Findings Of Fact On October 13, 1988, Petitioner applied for a permit from Respondent for the operation of an onsite sewage disposal system in connection with a commercial project to be constructed on Petitioner's property in Polk County, Florida. Petitioner's application was disapproved that same day. Respondent denied the application because a publicly owned sewer system was available to Petitioner. A sewage line of the City of Lakeland, Florida, exists within a public easement abutting Petitioner's property. That sewage line is about 10 feet from Petitioner's property line. Gravity flow from Petitioner's proposed facility to the sewer line can be maintained. The city's system is under no moratoriums from any governmental body which would prevent the addition of Petitioner to the system. On October 17, 1988, Petitioner applied to Respondent's variance board, in accordance with provisions of Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6.045, Florida Administrative Code. The variance application was considered by the board on November 3, 1988, and a recommendation that the variance be denied resulted. On December 12, 1988, Respondent notified Petitioner of the recommended denial of the variance application. The denial letter to Petitioner informed him that variances were granted for the relief or prevention of excessive hardship in those situations where there is a clear showing that the public health would not be impaired and pollution of groundwater or surface water would not result. The letter further stated that recommendation to deny variance was premised on the availability of public sewer to the property. Existence of adequate drainage for the proposed on site disposal system on Petitioner's property is questionable. The water table during the wettest season of the year on the property is only 20 inches from the surface. During other parts of the year, the water table is 38 inches from the ground surface. Two residences are presently situated on Petitioner's property and produce a flow to the present septic tank sewage disposal system of approximately 900 gallons per day. A commercial building also previously existed on the property and supplied a septic tank flow of approximately 700 gallons. The proof at hearing failed to establish whether the commercial building flow coexisted with the present residential flow. Petitioner proposes to construct a "mini mall" consisting of four stores, each with one toilet, on the property. Since public usage of the toilets in the building is not anticipated to be frequent, Petitioner estimates that approximately 600 gallons of sewage flow will be generated on a daily basis. Petitioner's property is presently served by the public water utility of the City of Lakeland. While the property lies outside the corporate city limits, it is bounded on two sides by property within the city limits on which restaurants, served by the city's sewage system, are situated. The city easement containing the sewer line runs along another side of the property which is contiguous to U.S. Highway 98. Under current policy of the City of Lakeland, connection to the city sewage system is permitted only to property located in the city limits. Petitioner must agree to annexation by the city of his property in order to obtain connection to the sewage system. However, the city assesses impact fees in addition to costs of sewage connection and in Petitioner's situation the amount of impact fees anticipated to be levied by the city is approximately $53,000. Petitioner estimates the value of his property when the "mini mall" is completed at $700,000. Estimated cost of construction, without consideration of the city's impact fees, will be $350,000. While Petitioner does not contemplate selling the property after the development is completed, he will be leasing the individual store facilities. The sole objection of Petitioner to denial of his request for a variance recommendation is that he will be forced to resort to joining the city's public sewage system and, by concomitantly accepting the city's annexation of his property, incurring the city's impact fees. It is Petitioner's contention that the impact fees effectively make the city's system unavailable to him. Alternatively, Petitioner also contends that assessment of impact fees by the city will pose a financial hardship on him and increase the per unit rental or lease costs he must charge tenants. Petitioner also contends that his commercial project will cause no adverse public health considerations because sewage flow from his facility to an on site sewage disposal system will be no more and possibly less than that presently flowing from the residences on the property to the existing septic tank system. This testimony is not credited due to the fact that anticipated drainage flow is an estimate by Petitioner with no demonstrated expertise in making such estimates; drainage at the proposed site location is questionable; and Petitioner's application states that the proposed site is located five feet from a public water well. Petitioner asserts that facts of a previous decision of the variance board established policy which requires that the variance he has requested be granted. On May 19, 1988, the variance board recommended a variance be granted to an automobile dealership in Polk County to operate an on site sewage disposal system. Had the variance not been granted, the dealership would have been force to accept annexation to a city adjoining the dealership property in order to have sewage disposal. Such a decision would have resulted in two dealerships from the same company within that city. The applicant in that case would have lost his automobile dealer franchise or have been forced to relocate elsewhere. The automobile dealership property site possessed adequate drainage with a water table 44 inches below the surface during the wettest season of the year and 84 inches at other times of the year. Anticipated sewage flow estimated at 525 gallons per day for the automobile dealership is similar to the estimate of 600 gallons per day for Petitioner's facility. Impact fees were not a consideration in the case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying approval of the variance requested by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Deno P. Dikeou Liberty National Bank Building Suite 200 502 N. Highway 17-92 Longwood, Florida 32750 Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue 5th Floor, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esq. General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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 the installation of an OSDS on property which he owns near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with the provisions of 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 Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as part of Section 30, Township 10 South, Range 14 East. The property is approximately 8.5 acres in size. The Petitioner purchased the property some ten-years ago, and the lot in question has never been platted. The petitioner purchased the property for purposes of constructing a residence for himself and his family. At the time that the Petitioner purchased the property, and since, there have been occupied homes on either side of the property served by septic tank and drain-field sewage disposal systems. There came a time when the Petitioner elected to construct a home on his property and applied to the Respondent for an OSDS permit on January 19, 1990. On April 20, 1990, after having its personnel make on-site inspections of the property, the Respondent determined that the propert, according to Suwannee River Water Management District calculations, lay beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The Respondent, therefore, denied the permit application. Pursuant to information obtained from a registered land surveyor, the benchmark elevation of the surface of the Petitioner's property is 14.56 feet above mean sea level ("MSL") The actual surface elevation is 6 inches lower than that or approximately 14 feet. The ten-year flood elevation level for the Petitioner's property, at the Suwannee River mile involved, is 17 feet above MSL. Thus, the surface of the Petitioner's property is some three feet beneath the ten-year flood elevation and were a drain-field system installed on the property, the bottom of the drain-field trench or absorption bed would be a greater distance beneath the ten-year flood elevation. A "mounded" septic tank and drain-field system might be feasible for the subject property because of the property's adequate size, although such a mounding might have to be approximately five feet or greater in height over the present grade level of the property. The Petitioner, however, did not adduce any testimony or evidence concerning the feasibility of such a mounded disposal system, including details of how it would be constructed and operated and whether there is adequate room on his property to build such a mounded system, including the required undisturbed land area around such a system. The Petitioner did not adduce testimony or evidence in support of the feasibility of any other alternative sewage treatment and disposal system for the subject property. In fact, the property is located within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. Because of this, the rule cited hereinbelow would require that a registered engineer certify and adequately explain the manner and method by which such a mounded system could be built on this property within the regulatory floodway, without altering the level of the "base flood", as, for instance, by excavating an equal volume of fill from another location within the regulatory floodway. However, such engineering testimony and evidence was not offered by the Petitioner; therefore, it has not been established that such a mounded system is a feasible alternative nor has it been established that any other type of treatment and disposal system is a feasible alternative because of the dearth of such evidence. The Petitioner did not apply for a variance. In any event, however, although the Petitioner clearly has been placed at a hardship because of not being able to construct the retirement residence he has desired for years on the subject property, because of the inability, thus fail at least, to obtain an OSDS permit, the Petitioner has not established- with regard to the below- referenced variance criteria that no reasonable alternative exists to the installation of the subject proposed system beneath the present surface of the lot which would be beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioner has not offered evidence to establish that the installation of the proposed system will not adversely affect public health and will not degrade the surface and ground waters involved in the immediate area. Thus, the standards for the grant of a variance have not been established by the Petitioner's proof, although it is understood that the Petitioner did not leek a variance, at least as yet. In that connection, the Respondent asserts that the Petitioner was not accorded the opportunity to avail himself of the Department's 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's within the ten-year flood elevation. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwannee 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 Petitioner's proof and, indeed, Respondent's Exhibit NO. 2 establishes that this property is relatively high in elevation, is well-drained, and not subject to frequent flooding, although it does lie beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The soil profile indicates that fine sand exists from the surface down to 72 inches. This type of soil promotes very good percolation of water and, thus, would result in adequate operation of a septic tank and drain field if all other appropriate standards and conditions necessary for such adequate operation were met. In fact, the wet season water table is some 36 inches beneath the surface; and, in general, this property has been shown to be well-suited to the installation of a septic tank and drain-field system, but for the ten-year flood elevation circumstance delineated above.
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 applying and 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 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. 90-3339 The Petitioner filed no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted. Rejected, as incomplete and, therefore, not shown to be material. Accepted. Rejected, as not necessary to resolution of material issues and as immaterial. Accepted. 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 Donald D. Kersey Route 2, Box 187 Chiefland, FL 32626 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
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 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
The Issue The issue presented for determination in this proceeding is whether the wasteload allocations set forth in respondent's interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, constitute a rule subject to the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: The petitioner, a municipal corporation, applied to the respondent for renewal of its permit to operate a sewage treatment plant. The respondent gave notice of its intent to deny said application on the ground that petitioner had not met the wasteload allocations established for the upper part of the Peace River Basin. A petition for a hearing on this denial was filed by petitioner pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes, 120.57(1), and a hearing was originally scheduled for May 11, 1978. At the commencement of this hearing, it became apparent that petitioner was also alleging that the wasteload allocations set forth in an interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, constituted a rule within the meaning of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and therefore must be adopted pursuant to the provisions of said chapter. The respondent not being prepared to meet this allegation and the petitioner not having filed a petition pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.56, the scheduled hearing was continued and petitioner was granted leave to file a petition pursuant to Section 120.56 challenging the validity of the wasteload allocations as an invalid rule. Petitioner properly filed its petition for an administrative determination of the validity of a rule and the two petitions were consolidated for hearing purposes. The "rule" being challenged herein contains revised wasteload allocations for four municipalities in Polk and Hardee Counties. These four include Bartow, Ft. Meade, Bowling Green and Wauchula, each of which discharges effluent into the Upper Peace River Basin. As noted above, these allocations are set forth in an interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, and were not adopted pursuant to the rulemaking provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Wasteload allocations are derived from mathematical calculations fed into a scientific model. They are based upon information pertaining to the treatment plant, the type of effluent, the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the receiving waters and the number and nature of other discharges to the receiving waters. In developing said allocations, the respondent relies upon information received from the applicant, as well as existing water quality data from the Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological data, local programs and university studies. The purpose of developing wasteload allocations is to determine the chemical effect of the discharge upon the receiving body of water and to determine whether a certain volume of effluent treated to a specified degree will depress water quality below the standard established for a particular class of water. Wasteload allocations are calculated by the respondent for each individual discharger to determine whether a reduction in water quality will occur. When an application for a discharge permit is made to respondent, allocations for several dischargers in close proximity affecting the same portion of a body of water may be calculated at the same time, as was done in the September 8th memorandum. However, the other individual allocations become effective and applicable only when those dischargers seek a permit from the respondent. At that time, the allocation is revisited and recalculated based upon the most recent, available information and data. The wasteload allocations have applicability only when a facility seeks a permit to discharge effluents into surfaced waters. In the State of Florida, there are approximately 1,300 domestic and municipal sewage treatment plants and 230 industrial dischargers. A uniform wasteload allocation for 1,530 dischargers would be impossible and meaningless because each has its own unique characteristics based upon the type and method of discharge and the nature of the receiving body of water. Accordingly, the wasteload allocations are established by respondent on a case by case basis in the permitting process. Approximately 1.6 million dollars in capital expenditures will be necessitated in order for petitioner to comply with the wasteload allocations established by the respondent. There would also be increases in operating and management costs for new capital improvements. Alternative methods of sewage treatment may be undertaken by the petitioner.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for a variance from agency rules governing daily domestic sewage flow so as to authorize an increase in the number of seats for his restaurant located in Howey in the Hills, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Fletcher C. Bishop, Jr., is the owner of a parcel of property located at Lot 22, Block C-2, Lakeshore Heights Subdivision, 102 South Palm Avenue, Howey in the Hills, Florida. The property consists of .0946 acre, or approximately one-tenth of an acre, and is one of several parcels located in Block C-2. Since January 1997, the property has been leased to Robert P. Jencic, who now operates a pizza restaurant on the premises known as Hungry Howies Pizza Shop. According to Jencic, he has a contract to purchase the property from Bishop at the end of his lease, or on March 1, 1998. Whether the property was actually purchased by Jencic on that date is not of record. Lakeshore Heights Subdivision is not served by a central wastewater treatment system; rather, each lot is served by a septic tank and drainfield system. Lot 22 adjoins several other commercial or business establishments situated on Lots 20, 21, 23, and 23A in the western half of Block C-2, and all share a common drainfield easement located to the rear of the lots. Except for Lot 20, all lots have tied into the drainfield and now use the easement for waste disposal purposes. Because they share a common easement, each lot has been allocated a portion of the easement for its respective septic tank and drainfield. In Petitioner's case, he has been allocated approximately 990 square feet. After Jencic signed a commitment in January 1997 to lease and purchase the property, he made extensive renovations in order to convert the property to a restaurant. On or about February 20, 1997, Jencic met with a representative of the Lake County Health Department, an agency under the direction and control of Respondent, Department of Health (Department). At that time, Jencic filed an application for a site evaluation concerning the replacement of the existing onsite sewage disposal system. The application noted that he intended to operate a pizza restaurant with 56 proposed seats. On February 21, 1997, a site evaluation was conducted by Robin Gutting, a Lake County Department of Health environmental supervisor. According to her report [t]he property size of 4120 square feet with available central water will allow a maximum 236 gallons of sewage flow per day . . . This will allow a 12 seat restaurant using single service articles and operating less than 16 hours per day. . . The size of the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System would be a minimum 900 gallon tank with 197 square feet of drainfield trench configuration. (emphasis added) Jancic received a copy of the report on or about March 12, 1997, and it clearly conveyed to him the fact that he could operate no more than 12 seats in his restaurant due to sewage flow limitations on his property. Despite being on notice that the restaurant would be limited to only 12 seats due to the lot flow restrictions, on March 19, 1997, Jencic filed an application with the Lake County Health Department for a construction permit to replace the existing septic tank with a 900 gallon septic tank, install a 900 gallon grease trap, and utilize a 197 square-foot primary drainfield and a 200 square-foot bed system. The application indicated that Jencic intended to operate a restaurant "for 12 seats, single service, open less than 16 hours per day." On May 28, 1997, Jencic's application was approved for "12 seats, single service, open less than 16 hours per day." After installing the new tank and grease trap, Jencic began restaurant operations subject to the above restrictions. After operating his pizza restaurant for a short period of time, Jencic determined that he could generate a profit only if the restaurant could be expanded to allow more seats, and he could use china and silverware (full service articles) rather than single service articles (throwaway utensils). To do this, however, he would need a larger sewage treatment system. By letter dated November 9, 1997, Jencic requested a variance from various Department standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems so as to "increase the seating from 12 seats to a maximum of 36 seats and [authorize] the use of china, silverware, and dishes." Although the letter does not refer to any rules, the Department has treated the letter as seeking a variance from three of its rules found in Part I, Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. First, Rule 64E-6.001(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides that an establishment cannot exceed the lot flow allowances authorized under Rule 64E-6.005(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code. If the seating capacity in the restaurant were increased, Jencic would exceed the lot flow allowances in violation of this rule. Second, Rule 64E-6.005(7)(b), Florida Administrative Code, prescribes the manner in which a determination of lot densities shall be made. Among other things, daily sewage flow cannot exceed an average of 2,500 gallons per day per acre. The easement which Petitioner shares with other lots is far less than an acre, even counting the space allocated to the adjoining lots. Finally, Rule 64E-6.008(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that minimum design flows for systems serving a structure shall be based on the estimated daily sewage flow as determined by Table I of the rule. That table specifies an estimated daily sewage flow of 20 gallons per seat for restaurants using single service articles only and operating less than 16 hours per day. Therefore, a 12-seat restaurant with those operating characteristics would require a system that could handle at least 240 gallons of sewage flow per day. The table further provides that a restaurant operating 16 hours or less per day with full service will generate an estimated sewage flow of 40 gallons per seat. Thus, a restaurant with up to 36 seats, as Jencic has requested, would require a system handling at least 1,440 gallons of sewage flow per day. In order to qualify for a variance, an applicant must show that (a) the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant; (b) no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage; and (c) the discharge from the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. In its letter denying the variance, the Department asserts that Jancic has failed to show that items (a) and (c) have been satisfied. Jencic, who recently immigrated to this country, will suffer considerable financial hardship if the request for a variance is denied. Indeed, he demonstrated at hearing that his life savings have been invested in the restaurant, and his parents have placed a substantial mortgage on their property to assist him in his endeavor. If he does not purchase the property as required by his contract, he will be forced to restore the property to its original condition at great expense. In short, given his investment in renovations and equipment, unless the restaurant is expanded, he fears he must file for bankruptcy. Both parties agree that Jancic will suffer a hardship if the variance is not approved. However, Jancic was aware of the lot flow limitations before he made application to replace the existing septic tank in March 1997, and well before he began operating the restaurant in May 1997. Unfortunately, then, it must be found that the hardship was intentionally created by Jencic's own actions. If the variance were approved, it would result in a much larger amount of sewage being discharged into the easement, which could not handle that amount of flow. This in turn could cause the system to fail, thus creating a sanitary nuisance and the leaching of sewage into the groundwater. In this respect, Jancic has failed to show that the discharge will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. Jencic offered into evidence a summary of his water usage during a representative period in 1997. That document indicated that metered water usage was approximately 3,000 to 4,000 gallons per month, even when he temporarily (and without authority) expanded his restaurant to 24 seats during a recent two-month period to test water consumption at the higher seating capacity. However, because the sewage strength of a restaurant is far greater than that of a residence, a sewage system must be sized on estimated waste flow, and not metered water flow rates. Therefore, the fact that Jancic's monthly metered water usage is less than 4,000 gallons is not relevant to a determination of the issues. The same finding must be made with respect to Jancic's well-intentioned efforts to decrease water flow by installing high pressure toilets and timed spring systems on his hand sinks. Jencic also requested that he be allowed "spike time" during the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., which are his peak hours of the day. In other words, the undersigned assumes that he is asking that consideration be given to the fact that he has virtually no business during the other hours of the working day, and that the flow during the peak hours alone would not be excessive on a daily basis. However, the Department's rules are calculated to maximum usage, and thus a "spike" allowance is not allowed.
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 request for a variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert P. Jencic 102 South Palm Avenue Howey in the Hills, Florida 34737 Marya Reynolds Latson, Esquire Post Office Box 2408 Ocala, Florida 34478 James Hardin Peterson, III, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in this case are: Whether Mr. Decker had an improperly maintained septic system on his property. Whether Mr. Decker illegally repaired his on-site sewage treatment and disposal system. Whether the Department of Health properly issued a citation to Mr. Decker for violation of Sections 381.0065(4) and 386.041(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 25, 1997, an employee of the Department of Health, Volusia County Health Department, David Stark, inspected Mr. Decker's property known as Bulow Creek Farm. Mr. Decker provides low-cost rental housing on this property which utilizes an onsite well to provide drinking water. Mr. Stark observed a wet area in the ground with the smell of sewage near the building identified as Apartment Building C, which houses seven (7) apartments. Mr. Stark identified this area as a sewage leak. On May 28, 1997, Mr. Stark returned to Mr. Decker's property with another Volusia County Health Department employee, Ed Williams. They both observed a wet area in the ground with the smell of sewage in the vicinity of the septic tank serving Apartment Building C. Mr. Stark identified this area as a sewage leak. Mr. Stark issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to Mr. Decker which stated the raw sewage leak was a sanitary nuisance and provided that Mr. Decker should have his drainfield repaired in accordance with the repair permit Mr. Decker had previously obtained from the Department. The NOV stated the repair should be completed no later than June 11, 1997. A repair permit is valid for a period of eighteen (18) months. Mr. Decker's permit expired on April 20, 1997. Repairs must be inspected by the Department as they are made. On June 13, 1997, Mr. Stark mailed Mr. Decker a letter reiterating the need for repair of his septic system and enclosed a Notice of Intended Action giving Mr. Decker a deadline of June 20, 1997 to make the needed repairs. Mr. Stark received a letter dated June 29, 1997, from Mr. Decker, informing him that Mr. Decker, himself, had repaired the drainfield for Apartment Building C. The letter described the new tank and drainfield which Mr. Decker had installed, and Mr. Decker stated his repair was a "cheaper version of what you wanted me to do in the first place." Mr. Decker had not sought the required inspections for the repairs which he had made to the septic system, and the repairs were not inspected and approved by the Department. The Department cited Mr. Decker for having an improperly built or maintained septic system, and for failing to repair the system in accordance with the terms of the permit. The citation levied a $500 civil fine for Mr. Decker's violation.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department issue a final order affirming the civil penalty against Mr. Decker and requiring Mr. Decker to repair his septic system according to permit. If Mr. Decker fails to effect the repairs, the Department should initiate action to abate this public health hazard. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1998.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Frank L. Reppa and Denise J. Reppa, own and reside in their dwelling located at 3863 Plumosa Drive, St. James, Florida. The property is a narrow canal front lot. All lots in the area are small and narrow and the dwellings thereon, mostly mobile homes, are placed closely together. On January 11, 1988, as the result of a nuisance complaint by the Reppa's next door neighbor, Stephen E. Havig, an Environmental Specialist with the Lee County Health Department, a part of the State of Florida DHRS, inspected the property in question and observed that effluent from the Respondents' drain field, a malodorous liquid, had run from Respondent's property down onto the driveway of their neighbors. On January 13, 1988, he returned to the property and spoke with Mrs. Reppa who admitted to living on the property. He again observed that the drain field in the Reppas' septic system was heavily saturated and had failed. Effluent was coming to the surface due to the high water table resulting from heavy recent rains and the failure of the system, and there was still a sewage odor to the effluent. The effluent showed in stains on the neighbor's drive. Mr. Havig told Mrs. Reppa that the problem had to be corrected as it was a violation of the law to allow it to remain. In response, Mrs. Reppa indicated they had no money to effect the repairs and because of that, Mr. Havig, who could have cited them immediately, indicated he would return to his office to see if they could be given some additional time to have the work done. After checking with his supervisor, Mr. Havig, on the same day issued an "Official Notification of Insanitary Nuisance" and a "Notice of Intended Action", both of which were sent by Certified Mail and receipted for by Mrs. Reppa on January 19, 1988. The Notice gave the Reppas until January 28, 1988 to correct the problem. On January 14, 1988, Mr. Havig again talked with Mrs. Reppa, telling her what he was sending and advising her how she could get the problem fixed. When he again went out to the property on January 28, 1988, he noted that the property had dried out due to a lack of rain. However, he could see no evidence that any repairs had been effected. He returned to the property on February 1, 1988 after a rain and observed that the problems had reoccurred. Mr. Havig again spoke with Mrs. Reppa on February 8, 1988, at which time she advised him the problem was to be repaired, but they were without funds to pay for it. At that time, Mr. Havig gave the Reppas three weeks to have the work completed with a contractor to be retained within one week. When he spoke with Mrs. Reppa on February 16, 1988, she stated she was still having trouble getting a contractor. She had contacted one contractor who looked at the system on February 15, 1988 and who proposed to remove the washing machine from the drain system. When Mr. Havig talked with Mrs. Reppa on February 19, 1988, she indicated she would have to discuss the matter with her husband. Mr. Havig stated at that time that the Department would have to proceed with enforcement action if work was not started on the correction by February 22, 1988. No corrective action was taken by the Reppas and the Administrative Complaint was filed as a result. DHRS considers it important to properly dispose of effluent because, since it contains human waste, it carries bacteria, viruses and a danger of parasites. Agency policy requires that the septic system be continually monitored and that the tank be pumped and the drain field be repaired when necessary. The Department has no funds available to assist those who cannot afford to make repairs. In order to be properly processed, effluent drainage from septic tanks needs a minimum of two feet of soil between the discharge outlet of the tank and the water table. The soil acts as a filter to remove harmful organisms and contaminants from the effluent before it reaches the water table. A high water table, due to heavy rains or other causes, prevents this filtration and causes the effluent to come to the surface. The situation is correctable. Two methods of correction are: 1) elevate the system above the water table, or 2) remove the saturated soil and replace it with a good grade of sand. In October, 1985, another complaint against the Reppas, relating to the same situation, was filed with DHRS. At that time, the Reppas paid $650.00 to have the system repaired by an individual who replaced the drain field, drawing it away from adjoining property and toward the road. Though the contractor assured them this would fix the problem, wash water would continue to come to the surface. As a result, Mrs. Reppa has refrained from washing clothes at her home and takes them to the laundry in town. Because of the actions they have taken, such as having the drain field expanded and moved, the pumping out of the septic tank in January, 1988, and the cessation of washing clothes at home, Mr. and Mrs. Reppa are convinced the system is not overflowing and that the water on the neighbor's property is the accumulation of surface water drainage when it rains. The Reppa property is higher than the neighbor's property and Mrs. Reppa believes that rain water drains down there. The new part of the drain field works and the water in question, she feels, cannot be effluent. The evidence of record, however, indicates to the contrary and that it is waste effluent. Inquiry by the Reppas indicates that it would take $750.00 more to fix the system and the Reppas do not have that money. They are still paying back the money they borrowed from Mrs. Reppa's parents to make the first repairs. Mr. Reppa is a commercial fisherman whose income has been substantially reduced due to the restrictions placed on the taking of redfish. Many neighbors in the area, according to the Reppas, discharge sewage directly into the abutting canal and allow wash water to run out onto the ground. The Reppas cannot comprehend why these individuals, mostly three month winter visitors, are not cited while they, full time residents, are.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that an administrative fine of $50.00 per day be assessed against the Reppas for the violation established, said fine to be effective upon entry of a Final Order herein, with provision that the fine be remitted upon satisfactory proof that the violation has been corrected. Recommended in Tallahassee, Florida this 24th day of August, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 24th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugenie G. Rehak, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 06085 Ft. Myers, Florida 33906 Frank Lee Reppa, pro se Denise J. Reppa, pro se 3863 Plumosa Drive St. James, Florida 33986 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system permit or the grant of a variance from the rule by which that permit application was denied so as to be authorized to install an on-site sewage disposal system (septic tank system) for his property near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida within the purview of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Desmond Harbroe, owns real property in Dixie County, Florida consisting of a lot described as lot 28 of Riverbend Estates. The lot in Riverbend Estates is located at "Hinton's Landing" on the west bank of the Suwannee River. The lot itself is located approximately 1500 feet west of the shoreline of the Suwannee River on a connected canal. The canal is characterized by high banks at the location of the lot and the lot is one of the highest lots in the subdivision, with overstory vegetation consisting of large pines and live oaks. The lot is gently sloping and characterized by well- drained soil consisting of sand down to a depth of 72 inches (a "slight limited" soil). The lot is approximately one and one quarter acres in size and was purchased May 29, 1976. The Petitioner contemplates constructing a single family residence on the lot and it does not presently contain an OSDS. The proposed residence would consist of a two bedroom dwelling with a heated or cooled area of approximately 1200 square feet. A dwelling of this size and type is equated in the standards in the Department's rules with production of 450 gallons per days (GPD) of sewage flow. Although no specific evidence of expected sewage is of record, there is no dispute regarding that figure. Herbert H. Raker is a registered land surveyor located at Box 626, Cross City, Florida 32628. Mr. Raker surveyed the subject lot and established a benchmark elevation of 13.72 feet above main sea level (MSL). That benchmark is six inches above the actual ground or grade level at the location of the benchmark. The site of the proposed installation itself is at an elevation of 13.22 feet above MSL. The ten-year flood elevation for the subject property is 15 feet above MSL. That elevation was established through data supplied by the Suwannee River Water Management District to the Petitioner and submitted to the Department in the application process. That information and the document upon which it is predicated is hearsay, but was not objected to at hearing and, in any event, constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule in the category of government records, compilations and reports for purposes of Section 90.803(8), Florida Statutes, and is, thus, admissable and accepted by the Hearing Officer. The subject property purchased by the Petitioner was for building a single family residence as described above. On December 12, 1989 the Petitioner received a letter from the Suwannee River Water Management District advising that there was no objection by the District to filling the lot in order to bring the surface grade level of that property to a sufficient height so as to comport with the "two year flood" elevation. The critical elevation in relation to the rules at issue however is the ten-year flood elevation. This advice from the Water Management District does not address the issue of filling the lot to bring it up to a level so that the bottom of the subject drain fill proposed would be above the ten-year flood elevation and thus comport with the rules at issue. In this connection, the property is located within the ten year flood plain based upon the evidence establishing that flood plain level to be at IS feet above MSL. The property is also located within the "regulatory floodway" of the Suwannee River. This is a geographical area closer in proximity to the actual free flowing portion of the river than is the boundary of the ten-year flood elevation demarcated area. The rule cited below provides that mounded systems requiring a placement of fill material, or construction above grade, will not be authorized in the regulatory floodway unless there is certification by registered engineers that the placement of fill or the structure placed would not increase the water surface elevation of the "base flood". That certification must be substantiated by data and the method of calculation used by the engineer must be provided. Here there is only a two and one half foot difference between the grade level of the property involved at the site of the proposed installation and the 15 foot ten-year flood elevation. Thus, as Mr. Harbroe indicates, given the overall size of his lot, it would be possible to fill the property to the proper grade level so that the bottom of the drain field trenches, when installed in the resulting mound, would be above the ten- year flood elevation. The Petitioner however supplied no detailed information about how such an alternative system might be installed and operate and, most particularly, did not supply the requisite engineering certification and information which might show that the installation of such a mounded system would not raise the level of the base flood. This might have been done, for instance, by establishing that a sufficient volume of fill could be removed from his property, elsewhere, to build the requisite mound and thereby not alter the surface elevation of the base flood. Such evidence is lacking in this proceeding however and cannot therefore serve as a basis for a grant of the permit, by means of illustrating an alternative system or approach for treating the sewage effluent which will comport with the rules. Pursuant to the authority of the statutes cited in the conclusions of law below and in related rules, lots platted before 1972 are accorded special consideration in determining whether to grant septic tank system permits (or variances). The Petitioner, however, did not adduce evidence of whether the subdivision known by the name "Riverbend Estates" of which his lot 28 is a part, is a platted subdivision at all, and did not establish that even if it is that it was platted and recorded before 1972. Thus no evidence has been adduced which will justify the special consideration provided for in the authority cited below. The grant of variances from the permitting rules involve the demonstration of hardship as a basic consideration. Hardship involves a demonstration that there is no reasonable means by which an on-site disposal system can be installed which will comply with the permitting rules, that is, impossibility of compliance is the bellwether for demonstration of hardship. It is also provided in the variance statute and rules cited below that the hardship may not be intentionally caused by the action of the applicant for the permit or variance himself. The Petitioner, having the burden of proof here, did not adduce direct evidence to establish that any hardship preventing compliance with the permitting rules was not intentionally caused by the Petitioner. However, the overall tenor of the Petitioner's testimony establishes inferentially, without doubt, that the hardship involving the Petitioner's impossibility of compliance with the permitting rules, given the presently prevailing grade level of his lot and installation site, was caused merely by his purchase of the property. He took no action involving that purchase to place himself in a position where he intentionally could claim a hardship situation and a justification of variance from the permitting rules and thus render himself legally capable of installing the subject system. He merely purchased the lot in good faith with, the intention of using it for a single family dwelling and did not intend by that mere act to place himself in a position to claim a hardship situation and thus circumvent the permitting rules. The similar use of the nearby lots in the subdivision for single family dwellings and which he was aware already had permitted septic tank type on-site disposal systems in place and operating led him to believe he could install a similar system. He was thus an innocent purchaser and did not intentionally create a hardship situation to thereby avoid compliance with permitting rules. In fact, however, the Petitioner has not truly established that he is in a hardship situation, that is, that he can not possibly comply with the permitting rules. This is because, by his own admission, he has sufficient land area on his lot to permit the "mounding" of an on-site disposal system. If this were accomplished it is quite likely that he could comply with the permitting rules and not require a variance, based upon a showing of hardship. The problem with this approach is that the Petitioner's proof fails because he did not adduce the requisite engineering certification and testimony justifying the grant of a permit based upon the building of the lot and mounding of the system. If this were accomplished in the future, it is quite likely that a permit could be granted for this lot. In a like vein, in terms of the variance issue portion of this proceeding, it has not been demonstrated by the Petitioner that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage involved nor has it been demonstrated that the discharge from the Petitioner's proposed 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. In this last regard, it although soil conditions prevailing at the proposed installation site and water table elevations beneath the surface of the property are appropriate as that relates to the requisite interval of "slight limited" soil between the bottom of drain field absorption beds and the water table elevation, the fact remains that these trenches or beds are beneath the ten-year flood elevation and thus pose the potential to degrade ground or surface testers. Thus the other requisite elements for establishment of entitlement to a variance from the permitting rules have not been made out by the Petitioner's proof. In fact, the Petitioner's proof establishes that a reasonable alternative may indeed exist for the treatment of the sewage involved with mounding of the system, since his grade elevation is only approximately 2.5 feet below the relevant flood elevation and unrefuted evidence shows that he has sufficient area on his lot to permit the mounding of the system with the requisite adjacent "buffer area". This constitutes a reasonable alternative which may comply with the permitting rules. Unfortunately, however, Petitioner's proof did not include the requisite engineering information and certification so that a recommendation for grant of the permit in the regulatory floodway can be made at this time. Having been denied his permit application on December 19, 1989 the Petitioner on March 5, 1989 applied for the subject variance referenced above. On April l9, 1990 the Petitioner was advised by the Respondent that it was useless to proceed with a variance application and that a formal administrative hearing should be sought before Division of Administrative Hearings instead. This is because of Executive Order 90-14 entered by the Governor, which incorporated the "Suwannee River Task Force" recommendation in evidence and, specifically, "recommendation #36." That portion of the report in effect recommended that on-site sewage disposal systems within the ten year flood plain area should be prohibited. The Department interpreted the effect of that executive order, incorporating the recommended prohibition from the task force report, to mean that such variances absolutely could not be granted by the Department, hence, its recommendation to the Petitioner and others similarly situated, that they should immediately seek a formal administrative hearing on the question, rather than expend time and expense pursuing the Department's internal variance procedure. The Department has thus in this in similar cases interpreted that executive order to create, and effect, a conclusive presumption that variances can not be granted in any case in which the installation site for the on- site sewage disposal system is at or beneath the ten-year flood elevation. In effect, therefore, it declines to exercise any discretion when confronted with variance request related to lots or property where the installation site for the proposed system occurs beneath the ten-year flood elevation.
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 RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an on-site sewage disposal permit and denying a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting for the reasons found and concluded above. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administration Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-4170 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted but not directly material to resolution of the issues presented for adjudication. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: (None submitted) COPIES FURNISHED: Desmond Harbroe 4550 N.W. 43rd Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33319 Frances S. Childers, Esquire Asst. District III Legal Counsel 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
