The Issue The issue for consideration in this case concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit authorizing the installation of an OSDS on property which they own near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with the permitting requirements of 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 the proximity of the Suwannee River. The property is described as Lot 38, Highpoint Suwannee Riverfront Estates. The lot in question is 82 feet by 141 feet in size and was purchased in April, 1988 for approximately $5000.00. The lot, and the subdivision it is in, was platted in 1983. On February 21, 1990, the Petitioners made application for an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit, seeking to install such a system on this lot in order to be able to construct a vacation cottage on the lot The proposed cottage would contain one bedroom and would have a heated and cooled area of approximately 500 square feet. Upon reviewing the application, the, Respondent informed the Petitioners that they would need to have a surveyor establish the elevation of their lot, and particularly the site of the proposed OSDS installation, as well as to establish, through contact with the Suwannee River Water Management District, the ten-year flood elevation for the property. Accordingly, the Petitioners obtained a survey by `Mr. Herbert Raker, a registered land surveyor of Cross City, Florida. That survey shows a benchmark elevation of 13.09 feet above mean sea level ("MSL") That benchmark elevation is six inches above the actual grade surface of the lot so that the elevation at the proposed OSDS installation site is 12.59 feet above MSL. The ten-year flood elevation for the property is 15 feet above MSL, as established by data from the Suwannee River Water Management District contained in a report which is in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. That flood elevation data was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioners with the application for the OSDS permit. The property in question is located within the ten- year flood plain of the Suwannee River, and it is also located within the regulatory floodway of the River. On April 24, 1990, after advising the Petitioners of the denial of the OSDS permit application, the Respondent, by letter, advised the Petitioners that they should pursue a formal administrative proceeding rather than file an informal variance application before the Respondent's own Variance Board. The Respondent took the position that a variance could not be granted from the requirements of Rule 10D- 6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code, because the subject property was located within the ten-year flood plain of the Suwannee River and because of the Respondent's interpretation of the affect of the Governor's Executive Order 90- 14, which adopted by reference the Suwannee River Task Force recommendation that all such systems be prohibited within the ten-year flood plain. The Respondent thus declined to exercise its discretion, accorded it in the statute and rule cited hereinbelow, to entertain and consider a variance application. Finally, it is established that the lot in question is not subject to frequent flooding; but because the surface grade is beneath the ten-year flood elevation, the bottom of the drain field trenches absorption bed to be installed would also be beneath the ten-year flood elevation. In other respects, the property is a amenable to the installation of an effective OSDS because the wet season water table is 48 inches beneath the surface grade and would be more than 24 inches beneath the proposed drain field. The normal water table is approximately 60 inches beneath the surface grade. Appropriate limited soils are present beneath the first six inches of soil below the surface and consist of fine sand, light brown and brown fine sand, down to 60 inches, which is appropriate for effective subterranean treatment and disposal of sewage effluent. The Petitioners established a definite hardship on their part by the fact that they have paid a substantial sum for the lot and are now unable to develop it unless they receive entitlement to an OSDS or some reasonable alternative. In that regard, no sufficient proof of truly effective, reasonable alternatives was established by the Petitioners. However, they did establish that an anaerobic septic tank and drain field disposal system might be an effective alternative treatment and disposal method for the property in question. An aerobic system involves the injection of air into the attendant septic tank to support aerobic bacteria which break down and treat sewage at a faster, more effective rate than does the normal anaerobic bacteria-based system. The resulting effluent is substantially lower in BOD and suspended solids than is the effluent from the normal subterranean and anaerobic septic tank and drain field disposal system. The problem with such an aerobic system is that it involves mechanical equipment, especially, an external electric motor and pump to force air into the system. This is disadvantageous in that, if the equipment suffers a breakdown, then treatment and appropriate disposal of the effluent stops. The untreated sewage can then rise to the surface of the property or otherwise pollute ground or surface waters and potentially cause a public health hazard. Thus, such systems would require inspection periodically to insure that they are in adequate working order because if the mechanical system malfunctions, the system will continue to put effluent through its drain field without adequate treatment. In this circumstance, the occupants of the dwelling served by the system might not notice for long periods of time that it is inoperative because the system will continue to dispose of effluent, but just of an untreated nature. Accordingly, when the motor and air pump system becomes inoperative, there is less incentive for the owner to repair it. Thus, it is likely that if such a system were installed, some means would have to be found to insure that the owner keeps the system in good repair and working order. The means by which such an arrangement for insuring that such an aerobic system works properly at all times was not established in this record, however. Consequently, the Petitioners failed to establish that reasonable alternatives to the proposed conventional system exist and what they might consist of.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the carndor 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 Petitioners' application for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st 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 21st day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3112 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, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Betsy K. Lanier, pro se P.O. Box 238 Old Town, FL 32680 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
The Issue Whether Respondent's statements as set forth in the First Amended Petition to Determine Validity of Agency Statements Defined as Rules are rules as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, which have not been promulgated as required by Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner alleges that the following constitute agency statements defined as rules but not properly adopted as rules by the District: The District considers a particular parcel of property to be located within a "floodway" within the District's regulatory jurisdiction for Works of the District (WOD) permitting on the basis of the parcel being located within a floodway established pursuant to a currently-approved Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The District will not accept any alternative floodway boundaries that are inconsistent with those established in the FIS unless FEMA confirms that the alternative boundaries are more accurate than those obtained from the existing FIS, and FEMA approves the alternative boundaries through a formal approval process, such as a Letter of Map Revision that also requires local government concurrence. If the District determines the parcel to be within its regulatory floodway, it will require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application for any development activities within the floodway, other than those entitled to a general permit under Rule 40B-4.3010, Florida Administrative Code. The District will require an ERP for the activities described in paragraph "c" notwithstanding the fact that the Department is evaluating those same activities as part of an ERP application that has been submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) for the same activity in the same location under the terms of the Operating Agreement.1/ The District will evaluate an application to conduct development activities as described in paragraph "c" based upon the full range of ERP permitting criteria contained in the District's rules, even though the Department is processing an ERP application for the same activities pursuant to the Operating Agreement between the District and the Department. The District's policy is to deny or to object to the issuance of any permit application to conduct commercial mining operations in the WOD composed of the Alapaha River floodway. It is the policy of the District to consider any proposed development activity in a WOD, other than those eligible for a general permit under Rule 40B-4.3010, Florida Administrative Code, to have an adverse impact on the regulatory floodway, and thereby to be unpermittable by the District. The District's policies against allowing development activities in WODs apply even if a professional engineer certifies under Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, that the activity will not violate the conditions of issuance set forth in the rule. The policies apply because the District will consider the development activities to violate ERP permitting rules applicable to all development activities, not just those within WODs. It is also the District's policy to ask the Department to deny ERP applications for development activities proposed in WODs that require ERPs even though the Department is processing the application pursuant to the Operating Agreement. The District's policy is to deny ERP applications to conduct commercial mining activities in WODs as determined by the FIS, and to recommend to the Department that ERP applications to the Department for such projects be denied, unless the applicant goes through the FEMA amendment process described in paragraph b to remove the area from the FEMA- determined floodway. Each party requests that it be granted costs and attorney's fees pursuant to Section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes. Stipulated Facts Angelo's is a Florida Limited Partnership, whose address is 26400 Sherwood, Warren, Michigan 48091. Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida established under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, with its address at 9225 County Road 49, Live Oak, Florida 32060. Angelo's owns property in Hamilton County approximately four miles to the east of Interstate 75 and to the north of U.S. Highway 41, immediately to the east of the Alapaha River. Angelo's conducts commercial sand mining operations on a portion of its property pursuant to various agency authorizations, including an ERP issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department), Permit No. 158176-001, and a Special Permit issued by Hamilton County, SP 98-3. The ERP was issued by the Department pursuant to its authority under Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes. Angelo's mining operations constitute a "mining project" as that term is used in Section II.A.1.e of an Operating Agreement Concerning Regulation under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Aquaculture General Permits under Section 403.814, Florida Statutes, between Suwannee River Water Management District and Department of Environmental Protection (Operating Agreement). The Operating Agreement has been adopted as a District rule pursuant to Rule 40B-400.091, Florida Administrative Code. Angelo's has filed with the Department an application to modify its ERP to expand its sand mining operations into an area of its property immediately to the west of its current operations (the "proposed expanded area"). Angelo's application is being processed by the Department at this time. Angelo's ERP modification application is being processed by the Department under the Operating Agreement. The District has asserted permitting jurisdiction over the proposed expanded area because the proposed sand mining activities would occur in what the District asserts to be the floodway of the Alapaha. The District asserts that an ERP would be required from the District so that the District can address the WOD impacts. It is the District's position that the District's review of any ERP application to undertake development activities in a WOD would be based upon all of the ERP criteria, and not just those criteria relating to floodway conveyance referenced in Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code. On or about November 30, 2001, the District published in the Florida Administrative Weekly a notice of its intent to adopt the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) to delineate floodways for the purpose of its works of the district regulatory program. Facts Based on Evidence of Record Background/Events leading up to this dispute The total amount of the subject property owned by Petitioner is approximately 560 acres. The property is generally a rolling terrain. A significant feature is a man-made berm which was placed around the perimeter of the property by a former owner, presumably to keep water off of the land during floods of the Alapaha River. Dennis Price is a self-employed registered professional geologist. At one time, he was employed by the District and at another time, he was employed by Petitioner. For purposes of this proceeding, he was hired by Petitioner as a consultant for certain permitting projects including the project that gave rise to this dispute. Mr. Price met with and corresponded with the District as well as staff from the Department over a period of two years regarding this mining project. In June of 1999, the Department wrote to Mr. Price in response to a meeting. The letter noted that Petitioner intended to expand mining operations. In addition to informing Mr. Price of the Department's permit requirements, the letter referenced the District's permitting requirements: Mr. Still provided us with an aerial photograph showing the SRWMD's regulated floodway in the area of your mine. A copy is enclosed with the floodway line highlighted in orange. A substantial portion of your proposed expansion area will be within this floodway. The SRWMD has adopted the Alapaha River and its floodway as a works of the district. The Department adopted the SRWMD's regulations pertaining to the environmental resource permit; however, this did not include the regulations pertaining to projects within works of the district. If your permit application only includes areas outside of the floodway, a single application will have to be provided to this bureau. If you intend to expand within the floodway, a separate application will also have to be provided to the SRWMD for a works of the district permit. In either situation, the Department's Jacksonville office will review any modifications to your industrial wastewater permit. (emphasis supplied)2/ In response, Mr. Price wrote to the Department in July of 1999 and stated in pertinent part: Dear Mr. Neel, this letter is in response to your June 22, 1999 letter "RE: Permits for Mining Operation". Angelo's currently has a Sand and Limestone General Permit from DEP - General Permit Number FLA011635. That permit is based on a 5 year mining plan that was presented to the DEP on January 11, 1999. The permit, my letter and the 5 year mining plan presented to DEP are enclosed. Another attachment is an aerial photo of the property showing the Regulatory Floodway line and the location of the areas to be mined under that 5 year mining plan. The aerial photograph has superimposed upon it the location of the floodway of the Alapaha River, as determined by FEMA maps. Please note that the 5 year mining plan and the associated storage and processing areas are outside the regulatory floodway. Therefore, no works of the district permit will be needed at this time. See FAC Rule 40B-4.300(1)(a) [sic]. Future mining beyond the five year mine plan will not occur without first applying for and obtaining permits from the appropriate regulatory agency. At the present time we will only mine areas within the 5 year mine plan. We will have an engineer field locate the floodway line on the property to ensure that no mining or associated storage and process activities occur within the floodway. We are requesting that the ERP permitting process remain within the DEP bureau of Mine Reclamation since the DEP has already issued a general permit for this activity and the DEP normally handles ERP's for mining operations. We have determined that the mining area will be less than 100 acres, and based on Rule 40B-4.2020(2)(B) FAC a general permit may be applied for. We will notify you when we have a draft application prepared and would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience after that to discuss the permit application. (emphasis supplied) In response to information which Mr. Price provided to the Department, the Department wrote to Mr. Price in December of 1999 and again addressed concerns about the area of the project in relation to the floodway line: Specific Item: FLOODWAY Information submitted in response to the request for additional information (RAI) dated August 12, 1999, indicates that Angelo's proposed project boundary and activities extend up to and coincide with the Floodway Line. There appears to be no set-back or buffer from the Floodway (or any other) Line. Chapter 40B-4, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), contains the rules for the Suwannee River Water Management Area which were adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection. Section 40B-4.2010(2)(b)(3)(b) provides that a General Permit may be issued for construction, operation, and maintenance of a surfacewater management system servicing a total project area less than 120 acres provided the system will not be located in, cross or connect to a work of the district. Information submitted with this (November 12, 1999) submittal indicates that the proposed activities within the proposed project coincides with, or is so closely located to, the Floodway Line so as to indicate that the proposed activities would be considered to be connected to a work of the district. This is based upon examination of the plan views and [sic] well as cross section information that has been provided. Please provide a discussion, and drawings as may be needed, that addresses all activities along the established Floodway Line. This information should address all aspects of all operations along this line through the completion of reclamation activities. Be sure to address best management practices, and any proposed setbacks in the response to this request. (emphasis in original)3/ Mr. Price described the proposed project as part of the permit application which was submitted to the Department: Describe in general terms the proposed project, system, or activity. Angelo's Aggregate Materials, Ltd. (AAM) owns approximately 341 acres of land. The current mining site, known as the Jasper Pit, is located on a 160 acre parcel of land. Of the 160 acres, only 82.45 acres are available for mining since the remainder of the property falls within the floodway boundary of the Alapaha River. The 160 acre parcel has an existing berm around the entire perimeter of the property constructed in the 1950's by the previous owner. The Alapaha flood study conducted for FEMA did not take into account this berm. AAM is proposing to construct a 20' wide access road between NW 8th Boulevard and the Jasper Pit, encompassing approximately 7.22 acres. This roadway will be constructed within the limits of property owned by AAM. The stormwater management system for the roadway will consist entirely of grassed swales as covered under FDEP's swale exemption. The Jasper Pit is a sand and limestone mining operation. (emphasis supplied) On August 28, 2001, David Still, the District's Director of Resource Management, wrote a letter to the Department in response to a request received by e-mail from the Department for technical assistance. Mr. Still responds to requests for technical assistance from other agencies as a matter of routine and as contemplated by the operating agreement between the Department and the District. The letter reads as follows: The floodway along the Alapaha River was identified and mapped as part of a Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) flood study performed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, subsequently approved by FEMA and adopted as part of the local government (Hamilton County) ordinance. Based on the above, Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) then adopted the floodway as a Work of the District (WOD). There is only one floodway. SRWMD recognizes and accepts the FEMA flood study performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local government (Hamilton County) floodway boundary as the best available information to identify the floodway boundary. There is a formal process whereby change can be made to the FEMA boundary with additional or improved information. If FEMA and Hamilton County approve a revised floodway delineation and boundary, so be it, SRWMD will recognize it, however, SRWMD will not unilaterally change a boundary resulting from a detailed federal flood insurance study. We have informed Mr. Thompson and his client of this. We consider the kind of work contemplated by the applicant (at least based on our earliest discussions with them) will cause an adverse impact to the WOD (the floodway) which of course is in conflict with the requirements of 40B-400.103(1)(h) and SRWMD 40B-4, Part III, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The District will object to the issuance of any permit in direct conflict with District rules. We feel the rule is clear and any conflict with 40B-400.103(1)(h), F.A.C. which the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has adopted by reference requires denial of the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application. Any work of this nature within a WOD is subject to the additional permitting requirements of 40B-4, Part III, F.A.C., even if the District needs to implement such requirements with a separate WOD permit. Mr. Still's reference to "the applicant" in the August 28, 2001, letter is to Petitioner. While Mr. Still is not the agency head, his August 28, 2001, letter clearly communicates the District's policy. Given his position in the agency and the manner in which he discussed this issue, the letter describes and communicates the District's policy on what constitutes a floodway and its boundary. Mr. Still does not have final authority to make decisions on permitting within the District, as that authority rests with the governing board. In a letter written on October 10, 2001, in response to a letter from Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Still stated that District staff would recommend to their governing board that Petitioner's proposed activity is an activity within a floodway that is regulated under Chapter 40B-4, Part III, Florida Administrative Code, and that the proposed activity would adversely impact the floodway: "Therefore, as staff, we would recommend our governing board consider this activity adverse to our rules." This letter is case specific to Petitioner. Within a few days of Mr. Still's October 10, 2001, letter, Petitioner filed its Petition to Determine Validity of Agency Statements Defined as Rules. Other facts established by the evidence of record The District uses FEMA FIRM maps as evidence of the location of the floodways in the works of the district. The District communicated this policy in Mr. Still's letter dated August 28, 2001. The District will not unilaterally change the floodway delineation and boundary established by FEMA. In order for an applicant to persuade the District that a proposed activity within the FEMA floodway line is not within the District's floodway, an applicant must apply to FEMA for a map amendment or revision. The District will acknowledge that a proposed activity is not within the floodway of a work of the district only if the applicant is successful in obtaining a map amendment or revision showing that the proposed activity indeed is not within the floodway. The District has applied this policy to another company which applied for a permit. That is, the District required the permit applicant to apply to FEMA for a map revision or amendment as a condition of issuance of a permit because its proposed activity was within the FEMA floodway as established by the FEMA maps. Petitioner has not filed a permit application with the District regarding the proposed mining project. It is Petitioner's position that to do so would be futile.
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 issues are: (1.) Whether Respondents' request for variance from requirements of Rule Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, should be granted. (2.) Whether Respondents are guilty of violation of certain provisions of Chapter 381 and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 10D-6, Rule Chapter 17-550, and Rule Chapter 17-555, Florida Administrative Code, regulating the operation of onsite sewage disposal systems.
Findings Of Fact Respondent V.M.P. Corporation (VMP) operates a lounge known as Stud's Pub in Jacksonville, Florida. Licensed for 75 seats, the lounge actually contains 50-55 seats and employs five people full time. Additionally, 10-15 independent entrepreneurs known as dancers may be present at times. The dancers are not employees of Respondents. Less than 25 people, other than patrons, are present at the facility at any time. Respondent Vincent M. Paul (Paul) owns the facility and the corporation. The lounge is on lots that were platted prior to 1972. Petitioner is the statutory entity with authority for granting variances for onsite sewage disposal systems regulated by Petitioner pursuant to provisions of Section 381.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). The lounge is serviced by a septic tank with a drainfield which is covered by an asphalt parking lot. The portion of the parking lot over the drainfield is bounded to the west by a dirt city street, to the north by other pervious surfaces, to the east by the lounge and to the south by the remainder of the asphalt parking lot. A sign on the premises which advertises the business is protected from automobile traffic by concrete barriers. The septic tank system and drainfield were installed prior to 1972 by a previous owner. Respondent Paul retrofitted the septic tank system after 1972. Respondent Paul was responsible for paving over the drainfield after he purchased the property. Petitioner's representatives inspected the lounge, determined the drainfield to be covered by the asphalt parking lot and requested Respondents to remove the asphalt covering. Respondents requested a variance pursuant to Rule 10D Administrative Code, for the asphalt covered drainfield and other deficiencies of the onsite sewage disposal system. Petitioner's review board recommended denial of the request on the basis that the variance would not constitute a "minor deviation" from rule requirements. Although the term is not defined by Petitioner's rule, Petitioner's usage of this term was the result of the consideration by Petitioner's review board of the application for variance within the context of Section 385.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes, which authorizes Petitioner to grant variances only 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. Respondent has no record of failure of the septic tank or drainfield. Water samples from the onsite potable water well filed with Petitioner tested below detectable limits for nitrates and coliforms, the only parameters Petitioner is required to analyze. Respondents' records of water flow or usage from the well into the lounge show daily flow rates of between 320 and 580 gallons, with an average rate of between 450 and 480 gallons. Respondent Paul is responsible for the installation of an unpermitted chlorinator on the water supply system which provided actual flow information. The only onsite water well has no grout sealant. It is the only well of which the parties are aware that lies within 100 feet of the septic system. The potable water well is located approximately 42 feet from the edge of the covered drainfield. The well head does not extend above line surface and there is no concrete pad around the wellhead. The exact depth of the well is unknown, although the well is located upgradient of the drainfield and a nearby junkyard. Denial of the variance would require that Respondents uncover the drainfield since there is no practically available offsite sewage system currently available. Soil in the area of the drainfield is classified as well- draining sand. Due to the impervious surface covering the drainfield, Petitioner's representative was unable, during his inspection, to discern any symptoms of drainfield failure in the form of "blow field should be totally unobstructed to allow aerobic processes to take place in the drainfield which will permit the breakdown of contaminants. A portion of Respondents' 1200 gallon septic tank is located partially under and immediately adjacent to Respondents' facility. A dousing tank which retains liquid waste and operates as part of the septic system is also totally covered by the asphalt pavement. Although there has been no detectable failure of the system, every eight or nine months Respondents have the septic tank and dousing tank pumped out. The tanks never get full.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby Recommended that a final order be entered by Petitioner denying the variance requested by Respondent with exception of such minimal distance as may be required to relocate the water well as far as possible from the drainfield on the Respondent property, and, Further Recommended that such final order also assess Respondent Paul an administrative penalty of $500 for each of the four violations contained in the Administrative Complaint which were proven in this proceeding for a total of $2000, and a continuing assessment of $500 per day for each violation for a total of up to $2000 per day after first allowing Respondents a 60 day period within which to correct all four violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1993, 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 3rd day of May, 1993.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit in consideration of the statutes and rules relating to approval of permits cited and discussed herein, or whether they are entitled to a variance from the strict requirements of those statutes and rules so as to allow the installation of the OSDS on their property near the Suwannee River. See Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners purchased real property located in Levy County, Florida, in 1967. That property is located in the unincorporated community of "Fowlers Bluff" on the east bank of the Suwannee River. The property is more particularly described as the west one-half of Lot 13, and the east three- quarters of Lot 14, Treasure Camp Addition, Unit 3. The lot in question is approximately 100 feet by 125 feet by 197 feet in size. There is adequate unobstructed area available for the subject system's installation, according to Respondent's Exhibit NO. 1 in evidence. The lot is part of a subdivision which was platted prior to 1956. The subject lot has available a potable water source from the public water system. Consequently, the lot is of sufficient size to meet the quarter-acre minimum requirement for the installation of septic tank and drain-field systems in situations where lots have potable water available from a public water system, which is the case in this circumstance. The effective soil depth at the drain-field installation site is greater than 42 inches below the bottom surface of the proposed drain-field trench or absorption bed location. That is, 72 inches of sand, which is a "slight limited soil" and appropriate for such installations, exist at the site. The wet season water table was shown to exist at 26 inches below the grade level. The wet season water table, pursuant to Rule 10D-6.047(2) Florida Administrative Code, must be at least 24 inches below the bottom surface of the drain-field trench or absorption bed. Consequently, the wet season water table in this situation is not sufficient in depth for the proposed installation to meet this provision of the Respondent's rules. The Petitioners seek to gain approval for a system to serve a single- family residence of approximately 2,000 heated and cooled square feet, with a "standard" 350 gallons per day sewage flow. The residence would contain three bedrooms, as presently envisioned. The Petitioners' Exhibit NO. 1 establishes a benchmark elevation for the grade level of the proposed OSDS installation site of 7.48 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The actual grade elevation is 0.8 feet below that benchmark elevation. That is, the elevation of the grade of the property is 6.72 feet above MSL at the proposed installation site., The ten-year flood elevation for the proposed installation site, however, is 9 feet above MSL, as verified by a report prepared by the Suwannee River Water Management District, admitted into evidence and which was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioners in the application process. The property also lies within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee R for purposes of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. Testimony by Mr. Parker, as well as the Respondent's evidence through Mr. May, establishes that the property in the past has had approximately 30 inches of fill placed on it. Because of this, the grade level elevation is in fairly-close proximity to the ten-year flood elevation and because of the prevailing slight limited soil type down to a depth of six feet, the property was shown to be generally amenable to installation of a mounded septic tank and drain-field disposal system, which mounding could raise the property so that the bottom of the drain-field trench or absorption bed would not be within the ten- year flood elevation. As Mr. May indicated by letter dated March 1, 1990 to Mr. Parker, the lot could be filled utilizing slight limited soil so that a mound to contain the septic tank and drain field of no more than the required 36 inches, pursuant to Rule 10D-06.0493(b), Florida Administrative Code, might be utilized. That letter, in evidence, also indicates that if the lot, or a portion of it, is filled, the fill shall extend a minimum of 20 feet in all directions beyond the perimeter of the mound base. The lot was shown to be of sufficient size to accommodate such a perimeter area of fill. In that same letter, Mr. May advised Mr. Parker that he had the right to request a variance from the provisions of Chapter 10D-6 Florida Administrative Code, since his property, in Mr. May's view, did not meet the criteria in that regulatory chapter for the issuance of an actual permit. The record does not reflect that an actual variance application had been filed, however. It would thus seem that this property is amenable to a reasonable alternative solution to a conventional, subterranean septic tank and drain-field system by the use of the "mounding process". That alternative, however, pursuant to Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, would require the certification of a registered professional engineer to the effect that the installation of such a mound could be done ,in such a way as not to raise the "base flood" level. This is because the property lies within the regulatory floodway of the ,Suwannee River; and under the rule section cited last above, a `certification must be made that the base flood level will not be raised by such a mounded system installation for property lying in the regulatory floodway. The Petitioners adduced no such engineering testimony or evidence to establish that if the system were installed with the mounding process, the base flood level would not be raised. In addition to the evidence culminating in the above Findings of Fact, the Petitioners offered general testimony to the effect that they had purchased the property in question for purposes of both having a "retirement rest egg" and a place to live should they choose to live on the property. The Petitioners established that they, like numerous other OSDS permit applicants in similar proceedings, are undergoing a hardship because they purchased the property for residential purposes or for re-sale for residential purposes and cannot construct a residence and live on the property or sell it for that purpose because of the inability to obtain a permit. The Petitioners' proof, in terms of the variance criteria noted below, is inadequate to show that there are no alternative systems available which will adequately dispose of and treat the sewage to be expected, nor did the Petitioners establish that installation of the system presently proposed would only constitute a minor deviation from the requirements of the Respondent's OSDS permitting rules, in terms of having no adverse effect on the health of the Petitioners, the general public, or upon the surface or ground waters involved in the vicinity of the site. Although the Petitioners did not formally apply for a variance, no adequate proof in these two particulars was offered so as to justify the grant of a variance; however, it was established that the property was platted prior to 1972 for purposes of the relaxed consideration embodied in the variance rule and statute for this circumstance. The Respondent now asserts, however, that the Petitioners should not be 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'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.
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 application for the subject permit, without prejudice to a later application for a variance or a later application for an OSDS permit based upon additional and changed facts and circumstances. 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. 90-3695 The Petitioners submitted no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-8. Accepted. 9. Rejected, as immaterial. 10-11. 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 Arnold G. Parker P.O. Box 467 Chiefland, Florida 32626 Frances S. Childers, Esquire Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
The Issue Whether the Department of Environmental Regulation should grant a dredge and fill permit to James N. and Janice E. Nash authorizing removal of eleven cubic yards of soil, installation of five 24-inch culverts in lieu of two 18- inch culverts, and placement of 19 cubic yards of limerock in and around the bed of an unnamed creek near the point it reaches the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette in Leon County, Florida?
Findings Of Fact More than a thousand acres in eastern Leon County comprise the drainage basin giving rise to the unnamed stream that intermittently wends its way across the Alvarez property, crosses the 30-foot wide "tongue" of the Nashes' lot, and traverses the Saltiels' land on its way to the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette (unless it reaches Alford Arm earlier because rain or other conditions have raised the lake, moving the water's edge upland.) Although neighbors allow them ingress and egress by another route, when flooding makes the roadway impassable, Mr. and Mrs. Nash have no legal right of access other than by the private road which crosses the intermittent stream. In addition to wetlands on either side, part of the streambed, 15 feet wide where it meets the roadway, was originally filled in 1968, when the private drive was built. The strip of land, 30 feet wide and 700 feet long that underlies most of the private road, joins the part of the parcel where the Nashes' house stands to Deep Wood Trail, the public thoroughfare which the private road enters. Leaving a car on the Deep Wood Trail side of the stream, wading across to the other side, and hiking to the house pose difficulties for Mr. Nash, who has muscular dystrophy. Under some conditions, the roadbed acts as a dam. When the lake is low, water flowing downstream may be impeded. When the lake is high, backwater moving in the other direction may be impeded. Of the two culverts installed when the private road was constructed, each with a diameter of 18 inches, only one permits water to flow through now, and even it is partially clogged. When Lake Lafayette rises above 45.3 feet NGVD, Alford Arm spills over the terrain between it and the Nashes' road, and reverses the flow in the streambed where it intersects the roadway. The "invert of the stream at the subject crossing [is] 44.3 feet [NGVD]." T.402. The roadbed is submerged in the vicinity of the stream when Alford Arm rises above 46.7 feet NGVD. The Nashes propose to excavate the streambed (about two and a half feet deep in the natural channel on either side of the existing fill) where it crosses (diagonally) the Nashes' private road, remove the existing culverts together with the soil in which they are embedded, install five culverts, each 24 inches in diameter, in their stead, install cement bag riprap at the ends of the culverts, remove 11 cubic yards of dirt from a 205' by 10' wide section of existing road surface and replace with 19 cubic yards of lime rock surface, Nashes' Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6, realigning the roadway slightly (to avoid the existing encroachment on the Saltiels' property) and increasing the roadbed's elevation over a 205-foot stretch by no more than four inches. Five trees are to be removed, but other trees are to be protected "by tree protection barricades." Nashes' Exhibit No. 7A. Filter fences upstream and down would contain turbidity during construction. The plan is to lay sod and plant grass seed afterwards in order to prevent erosion. Larger culverts would permit the flow of a greater volume of water at lower velocity, more closely approximating the natural regime and reducing scour or erosion downstream. Even when water levels exceeded the elevation of the existing roadbed, more water than the existing culverts can accommodate could move through the proposed replacement culverts, and at a slower velocity. At water levels above the existing grade and below the proposed, slightly higher grade, however, the four inches or less of limerock added to the roadbed would act as a (presumably somewhat porous) barrier to flows that could now move over the roadway unimpeded. The proposed improvements would have no discernible effect on water levels whenever Alford Arm overtopped the roadbed. Ted L. Biddy, the professional engineer called as a witness by the Nashes, testified that a 25-year return two-hour storm would raise water immediately upstream of the roadway, when runoff concentrated there, to levels above the existing roadway grade, assuming that the drainage basin was saturated at the time of the rainfall and that all ponds within the basin were full, but that the level of Lake Lafayette was at or below 45.3 feet NGVD. T.489. "Ordinary high water for Alford Arm is 45.7 [feet NGVD.]" T.486. On this record, it can only be a matter of speculation how often (if ever) a 25-year return, two-hour storm might be expected to occur after rainfall has saturated the ground and filled all ponds in the drainage basin without raising the lake above 45.3 feet NGVD. The wet conditions Mr. Biddy assumed already to obtain in the drainage basin at the time of the hypothetical storm seem unlikely to coincide with the low lake level assumed to occur simultaneously. Alford Arm's 100-year flood level is 51 feet NGVD, "50.25 for the 25 year flood or rainfall, and elevation 49.9 for the 10 year storm water event." T.425. In any event, flooding of the Saltiels' property attributable to the proposed raising of the roadway would last only a matter of hours every quarter of a century according to Mr. Biddy, and would represent temporary diversion of water that would otherwise have flooded their property downstream of the roadway. Even then, no house or structure on the Saltiels' property would be affected nor any part of their property not within the 100-year flood plain. At all water levels below the existing roadway grade, the overwhelmingly more frequent condition, larger culverts would prevent or diminish flooding that might otherwise reach the Saltiels' property upstream of the roadway. By impeding flows downstream, the roadway affords some solids suspended in the water an opportunity to precipitate, instead of being borne on into Alford Arm. Under certain conditions, the larger culverts proposed by the Nashes would reduce time for particulate matter to settle upstream of the roadway; the greater volume of flow through larger culverts would reduce the time water was impounded upstream. Uncontroverted expert testimony established, however, that any increase in turbidity in water reaching Alford Arm would not violate applicable standards.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DER issue a dredge and fill permit to Mr. and Mrs. Nash for the project described in their application on the conditions stated in the notice of intent to issue. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 28th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 2 and 10 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 1, what knowledge petitioners are charged with is a matter of law. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 31 pertain to subordinate matters. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 5, 6 and 32 pertain to immaterial matters as does petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 9. Only the dredge and fill permit DER proposes to grant the Nashes is at issue. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 30, the calculations of both Mr. Flatt and Mr. Biddy seem to be flawed. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 33, it is not clear that the proposed project would increase the flooding on the Saltiels' property significantly. Temporally de minimis, the change might amount only to relocating the flooding. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 34, see finding of fact No. 12. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 35, larger culverts will decrease the velocity of the flow through the culverts. Petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 36 is immaterial because it does not relate to any applicable rule or statutory standard. With respect to the individual respondents' and intervenor's (applicants') proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 and 2, the application does not specify dredge and fill. The applicants' proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 32 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 6, backwater flows at levels above 45.3 feet NGVD. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 9, the OHW is 45.7 feet NGVD. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 11, testimony so implied. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 12, Mr. Nash suffers from muscular dystrophy. The applicants' proposed findings of fact Nos. 14 and 15 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 16, the only testimony regarding flooding concerned the critical 25-year return storm. With respect to DER's proposed findings of facts Nos. 1 and 2, the application does not specify dredge and fill. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 3, backflows begin at 45.3 feet NGVD. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 4, not all fill would be removed. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 5, testimony so implied. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 6, no statute or rule specifies a design storm. DER's proposed finding of fact No. 7 is really a conclusion of law. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 8, less settling may result in more suspended solids under some conditions. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. DER's proposed finding of fact No. 13 is immaterial to the merits. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley P.O. Box 10166 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Donna H. Stinson Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Candi E. Culbreath Patricia Comer 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carlos Alvarez c/o Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue for consideration in the proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system permit ("OSDS") authorizing installation of an on-site sewage disposal system for property the Petitioner owns near the Suwannee River in Gilchrist County, Florida, in consideration of the relevant provisions of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, and whether the Petitioner should be entitled to pursue a variance from the permitting statute and rules embodied in that chapter of the code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns certain real property located in Gilchrist County, Florida on the east bank of the Suwannee River, adjoining the river. The property is more particularly described as Lot 9, Block B, Two River Estates. The property was purchased on January 3, 1985 and was platted as a subdivision on January 5, 1959. The lot in question upon which the OSDS would be installed should a permit be granted, is approximately one acre in size. On April 30, 1990, the Petitioner made application for an OSDS seeking authorization to install such a conventional septic tank and drain-field system for disposing and treating household sewage effluent on the subject property. The system would be designed to serve a single-family residence, containing approximately two bedrooms, and approximately 1,200 heated and cooled square feet of living space. Upon making application, the Petitioner was informed that he would have to obtain a surveyed elevation of his property, as well as the ten-year flood elevation for his property for the river mile of the Suwannee River at which his property is located. The Petitioner consequently retained Herbert H. Raker, a registered land surveyor, who surveyed the elevation for his property. Mr. Raker established a bench mark elevation of 29.24 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The site of the proposed OSDS installation on that lot has an elevation at the surface grade of 28.5 feet. The subsurface of the lot at the installation site is characterized by appropriate, "slight-limited" soil extending 72 inches below the surface grade of the lot. The wet season water table is 68 inches below the surface grade of the lot. Consequently, there is more than adequate slight-limited soil to handle disposal and treatment of the sewage effluent from a single-family residence, such as is proposed, since the wet season water table is 68 inches below the surface of the property. Thus, a more than adequate treatment space and appropriate soil beneath the bottom surface of any proposed drain field to be installed at the site would exist so as to comply with the pertinent rules cited herein. The problem with a grant of the subject permit consists only of the fact that the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation, that is, it is approximately 1.5 feet beneath that elevation. The Suwannee River Water Management District report submitted to the Respondent agency by the Petitioner in the application process for the OSDS permit (in evidence) reveals that the ten-year flood elevation for the property in question is 30 feet above MSL. The soils prevailing at the proposed installation site, the great depth of the wet season water table, and the fact that the lot is approximately one acre in size and above the minimum size requirements for the installation of an OSDS, all militate in favor of a grant of the permit, except for the basis for its denial initially, that is, that it is simply beneath the ten-year flood elevation for purposes of the prohibition contained in Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code. Although located within the ten-year flood elevation, the site is not located within the regulatory flood way so that if a mounded system or other raised OSDS alternative system were proposed and installed, an engineer's certification would not be required regarding the issue of raising the base flood level by the deposition of fill at the installation site for purposes of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. There is no central water system available to the property; however, although there was conflicting testimony about the distance the proposed installation site would be from a neighbor's potable water well, the testimony of the Petitioner is accepted as being most certain in establishing that more than the required distance from that potable water well exists between it and the proposed septic tank and drain-field installation site, since the Petitioner established that approximately 110 feet is the actual separation distance. The Petitioner purchased the property to construct a single-family residence for himself and his family. He expended a substantial sum of money for the property and is unable to use it for its intended purpose without the subject permit or at least a variance so as to authorize him to install an OSDS. The Petitioner offered no concrete proposals or plans for an alternative system which might reasonably accomplish treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent in question without harm to ground or surface waters or the public health. No substantial proof was offered of a system which would either dispose of and treat the effluent at a location above the ten-year flood elevation or, if still below it, would adequately treat and dispose of the effluent sewage to safeguard the public health and the ground or surface waters involved, such that its existence slightly beneath the ten-year flood elevation would only be a "minor deviation" from that portion of the permitting rules. In point of fact, it would seem that a mounded system would be feasible on a lot this size, especially in view of the fact that the bottom surface of the proposed drain-field trenches or absorption beds would only have to be raised slightly over 1.5 feet from the surface grade of the subject lot and installation site in order to comply with the ten-year flood elevation parameter, which was the only basis for denial of this permit application. No proof was offered concerning how such a mounded system would be designed, installed and otherwise accomplished, however. Upon denying the initial application for the OSDS permit, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that he should pursue a formal administrative hearing process rather than make application for a variance and proceed through the internal variance board mechanism operated by the department in order to obtain a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D-06.47(6), Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent advised the Petitioner of this because the subject property was located within the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River; and as the Respondent interpreted the Governor's Executive Order Number 90-14, which incorporated by reference the "Suwannee River Task Force Report" commissioned by the Governor, the Order absolutely prohibited the granting of any variances authorizing installation of OSDS's beneath the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwannee River or the granting of any OSDS permits themselves authorizing such installations.
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 5th day of March, 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 5th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Petitioner did not file a Proposed Recommended Order. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-10. Adopted. 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 John Gary Wilson P.O. Box 2061 Lake City, FL 32055 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
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 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
