weeks prior to hearing, Mr. Gagliardi provided information to the staff that the value of the lots in the subdivision is $60,000.00 each, for lots #1 through #6; and $115,000.00 and $120,000.00, for lots #7 and #8, respectively. At hearing he repudiated that information as being based on three year old appraisals. He now asserts that the value of the lots is closer to $40,000.00 each. Petitioner's exhibit #2 is a cover letter dated January 4, 1993, to Mr. Gagliardi from the Brevard County Property Appraiser. Attached to the letter are four property management print-outs reflecting the value of two lots as $35,000.00, and two others as $65,000.00. The record does not reflect which lots those are in the subdivision and there is no explanation for the inflated values provided to the staff after the printouts were received. It is impossible from the confused and conflicting evidence provided at hearing to determine that the petitioners are entitled to a variance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: that the agency enter its final orders denying Petitioners applications for variances. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 11th day of May, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonia Nieves Burton, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 7 Legal Office 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jerry Gagliardi, Agent for Phil Sperli and Gail Bobzein Post Office Box 541061 Merritt Island, Florida 32954 Robert L. Powell, 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
The Issue The issue is whether respondents should have a civil penalty imposed against them for failing to repair allegedly faulty on-site sewage disposal units.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondents, Carl L. and Deborah J. Forrester, have resided on Lem Turner Road in Callahan, Nassau County, Florida, since December 1988. Their home is serviced by two underground sewage disposal systems, both located in the back yard and installed prior to 1983. In the fall of 1991, Betty Bailey and her now deceased husband began construction of a new home on the lot adjacent to the Forresters. The home was completed in early 1992. As a result of a complaint filed by Bailey with the Nassau County Public Health Unit, which is an arm of respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), respondents were required to obtain a construction permit to repair their sewage disposal systems. Because HRS concluded that respondents did not repair their systems as required by the permit, it contends they should be assessed a civil penalty until the violations are corrected, but that such fine not exceed $1500. This preliminary decision is embodied in an administrative complaint issued against respondents in early 1993. The street on which respondents live, Lem Turner Road, runs in a north- south direction. Beginning at the northern end of the block and going south are the Lindemann, Forrester, Bailey, and Campbell home sites, respectively. The natural slope of the land runs north to south so that water runs from the Lindemann property, which is the high point on the block, south over the Forrester property, then over the Bailey property, and finally through the Campbell property and into a small pond on an adjacent lot. Directly behind the Forrester lot is a home owned by Susan Lewis and her husband while Ronald K. Earl's home is located on a 3-acre home site directly behind Bailey's lot. There is also a sod farm which lies to the south and east of the block and, at its closest point, is no more than seventeen hundred feet from the Earl property. Since there is no central wastewater treatment plant, each of the homes in this area must use an individual sewage disposal unit (septic tank and drainfield). It is noted that because of the low elevation in the area, and the seasonal high water table elevation, at least 95 percent of all new systems currently installed in Callahan must use a septic tank with a mound-type of drainfield. When the Baileys were constructing their home, Betty Bailey noticed that the elevation of her property was lower than the Forresters' lot, and the area in the back yard immediately adjacent to the Forresters' property line was always "wet" and "mushy". Indeed, it was so wet that on occasion construction trucks would get stuck. She also observed water bubbling up out of the Forresters' yard adjacent to her property line. In an effort to eliminate the wet area, Bailey added a considerable amount of fill dirt to her lot and sodded the area. She recalls adding some twenty loads or so while Carl Forrester says it was much more than that. In any event, the elevation on her lot increased to a height slightly greater than that of the Forrester lot, and this changed the natural flow of stormwater runoff from over her lot to a ditch which straddles her property line. Even so, she says the fill and sod did not correct the wet condition near the property line and it still remained wet as of the date of hearing. After moving into her home in February 1992, Bailey began noticing a sewage odor emanating from the soggy area of ground running from her back yard to the Forresters' back yard. The odor, which was worst in the evening and when it rained, was so bad that it prevented her from using her screened back porch and swimming pool in the evening or entertaining friends outside. The condition still existed as of the date of hearing. Bailey spoke to Carl Forrester about the odor and mushy ground on several occasions. Once he told her there was an underground spring causing the wet ground and suggested she install a french drain system to convey stormwater runoff from her back yard. He also suggested the odor was caused by the nearby sod farm which used manure to fertilize the sod. Bailey contacted the Nassau County Public Health Unit on March 2, 1992, and requested that it check out the source of the problem. Shortly thereafter, Stanley Stoudenmire, a Nassau County environmental health care specialist, inspected the area where respondents' property abuts the Bailey property and observed "mushy" ground, standing water, flies, and bright green algae growth. He also smelled hydrogen sulfide, which is indicative of a failing drainfield, and observed water coming out of the ground. Without the need to take water samples, Stoudenmire identified the pooling liquid as effluent flowing from respondents' drainfields. All of these conditions were indicative of a failed sewage system and constituted a sanitary nuisance. It is noted that an improperly operating system is a threat to human life and safety since it can cause a number of diseases. After advising Carl Forrester that there was a problem with his drainfield, Stoudenmire was told by Forrester that his systems had been checked out by two septic tank firms and nothing was wrong. Nonetheless, Stoudenmire advised Forrester to repair the systems. Stoudenmire continued to monitor the situation and even ran a red dye test on one visit. This produced no evidence of a faulty system, but the test is not a conclusive indicator of a failed system. After Bailey continued to make complaints and further inspections revealed that no repairs had been made, Stoudenmire advised Forrester by letter dated July 9, 1992, that he must obtain a permit to correct the systems. On July 13, 1992, Carl Forrester made application for a permit. The application required him to make a site and soil evaluation and prepare a drawing of the proposed corrections. The next day, Stoudenmire conducted a soil and site evaluation on the Forrester property as an aid to them in determining the type of repairs that they needed and the specifications for the drainfield. According to the soil borings, which were not contradicted, the bottom of the existing drainfields were not separated from the seasonal high water table elevation by at least twelve inches, as required by Rule 10D-6.0571(4), Florida Administrative Code. Further, the area had a clay subsurface, which means that water percolation is not good. On July 16, 1992, respondents made application for a construction permit. The permit contained specifications consistent with Stoudenmire's evaluation and required respondents to disconnect both existing systems and install a mound-type drainfield, like that in Betty Bailey's back yard, so that the required 12-inch separation could be achieved. The permit required the work to be completed within ninety days. On September 15, 1992, Stoudenmire advised respondents by letter that they "had not notified (his) office of any efforts to correct the problem". They were told that unless corrective action was taken within ten days, "legal action would be pursued". On October 26, 1992, a second letter was sent to the Forresters by Stoudenmire advising them that he continued to receive complaints, that the repairs may have been done in "an illegal manner", and that they had "5 days from receipt of this notice to contact (him) for an inspection." In November 1992, Carl Forrester made certain "repairs", but they were not of the type required under the permit. Instead, he installed a french drain system, consisting of a 55-gallon drum, an electric pump and a drain pipe, which simply conveyed stormwater runoff and effluent from his back yard to a percolation system in his front yard. Bailey says that, as a result of these "repairs", she can now smell the sewage odor emanating from the front yard. Forrester also placed lime on the soggy area and sprayed the same area with a chemical. On November 26, 1992, HRS issued another warning letter to the Forresters stating that it was "imperative" that they "cooperate and respond immediately" due to continued complaints by Bailey. Stoudenmire also returned to the site and once again observed insects and "mushy ground", caused by a combination of effluent and stormwater, and could smell a raw sewage odor in an area which straddled the Forrester-Bailey property line. These conditions were the same as those previously observed on prior inspections, were indicative of a failed sewage disposal system, and constituted a sanitary nuisance. There is no evidence that the conditions had been corrected as of the date of hearing. During this same period of time, Susan Lewis, who lives directly behind the Forresters, occasionally smelled a raw sewage odor, especially in the evening, coming from the Forresters' back yard. When she spoke with Carl Forrester about the odor, he told her that he was aware of the problem, had "no doubt" there was sewage "going to" the Bailey property, but denied it was from his systems. However, he also told her he intended to correct the problem. Testimony by two other neighbors established that they do not smell any foul odors coming from the Forrester property but that when climatic conditions are just right, they can smell an odor from the nearby sod farm. However, it is found that the odor smelled by Stoudenmire, Bailey and Lewis comes from the Forresters' faulty drainfields and is different from that occasionally caused by the sod farm. Respondents do not want to incur the cost of disconnecting their two existing systems and installing an unsightly mound system, which would cost almost $3,000.00. In addition, Carl Forrester says that the trucks and equipment used to install a mound system would cause another $2,000.00 in driveway and landscape damage. Because of this, Forrester contends he will sell his home before installing a mound system. Forrester also blamed the newly added fill on Bailey's lot, which disrupted the natural flow of water, for causing the standing water on his property. However, there was no evidence that this condition caused the drainfields to operate in a faulty manner. Forrester also said four septic tank firms found his systems to be in compliance with HRS rules. But this testimony is hearsay in nature and cannot be used to make a finding in his favor. Finally, he blamed part of the odor on a rotting gum tree stump in his back yard which eventually dissipated. However, this contention is not accepted as being credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing a $1,000 civil penalty upon respondents for violating Subsections 386.041(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6.0571(4), Florida Administrative Code. Respondents should also be required to correct their failed system by installing a mound- type drainfield within thirty days from date of final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 May, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1300 Petitioner: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Covered in preliminary statement. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 9-10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Respondents: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 6-7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 13-14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John S. Slye, Esquire Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083 J. Gary Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1177 Callahan, FL 32011
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's request for variance should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns an undeveloped parcel of land in Palm Beach, County which is zoned industrial and on which he intends to construct a storage building to house and repair farm equipment. To provide sewage treatment at the site, Petitioner had designed an on site sewage disposal system and applied for a septic tank permit which was denied as was his variance request. The closest public sewage treatment plant to the property is over five miles from the site, and the closest private treatment is approximately three miles from the subject site. Petitioner has no easement to either site if capacity were available and if he chose to connect. However, the proof did not show capacity at either site. Although Petitioner does not intend to pollute the groundwater, the proof demonstrated that waste disposal into a septic tank from the maintenance and repair of farm equipment could result in the disposition of prohibited hazardous waste into the groundwater. Alternative methods of waste disposal are available which would properly dispose of the waste and, yet, protect the groundwater from contamination by hazardous waste. Such systems include certain aerobic treatment units and package plants. The monetary costs of these systems is greater than the septic tank proposal; however, the proof did not demonstrate that the cost was prohibitive or a hardship. Although the hardship, if any, caused by the denial of the variance was not caused by Petitioner, the proof failed to demonstrate lack of reasonable alternatives of waste disposal and the absence of adverse effect of the operation to the groundwater. Additionally, the proof failed to establish the ameliorating conditions of soil, water table or setback conditions although a survey of the property dated September 3, 1985, indicates that the subject parcel was not platted. Accordingly, the denial of the variance was proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of July 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 6th day of July 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee B. Sayler, Esquire 50 South U.S. Highway One Suite 303 Jupiter, Florida 33477 Peggy G. Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 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 General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the objections of the City of Pembroke Pines and the Green Meadows Civic Association to South Broward Utility, Inc.'s, proposal to extend its water and sewer service area should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact South Broward Utility, Inc. (South Broward), is a corporation engaged in the business of providing water and wastewater service to the public in Broward County, Florida. That business is subject to regulation by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC). South Broward's water and wastewater treatment facilities are located in the Town of Davie, and it currently provides water and sewer services to residents of that municipality. Included within the area of the Town of Davie currently served by South Broward are the lands bordered on the north by Sterling Road, the south by Sheridan Street, and the west by Dykes Road (S.W. 160th Avenue). On February 4, 11, and 18, 1989, South Broward published a notice of extension in the Florida Lauderdale News/Sun-Sentinel, a daily newspaper of general circulation published in Broward County, Florida, in accordance with Rule 25-30.030(2), Florida Administrative Code. The notice provided that South Broward would file an application with the PSC pursuant to Section 367.061, Florida Statutes, to amend its certificates of public convenience and necessity to allow South Broward to provide water and sewer service to the east half of Section 5, Township 51 South, Range 40 East, Broward County, Florida. Such area may commonly be described as those lands lying immediately west of Dykes Road to S.W. 166th Avenue, and from Stirling Road on the north to Sheridan Street on the south. On February 24, 1989, South Broward mailed a copy of the aforementioned notice to all local, county and state governmental agencies and all other persons required by Section 367.041(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 25-30.030(2), Florida Administrative Code. Objections to the notice were filed with the PSC by the City of Pembroke Pines (Pembroke Pines) and the Green Meadows Civic Association (Green Meadows). In its objection, Pembroke Pines contended that it had invested over 30 million dollars to expand its municipal water and sewer service west to the Conversation Area from Sheridan Street on the north to Pembroke Road on the south, that this expansion project was anticipated to provide water and sewer service for its existing municipal boundaries as well as the area proposed to be served by South Broward, that it was preparing an annexation report for the proposed area, and that if South Broward's application were approved it would be precluded from servicing its own residents should annexation occur. At hearing, the proof demonstrated that Pembroke Pines had expanded its municipal water and sewer service such that its water and wastewater treatment plants and related facilities have adequate present capacity to meet the current and anticipated future water and wastewater needs in the disputed service area. The Pembroke Pines water lines are currently located on the south side of Sheridan Street, which street forms the southerly boundary of the disputed service area. Its wastewater treatment lines are, however, located approximately one and one-half miles south of Sheridan Street and would require several months and considerable expense to extend them to the disputed service area. Notably, however, no proof was offered that Pembroke Pines had any current intention to annex the disputed service area, or that it had otherwise evidenced any intent to, or taken any action to, provide service to the area. Green Meadows is an association of residents of this area of unincorporated Broward County, some of whom reside within the service area in dispute. The gravamen of Green Meadows' objection is its concern that sewer lines for a centralized sewer system would leak into its member's ground water supply, and that the increase in population density caused by a centralized water and sewer system would adversely affect the area's ecosystem. Neither Green Meadows nor Pembroke Pines contended, however, that the subject extension of service would violate any land use plan, zoning ordinance or other state or local law, and no credible proof was offered that, if built consistent with existent law, the sewer lines would adversely impact the ground water supply or ecosystem. Until recently, all of the lands lying in the disputed service area were located in unincorporated Broward County. However, in September 1988 a parcel of approximately 15 acres which abutted Dykes Road was annexed into the Town of Davie, and in May 1989 a parcel of approximately 80 acres, which abutted the previously annexed parcel on the east, Sterling Road on the north, and S.W. 166th Avenue on the west, was annexed into the Town of Davie. These lands comprise approximately 30 percent of the lands within the disputed service area, and it is the desire of the Town of Davie that water and sewer service to such lands be provided by South Broward. To date, South Broward has entered into a developer's agreement with the owner of the 80-acre parcel to provide such services, and is in the process of executing such an agreement with the owner of the 15-acre parcel. Pembroke Pines does not object to South Broward's expansion into these areas. As to the remaining acreage within the proposed service area, the owners of the vast majority of those lands have expressed a preference for South Broward to provide water and sewer service to their properties, and South Broward has expressed its desire and ability to provide such services. South Broward's water plant has an existing capacity of 500,000 gallons per day (GPD), and has sufficient capacity to address the current need for water service in the proposed area. Upon completion of its current expansion, which is anticipated in October 1989, South Broward's water plant will have a capacity of 1,250,000 GPD, and adequate capacity to address any future demand for water service in the proposed area. South Broward's wastewater treatment plant, with a capacity of 500,000 GPD, currently has sufficient capacity to satisfy the present and future demand for such services in the proposed area. An expansion of that plant is expected to be in service by 1991, which will double the plant's capacity and provide additional capacity. Currently, South Broward has water and sewer lines adequate to serve the proposed area in place, and located under Dykes Road at the eastern edge of the service area. Such lines are adequate to meet all present and anticipated future needs for such service in the area, and the water lines are adequate to provide fire protection to the area. South Broward has the present financial, managerial, operational, and technical ability to provide the present and anticipated needs for water and wastewater service in the proposed area, and the public interest will be best served by the extension of South Broward's water and wastewater systems to that area. Such expansion will not be in competition with or a duplication of any other system in the area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the objections filed by Pembroke Pines and Green Meadows be denied. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of August 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1988. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact filed by South Broward are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 5. 5-10. Addressed in paragraph 9. 11-14. Addressed in paragraphs 10-13. 15 & 16. Addressed in paragraphs 6 and 7. Addressed in paragraph 13. To the extent pertinent, addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 8. 20 & 21. Addressed in paragraph 13. The proposed findings of fact filed by the PSC are addressed as follows: 1 & 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 3, and paragraphs 2 and 3 of the conclusions of law. Addressed in paragraph 8. 6-12. Addressed in paragraphs 9-13. Addressed in paragraph 7. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Mitchell S. Kraft, Esquire Josias & Goren, P.A. 3099 East Commercial Boulevard Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 32308 Deborah Simone, President Green Meadows Civic Association 5831 S.W. 162nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33331 James L. Ade, Esquire Martin, Ade, Birchfiled & Mickler, P.A. 3000 Independent Square Post Office Box 59 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Randy Frier, Esquire Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 Mr. Steve Tribble, Director Records and Reporting Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 David Swafford, Executive Director Public Service Commission Room 116 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 Susan Clark General Counsel Public Service Commission Room 116 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870
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 Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the state agency charged with regulating waste water treatment facilities and any sanitary nuisance which may emanate as a result of such operations pursuant to Chapters 381 and 386, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Larry G. Delucenay d/b/a Madhatter Utilities, Inc., owns and operates the Foxwood Waste Water Treatment Plant which is permitted and certified by the Department of Environmental Regulation. Respondent, in operating the Foxwood system, discharges its treated effluent water by means of two percolation ponds and a drip field located adjacent to the Cypress Cove Subdivision in Pasco County, Florida. Respondent owns and controls percolation ponds which are located adjacent to the Cypress Cove Subdivision and pumps human waste from a sewage treatment plant to percolation ponds in the Cypress Cove Subdivision. Respondent's percolation ponds are located approximately 50 ft. west of several residences and the ponds are accessible to the public. The ponds are elevated from 3 ft. to 5 ft. above the adjacent residential lots in the subdivision. However, there is a sand berm approximately 8 ft. high with a 12 yd. base which serves as a barrier between the percolation ponds and the Cypress Cove residences. On August 5, 1991, environmental health specialist Burke observed liquid flowing through the sand berm. He also observed erosion patterns in the sand on the berm which indicated liquid was flowing through it. Mr. Burke, while in the company of two other employees of Petitioner, observed liquid flowing from the percolation ponds onto Lake Floyd Drive to the south of the ponds. An improperly designed nearby lake exacerbated the flooding into Lake Floyd Drive. Respondent's waste water treatment system is designed according to the manufacturer's specifications. Pasco County allowed a number of developments to be built in the area without an adequate drainage system which adversely impacts Respondent's system to the point whereby untreated drainage outfall is draining into the southeast areas in Cypress Cove. Specifically, Respondent's pond #4 is designed to handle a water level up to 67.33 ft. During the investigation of the case, the water level in that pond was approximately 3 1/2 ft. higher than the designed capacity and was therefore causing overflow into the southeast areas of the development. (Respondent's Exhibits A, B and C.) Noteworthy also was the fact that a developer failed to complete a connection which has impacted Respondent's percolation pond and has forced the water to rise approximately 9 ft. higher than the designed capacity which has resulted in an overflow approximately 3 ft. to 4 ft. into the neighboring subdivision. As a result of the overflow, waste water spills over the percolation ponds and prevents the water from draining through the berms as designed. Petitioner's consulting engineer, Robert William Griffiths, credibly testified that a number of agencies having oversight responsibility such as Pasco County, the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Department of Environmental Regulation, mandated that the drainage system be completed prior to the entire build-up of Cypress Cove. Despite the mandate, the drainage system was not completed and the County allowed the development to continue. Respondent is properly treating and chlorinating sewage in its plant which complies with Petitioner's requirements for the treatment of sewage in systems designed such as Respondent's. Respondent properly treats sewage flowing through its ponds and its berms are properly maintained. As early as October 1989, Respondent consulted and retained an engineer, Gerald E. Towson, who was commissioned to investigate the specifics of designing a waste water treatment plant based on concerns raised by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). As a result of that charge, Towson investigated the area and observed flooding and the stormwater runoff in the Cypress Cove neighborhood and attempted to find a solution to alleviate the problem. Consultant Towson also investigated Respondent's treatment plant to determine if the system was functioning as designed. Based on his observation and inspection of the treatment facility, the facility was operating as it was designed and properly filters and treats the effluent. However, based on Respondent's inability to control the stormwater runoff in the neighborhood created by the excess buildup, Towson concluded that there was no workable solution to the problem. As a result of Towson's inability to find a workable solution to handle the concerns raised by DER, Respondent suggested that Towson locate another wastewater treatment site which he found in a surrounding area. Respondent negotiated a lease arrangement with the landowner and initiated the permit process with DER. After the completion of numerous documents and engineering studies required by the Department of Environmental Regulation, Respondent was able to get the leased site permitted by DER as a slow drip irrigation system during March 1991. However, while construction of the system was scheduled to start during March 1991, as a result of vigorous protests from area neighbors, construction was delayed. Respondent thereafter investigated several sites but was unable to fine a suitable area near Cypress Cove. Towson completed a lengthy and cumbersome process in getting Respondent's construction application processed by DER. Initially the application was filed and following a DER review, a Notice of Intent to Issue was given. Hillsborough County thereafter reviewed the project and following their review, Hillsborough County issued its Notice of Intent to Grant and public notice was given. Based on Respondent's inability to comply with the neighbor's concerns regarding setback problems, DER withdrew its permit during May of 1991. Thereafter, Petitioner became involved in connecting with the Pasco County Public System. That connection was ultimately made and the County gave its approval following a delay based on a review occasioned by an employee who had been on vacation. Upon getting the approval, Petitioner ordered the equipment from a supplier which included installation of a magnetic meter and the necessary hookups into the Pasco County System. A "phased in" connection has been completed and the stormwater runoff problem has been abated. When the problems raised by DER and ultimately Petitioner was first brought to Respondent's attention, Pasco County did not have the capacity to handle the hookups required by Respondent's system. Respondent, has been involved in the installation of waste water treatment plants since 1967. Respondent is qualified as a Class "A" Licensee Waste Water Operator. He has been accepted as an expert in numerous administrative hearings. Respondent purchased the Foxwood System during 1982. Respondent utilized a 13 acre tract near Lake Floyd Drive. The system was licensed and designed with a flow capacity of 300,000 plus gallons per day. During the time when the Administrative Complaint was issued, the flow capacity was 220,000 gallons per day. The storm water system which was to have been completed by developers in the area was not connected to the public system and the County granted numerous other permits to daycare centers and several parking lots were constructed for other newly constructed commercial buildings in the area. As a result of the excess runoff created by the development in the area, Respondent's system was impacted and the water level was raised in the percolation ponds to the point whereby an overflow resulted. Petitioner adduced no evidence which showed that any physical or emotional harm resulted from the runoff. At all times while the concerns were being raised by Petitioner and other oversite agencies, the effluents in Respondent's systems were properly treated. Respondent vigorously attempted to abate the runoff created by the excess buildup in the area despite the fact that the problem was raised by Pasco County and over which Respondent had no control. Throughout the process of attempting to find alternate solutions and ultimately getting permitting approval to start construction of an alternative waste water treatment system, Respondent operated in good faith. When no alternate site became available, Respondent initially made application to connect with Pasco County System and that connection has now been made.
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 herein in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of April, 1992, 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 29 day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: THOMAS W CAUFMAN ESQ HRS DISTRICT V LEGAL OFFICE 11351 ULMERTON RD - STE 407 LARGO FL 34648 RANDALL C GRANTHAM ESQ COTTERILL GONZALEZ & GRANTHAM 1519 N MABRY - STE 100 LUTZ FL 33549 RICHARD S POWER AGENCY CLERK DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700 JOHN SLYE ESQ/GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700
